| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:10.07 | Steven Woodside | Good evening. Is it on? Yes. Good evening, everyone. Let's call this meeting to order at 530 on March 5th. And conduct the roll call, please. |
| 00:00:11.08 | Unknown | it on. |
| 00:00:22.22 | Walfred Solorzano | All righty. |
| 00:00:23.91 | Steven Woodside | Just come down to, we'll just come down, okay. |
| 00:00:26.19 | Walfred Solorzano | We can hear you. Yeah. OK. Councilmember Kelman. Thank you. Council Member Austin? Here. Council Member Hoffman? Here. Vice Mayor Cox? Here. Mayor Sobieski? |
| 00:00:37.44 | Steven Woodside | Here. We have three items on closed section conference with legal counsel, existing litigation. The name of the case is Whiskey Springs Villa HOA versus City of Sausalito. Item number two is conference with legal counsel, existing litigation. COB, Dan Burke, COB OSMP COB, Dan Burke, Norcal PTAC. And then third item, confidence with legal counsel, government code section 54956.9 D2, significant exposure to litigation. one case and just a comment. I take matters of conflict of interest seriously. I've hired an FPPC expert legal counsel and have been advised that I should recuse myself from the third item as I believe that it will affect the value and enjoyment of my property and hence creates a conflict of interest. We now open the floor to public comment on the closed session items. There's one commenter in the audience here. with the |
| 00:01:35.58 | Steven Woodside | Thank you, Mayor Sobieski and members of the council. I'm here to help. My name is Stephen Woodside. I'm a resident of Sausalito, and I suspect that at least one of the items on your closed session has something to do with the housing element. And to that, I want to say that I'm a supporter of virtually everything you've done in the housing element. I spent a rainy weekend going through 197 pages or something, trying to figure it out a little more closely than what had been presented as a summary. And I think it's worth you doing everything in your power to support it, affirm it, and make sure that it remains viable against attacks that say you haven't done enough or you're doing too much, et cetera, et cetera. |
| 00:01:36.74 | Steven Woodside | I don't know. |
| 00:02:23.10 | Steven Woodside | And specifically, lately, I'm sure many of you are aware that there was indeed one application that startled virtually everyone in the community. And because of that, I think you would be wise to focus specifically on that and review with your counsel your options, you may have many as to what you might do. to make it very clear to the public and to the applicant and to any other applicants that in particular, with respect to historic districts, that you expect and the state expects that you'll meet historic standards for building. And I think everyone that I've talked to agrees that this latest proposal does not. Secondly, more generally, When you designated opportunity sites, you had numbers attached to each one. And I think, at least for the time being, unless something else changes, I think you should do everything you can to stick to those numbers and encourage applicants to stick to those numbers. And in particular, the site that's stirred so many people lately, I think the number was 20. and two to three stories. Thank you very much. |
| 00:03:39.19 | Steven Woodside | Thank you very much. Is there anyone online? All right, no public comment online. We'll close public comment. We will return to closed session. We will resume here at 7 p.m. |
| 00:04:25.22 | Barbara Brown | Recording in progress. |
| 00:04:34.45 | Steven Woodside | We convene this session of the city council on March the 5th. There are no announcements from closed session. We'll begin with the Pledge of Allegiance. Please stand. |
| 00:04:44.93 | Unknown | By allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. |
| 00:04:46.77 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:04:46.92 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Thanks. |
| 00:04:49.00 | Unknown | To the Republic of the Republic of the Republic, it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. |
| 00:04:49.08 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:04:49.15 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:04:50.67 | Steven Woodside | probably. |
| 00:04:51.19 | Unknown | and of the community. |
| 00:04:58.94 | Steven Woodside | I'm not sure. Could I please get a motion to approve the agenda? |
| 00:05:02.65 | Melissa Blaustein | I can't. |
| 00:05:03.43 | Steven Woodside | All in favor? |
| 00:05:04.36 | Melissa Blaustein | Bye. |
| 00:05:05.27 | Steven Woodside | Posts. The agenda is approved. There are no special announcements. May we have a motion or we're going to now adopt the draft minutes for the February 20th. City Council meeting. Can we open the floor for public comment? |
| 00:05:20.62 | Walfred Solorzano | We have Babette with Lugo. |
| 00:05:23.15 | Steven Woodside | These are comments on the minutes from February 20th, Mr. Google. |
| 00:05:28.40 | Jill Hoffman | Sorry, point of order. Take a public comment for the agenda. Don't we vote, not the consent calendar agenda, but for the agenda as a whole? don't we? Aren't we supposed to? |
| 00:05:42.36 | Babette McDougall | you |
| 00:05:42.37 | Steven Woodside | or, |
| 00:05:42.58 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. |
| 00:05:42.61 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. We don't ever. |
| 00:05:43.52 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. |
| 00:05:43.54 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:05:43.56 | Babette McDougall | There were no amendments. |
| 00:05:44.97 | Steven Woodside | Sergio, is there any comment on that question from Councilmember Hoffman? |
| 00:05:48.70 | Sergio Rudin | No, and I will note that the approval of the agenda is not actually a separately listed agenda item. It's just something that you guys typically decide as to whether or not you're going to rearrange the agenda items that are listed. No, you don't need to take public comment. |
| 00:06:02.29 | Steven Woodside | actually even voting on the agenda is not necessary in the future? |
| 00:06:05.27 | Sergio Rudin | No, it's not. It's something you guys typically... Most agencies do it, and it's fine to do so, but again, you know, you can just, uh, It's the opportunity you guys have to discuss whether you want to move things around for the purposes of convenience. |
| 00:06:17.31 | Steven Woodside | around. Okay, we might save five seconds in future meetings. Please. |
| 00:06:23.97 | Jill Hoffman | gifts. party. somebody's going to recuse themselves from a later item on the agenda do they need to note that recusal now or can they no |
| 00:06:33.57 | Sergio Rudin | No, they would normally note it at the time the agenda item is called under the FBPC regulations. |
| 00:06:38.96 | Jill Hoffman | Hold on, what? I didn't hear that. At the time. |
| 00:06:40.59 | Sergio Rudin | internet They would normally note that at the time the agenda item is called. |
| 00:06:44.14 | Jill Hoffman | Oh, thank you. I'm sorry. I was making noise, I think. Pardon me. Sorry, thank you for that clarification. |
| 00:06:49.99 | Steven Woodside | So are there public comments on the Missing people. Please go ahead. |
| 00:06:53.67 | Babette McDougall | Thank you very much for recognizing me. If I understand correctly, we're inviting comment on the 20 February meeting minutes, correct? |
| 00:07:02.02 | Steven Woodside | That's correct. |
| 00:07:02.77 | Babette McDougall | Okay. So, and it's toward that issue that, as you know, in my late arriving mail, I would like to speak. And that is that Again, I want to urge you to think about reinstating democracy in the council chambers. blessed with an incredibly rich assortment of people from the community at the last meeting. We could have had a really wonderful, productive, engaged discussion. and arrived at probably an area of consensus not previously thought of. And it was a missed opportunity. And I'm really sorry about that. And the minutes don't reflect that at all, the kind of people who were present to testify. Or just be present. And I'm, again, asking you to think about how we're recording this whole thing. It's all being so circumvented and so abbreviated that I'm not sure that we have a very realistic record. Like, for example, I'm pretty sure Ms. Cox must have kind of gotten it backwards when she said the most Enduring, she's saying, no, I didn't get it backwards. which I find really fascinating that empirical standards of ethics, which are evergreen, like the constitution itself, And yet it's all this fine detail about kinfolk deals and, you know, whether to do it for a dollar or something less or something more. These are the things that tie the hands of future councils, not the empirical standards. Thank you. |
| 00:08:22.38 | Steven Woodside | Are there any other public comments? |
| 00:08:25.39 | Walfred Solorzano | No further public comment. Also, just one statement. Anybody that would like to make any public comments, if they're in-house, you can fill out one of these sheets and hand it back over here. And if anybody is on Zoom, you can use the raise hand function. |
| 00:08:38.80 | Chris Zapata | Move approval of the minutes. Second. |
| 00:08:41.49 | Steven Woodside | All in favor? |
| 00:08:42.60 | Chris Zapata | Bye. |
| 00:08:43.64 | Steven Woodside | Opposed minutes are approved. Moving on to the consent calendar. These are items that are considered routine and noncontroversial and require no discussion. And are expected to have unanimous council approval. There will be no separate discussion of these items. Before we vote on a motion to adopt these items The city council members may request an item to be removed from the consent calendar. Items removed will be discussed later on the agenda. Do any, let me just go over the, list three eight national women's history month 2024 proclamation three be adopted resolution to cure incorrect respect to council actions on January 22nd, 2024. 3C, adopt a resolution approving the third professional services contract. amendment with BKF engineers for design services related to the ferry landing. improvement project. Item 3D adopt a resolution authorizing the city manager to execute the first amendment to the agreement. of with the county of Marin to increase the total amount available on the city available to the city of Sausalito to expanded homeless and housing opportunities in the not to exceed $1 million. Many of my colleagues have |
| 00:09:45.95 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes, thank you, Mayor. I'd like to pull item 3D. I'd just like to add some potential direction to staff. So if we could entertain it. Beginning of the meeting. It's the resolution on the execution of the million dollars for homelessness funding. |
| 00:09:53.20 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:09:58.08 | Steven Woodside | 3D will become item 5E. |
| 00:10:00.29 | Jill Hoffman | And I'd like to remove 3B, B as in boy. you |
| 00:10:03.01 | Steven Woodside | but, Okay, 3B as in boy removed and will be put as 5F. Okay, so a motion to approve the consent calendar item with two items, women's. Can we do public comment? Thank you very much. Public comment, please, on those two items, National Women's History Month 2024 Proclamation and adopt a resolution approving the professional services contract. |
| 00:10:27.51 | Walfred Solorzano | We have Babette McDougall. |
| 00:10:35.15 | Babette McDougall | I think I signed up for everything tonight. So I just want to point out that March 8 actually is International Women's Day. And that's actually what got the whole thing started in the first place. And I'm glad to know that we now celebrate it as a month of history. But I just want to make sure we know for the record Maybe in the future we'll do a March 8th International Women's Day event in Sausalito. That would be fun. Thank you. |
| 00:10:59.95 | Steven Woodside | Any other public comment? See none. You get a motion to approve this consent calendar. |
| 00:11:04.91 | Chris Zapata | I move approval of items 3A and 3C of the consent calendar. |
| 00:11:11.34 | Melissa Blaustein | Second. |
| 00:11:11.86 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:11:11.96 | Melissa Blaustein | All in favor? |
| 00:11:13.17 | Chris Zapata | Hi. |
| 00:11:14.05 | Melissa Blaustein | Can I just ask that we hear 3B, or sorry, the consent calendar item on the Cure Incorrect now because it's timely given some of the events of the upcoming on the, |
| 00:11:22.44 | Chris Zapata | We noticed the appeal for a time certain of 7, 12 PM. We're already late on that. |
| 00:11:29.09 | Steven Woodside | Okay. All right, so the consent calendar item is approved, and we will move on to the public hearing item. appeal of an administrative Citation issued by the Sausalito Planning Commission for unauthorized tree alterations at 230 Santa Rosa Avenue. This is an opportunity for any members to state ex parte communications or recusals. Does anyone have any? All right, the public hearing item is open. Director... FIPS, you have the floor. |
| 00:12:02.80 | Unknown | Yes, thank you. And good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council members, members of the public and staff. Happy to be joining you this evening, as always, this evening to introduce Council Item 4A regarding an appeal of administrative citation, as mentioned, for unauthorized tree alterations at 230 Santa Rosa Avenue. This case was initially reported to the Code Enforcement Department in October of last year, following which report and inspection was conducted by our Code Enforcement Officer, and it was determined that 10 mature heritage bay laurel trees had been significantly altered, which is in violation of Sausalito Municipal Code, particularly Code Section 11.12.030 related to preservation of trees, preservation of protected trees, that is. This project has been led by CDD's Associate Planner, Matthew Mandich, and CDD's Code Enforcement Officer, Paul Van Hook. |
| 00:12:49.90 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:12:59.83 | Unknown | They are both in attendance this evening and will be providing council additional details on this item as well as staff's recommendation to council. So with that, I will give Mr. Mandich and Mr. Ho. Mr. Van Hook, excuse me, the floor. And Mayor, would you like me to summarize public hearing appeal format or will you do that? |
| 00:13:18.03 | Steven Woodside | Oh, please go ahead. |
| 00:13:18.89 | Unknown | Okay, excellent. So typically, the mayor will invite council members to make ex parte communications, The mayor will open the public hearing. There will be a staff presentation. Council will follow with questions for staff. There will be an appellant presentation. Council will follow for questions to the appellant. The mayor will ask for and open public comment. There will then be an opportunity for staff to respond to any new issues raised during the public comment period. And there will be an opportunity for the appellant to respond to public comment based on any reserved rebuttal time. The mayor closes the public hearing and the council will begin their discussion deliberation and ultimately make a decision. Thank you. |
| 00:14:12.84 | Matthew Mandich | Hello Council, good evening, happy to be here with you all tonight. So we'll just jump right in, get started. So as Okay, there we go. I'm just gonna first discuss the location of the site a little bit just to make you all aware. Um, it's this pointer working. Yes. Fantastic. Okay. So here we are at, uh, the plot, the parcel two 30, Santa Rosa. This is, um, part of town Santa Rosa here that hooks up with Glenn drive. Um, very sharp corner there. Uh, the property extends from Santa Rosa here to Glenn drive down below. And here's an image of that same property from Google earth. Uh, next slide, please. |
| 00:14:49.21 | Matthew Mandich | Just to give you a little background on this project that was mentioned by Director Phipps, this is a code enforcement issue. So I'm going to have Mr. Paul Van Hook, our code enforcement officer, present a little background on this and some of the things that he experienced and witnessed while visiting the site and the reason for the citation. And then I'll jump back in and take over some of the analysis from there. Thank you. |
| 00:15:14.15 | Paul Van Hook | Thank you, Matthew. Good evening, counsel. My name is Paul Van Hook. I'm the code enforcement officer for the city of South Salido. I've been here for about a year. I've had the chance to meet most of you. And just to give you a little bit of background on the case regarding 230 Santa Rosa and the tree alterations. On October 11th of 2023, I received multiple complaints from the police. residents and just concerned neighbors around the area regarding the unauthorized alteration of several trees at 230 Santa Rosa. On October 17th, I performed a site investigation and viewed trees that were altered both on Santa Rosa Avenue and on the, um, bottom property from Glen Avenue as well, too. Um, there were approximately 10, uh, mature, bay laurel trees that were altered significantly. Pictures will be provided later to show you exactly what was going on. But essentially, the section of the code, South Saludan Municipal Code 11.12.030 on heritage trees restricts foliage reduction to not exceed one quarter of the total tree foliage. Upon my visit there, the entire canopies were removed from the tree, so 100% was removed as opposed to just 25%. On October 17th, an administrative citation was gandied out, as well as the notice of public hearing, was listed via mail, certified mail, and posted on site at 2.30 Santa Rosa. The public hearing was initially set for November 15th, but was held on December 13th. They're the Planning Commission. opted to go ahead and cite the resident $1,000 per tree. There was 10 mature bay laurel trees that were altered for the total amount of $10,000. On December 19th, 2023, the property owner filed for an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, which brings us to today, where we are today. So I'm going to go ahead and ask questions from the diocese. |
| 00:17:33.22 | Chris Zapata | I did want to note that we haven't made, we haven't disclosed any ex parte communication. I invited that. |
| 00:17:39.09 | Steven Woodside | I invited that at the head of the- |
| 00:17:40.49 | Chris Zapata | So I just wanted to confirm there were none. Sorry. I had a comment from a member of the public concerned that we hadn't closed anything. |
| 00:17:47.51 | Steven Woodside | It's a great place. |
| 00:17:47.69 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:17:47.71 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:17:48.29 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 00:17:49.03 | Steven Woodside | For the record, yeah, I invited that and there were no volunteers. |
| 00:17:49.40 | Jill Hoffman | THE RECOVERY. |
| 00:17:54.87 | Steven Woodside | So. |
| 00:17:55.29 | Chris Zapata | Okay. The staff report says that following the planning commission meeting, it was determined that the appellant had submitted a tree removal alteration permit application on February 8, 2023. via email. And so your presentation didn't address that, but |
| 00:18:14.44 | Matthew Mandich | Um... If I may, council member, the presentation is just getting started. |
| 00:18:18.29 | Chris Zapata | Oh, |
| 00:18:19.03 | Matthew Mandich | This isn't, this is not the end, but rather the beginning. |
| 00:18:19.27 | Chris Zapata | Okay. Well, this timeline, does not include at the very top the February 8, 2023, submission of an application. |
| 00:18:31.99 | Matthew Mandich | Okay. |
| 00:18:32.43 | Chris Zapata | And that's why I raised it. I think that's a really important point. |
| 00:18:35.72 | Matthew Mandich | Hmm? |
| 00:18:35.76 | Chris Zapata | that this applicant did attempt to try to follow the rules. |
| 00:18:39.54 | Matthew Mandich | Okay, yeah, we will discuss that. I'm sure that'll be a point of the appellant and it's also contained in this presentation as well. We were gonna touch on that and we'll do questions after the presentation as far as I was understood that was customary. |
| 00:18:52.77 | Steven Woodside | Please proceed. |
| 00:18:53.22 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. So brings us to March 5 today City Council to review the record of decision and consider relevant evidence and hear testimony. So moving on next slide please. So analysis again this section has been quoted already by the director and also by our code enforcement officer so I don't think need to repeat all of that but it is unlawful for any person to remove or alter any protected tree as defined her end without a permit issued and posted as provided in this chapter except for the purpose of routine pruning. So just to go through some of the definitions that are found in this title, alteration equals the significant change or damage, cutting of trunk or branches, changing drainage, cutting of roots, removal of upper portion of trunk, whereas routine pruning is just the removal of dead branches. And a protected tree in this case is the only species that we have in Sauselio as a protected tree is the coastal live oak. However, any heritage tree, which has a diameter of over 10 inches that is considered a heritage tree is also considered a protected tree unless it's on this next slide please unless it's on this list of undesirable trees these are the undesirable trees which you can remove without a permit the trees in question which is a bay laurel are not on this list so just want to make that point there so they do qualify as protected heritage trees next slide please um visual photographic and documentary evidence show that at least 10 bay laurel heritage trees with a diameter at breast height ranging from 28 to 80 inches were significantly altered without the required permits i have some images here for you showing the canopy that existed um downslope from 230 santa rosa glenn drive prior to the removal and the situation that we observed after from our court enforcement officer I'm just going to go through a couple of photos here yeah next slide please thank you as you can see and as our code enforcement officer already discussed many of these trees were significantly altered all the canopies were entirely removed and no permit was obtained for this we had nine trees in the back and one bay laurel tree in the front. You can see some of the images again and from before and after the alterations. Next slide, please. So this was obtained from the appellant. This is from Leo's tree service. This is when the application for a tree removal permit was submitted back in February of 2023. that permit was not acted upon by staff at that time. It was sent via email, which is not a traditional method of delivering applications. The application, the appellant made no attempt to follow up on this in the time since the email was submitted. The appellant also came to the counter for code enforcement violations, never brought the permit up, never contacted staff about the permit. The permit was never paid for there was never a planning commission hearing to approve a permit. So that's where we stand on that. Moving to the next slide. The Planning Commission hearing was held in December as discussed, pursuant to Title 11-12050. If it is determined that a violation occurred, the Planning Commission may impose an administrative fine for a legal removal or alteration of up to $1,000 per tree. They may also issue a remedial order or both. The Planning Commission... Back one, please. The Planning Commission is also set to consider these factors when they're determining what kind of fine or remedial order to consider. Those factors are listed below here. Severity of violation, value of trees, impact on community, number of violations that occurred, frequency, economic impact of remedial order, and good faith efforts of the violator. Based on these factors and based on the evidence presented to the Planning Commission, they opted to fine the appellate $1,000 per tree for a total of $10,000, as well as issuing an remedial order for erosion control and bi weekly erosion reports to be submitted to the city. So that was the ruling of the Commission in December 2023. Next slide please. As far as erosion control is concerned, staff is in the possession of four erosion control reports from Thomas Reagan hard, a licensed civil engineer. The reports state that there is little potential for significant erosion even after significant rain events report also states that the straw waddles are completely in place and intact no evidence of erosion or surface runoff. Staff performed a site visit several weeks ago on February 22nd and observed some erosion on site, but not considered significant to impact the right of way or adjacent properties next slide please. can see some images from that site visit here you can see that there is some straw and some waddles coming off on the side a little bit of undercutting here but again nothing that was considered significant enough to warrant um considerable mitigation efforts following what was provided in the erosion reports next slide please so this brings us to the conclusion of this presentation staff recommendation worth reminding here that permits are again required for true alteration altering protected heritage trees without an approved permit is a clear violation of the sausalito municipal code staff recommends that the city and council impose an administrative fine of 500 per $500 per legally altered tree for a total of $5,000 since the trees were illegally altered but not removed. This mirrors staff's original recommendation to the Planning Commission in the report presented on December. I believe it was 17th. Staff recommends that the city council rescind the remedial order that requires the violator to prepare and submit bi-week erosion reports due to the conditions observed on the site, and instead have staff perform periodic visits to determine if a soils report is needed to further mitigate any erosion issues in the future. Thank you very much, and I'm happy to address any questions. |
| 00:24:18.49 | Steven Woodside | Questions please from the dice. Thank you. Good advice, Mary. |
| 00:24:22.45 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. One of the handwritten pages in our packet seems to be a dangler. It's just labeled H through M. And it says tree alteration topping application. And it says tree will re-sprout new growth within 60 days that can be managed. Overall tree health is improved. Was there any evaluation? Because when you look at the pictures, it's really startling to see the amount of topping that occurred. And so I wanted to know if staff had any opinion or any consultants had any opinions about the overall health of the tree, since one of the things we have to evaluate is the severity of the violation. And so Is it true, in staff's opinion, that the tree will re-sprout With growth, you know, they said that the prior canopy was a tangled mess. Is it true that the new canopy will sprout and that the overall tree health will be improved? |
| 00:25:23.10 | Matthew Mandich | So what you're reading from there is from the appellant, that is his writing. We do not have an arborist report on file about these trees. So we don't have a professional opinion. I'm not a professional arborist, so I will hold back from stating my opinion on the regrowth. But that is, you know, again, that's the appellant's opinion. I have no opinion. I'm not an arborist. So I think an arborist report might be necessary to confirm. |
| 00:25:47.43 | Chris Zapata | and then for prior violations. It hasn't been the practice of the city to assess $1,000 or more when a tree is removed. but to assess $500 when a tree is overly pruned. |
| 00:26:03.23 | Matthew Mandich | There's actually very little record on this. I've been through the file on this. I mean, our typical tree removal permit costs $1,065. That's the standard fee for removal of protected tree for planning commission approval in a public hearing. The citations that we have on file date back, there's only a couple from 2013 to now, which is as far as the records on the webpage can go back. But the last one that was handed out was in 2016, and it was for $175. That's what I was able to find. However, that being said, staff has observed both in the field and heard from residents of the city that empirically, there has been a lot of illegal tree removal going on in the city consistently. And this was such an egregious act. And there were many complaints on this, that we decided maybe this was a time to kind of reinforce this administrative citation process and try to, you know, kind of mitigate some of the illegal tree removals that we've been seeing around the city. And this kind of maybe could set a tone and a precedent for that to discourage that in the future going forward. |
| 00:27:04.79 | Chris Zapata | And did you believe that the $500 amount of fine per tree was adequate to accomplish those goals that you've just enunciated? |
| 00:27:12.45 | Matthew Mandich | Yes, that was my original opinion in the staff report that was presented to the planning commission. I believe that the maximum fine available $1,000 per tree was more warranted for an illegal removal. These trees were significantly altered but not removed, so they are still alive, still there. So I thought that, you know, maybe half that fine would be a reasonable amount. That's why I suggested $500 to begin with, and that's what I was suggesting again to you today. But, of course, council may take any action they please. |
| 00:27:36.23 | Chris Zapata | Thank you so much. That ends my questions. |
| 00:27:39.06 | Steven Woodside | Any other questions from the dais? That's from Reverend Hoffman. |
| 00:27:42.37 | Jill Hoffman | Good evening. And thank you for your presentation. And so it's $1,000. The permit cost $1,000 per tree. |
| 00:27:53.95 | Matthew Mandich | So it's $1,000.65 for the first tree, and then any additional tree is $80 on top of that. For removal, yes. |
| 00:28:03.73 | Jill Hoffman | And do you have to have a permit if you just want to top? |
| 00:28:07.78 | Matthew Mandich | Up to 25%, anything more than that requires a permit, yes. |
| 00:28:11.65 | Jill Hoffman | that. |
| 00:28:12.46 | Matthew Mandich | It's the same. |
| 00:28:14.26 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:28:14.59 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:28:17.47 | Steven Woodside | Any other questions, council member? |
| 00:28:20.49 | Unknown | Just one. So you probably know we are in progress looking at a geologic hazard study around the city. I'm not sure exactly what status of that is right now, On page two of the erosion control report, it says, although nearly vertical, the road cut slope appears highly stable with little potential for erosion and little to no eroded soil was observed in the gutter system. Um, I'm not a soils expert and I'm not an erosion expert. But I have to feel that just seeing the verticality of that right over by a storm drain and by one of our roadways concerns me. And I'm wondering if you've seen anything the contrary. I certainly have around the city, maybe in this particular instance, the soils are such that that isn't a problem. I mean, that is just a... full-on vertical right there on a major road. Any thoughts on that? |
| 00:29:16.45 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, I mean, one of the reasons that this was brought to the planning commission originally was due to the fact that there were multiple neighbors in the vicinity that were concerned with the erosion that was occurring there that was something that was brought to the planning commission, the planning commissioners also believe that there was, you know, significant erosion occurring there. We've since received erosion reports from a civil engineer that seemed to be contradicting some of those opinions and views. But as far as the verticality they cut is indeed very steep. As I mentioned, I was able to go with code enforcement officer, Paul Van Hook, a couple of weeks ago to view the site. And again, saw some undercutting, saw some of the strong hay coming down and some of the waddles, but no significant pile up on the right of way and nothing that looked like an immediate danger to any adjacent properties. |
| 00:30:00.90 | Unknown | And have you gone to the site recently? I mean, we are in an era of unprecedented soil saturation and multiple day, 100 year storm events. And I note that this erosion control report is dated December 16th, 2023, which is in fact prior to the Christmas storms, which caused flooding much of California. And I don't know when the soils were in fact inspected. So any up to date inspections? |
| 00:30:22.97 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, so I think I hope that I was able to attach all four of the erosion control reports. I think the most recent one is from February. If I'm correct, maybe February 15. I'm just saying that off the top of my head. But so there are some is it the 15th? Yeah. So there were some more recent reports than some. |
| 00:30:40.55 | Unknown | Sorry. |
| 00:30:41.11 | Matthew Mandich | No worries. Yeah, they pretty much they all repeat each other. It's very similar. |
| 00:30:45.63 | Unknown | So then the obligation, Matthews, is for the homeowner to install the straw wattle and disperse straw mulch and to keep it. up to standards on some regular basis? Do we have a plan for that? |
| 00:31:00.65 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, so I mean that was kind of I guess one of the reasons the planning commission ordered bi weekly reports on this was to to see how you know the erosion was progressing over especially the winter months and whether or not those mitigation efforts and measures that were ordered as part of the remedial order were in place and staying there. Again from the erosion control reports we have on file are the specialist the civil engineer said that the waddles and erosion control blankets were completely in place and intact that's. Mostly true. Some of them were off, you know, there was some waddle coming down and hay and some of the erosion blanket. So there has been some soil movement. We've had some considerable storms in the last several months. So, you know, I wouldn't say it's completely entirely intact, but not seeing, you know, any significant piles of earth or big undercuts coming out of there. |
| 00:31:49.64 | Steven Woodside | Please consider. |
| 00:31:50.97 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Along those same lines, I'm just trying to understand why the Planning Commission recommended the $1,000 versus the $500 per tree cost. And the staff recommendation at the time in the Planning Commission was the $500 fine. And in your opinion, do you think that these erosion reports demonstrate that your initial projections about the impact were correct? So that's why you're recommending, again, a return to the $500 in tonight's staff report? |
| 00:32:16.93 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, I'd agree with that, yeah. Thank you. |
| 00:32:20.49 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:32:20.59 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 00:32:20.67 | Steven Woodside | RECORDING TO BE ABLE |
| 00:32:20.76 | Matthew Mandich | you |
| 00:32:20.79 | Steven Woodside | THE FAMILY. |
| 00:32:21.37 | Jill Hoffman | Sorry, can I follow up on that? The first part of the question was, why did the Planning Commission decide 1,000 per tree as opposed to 500? |
| 00:32:29.73 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, thank you for that. |
| 00:32:30.56 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, but is it somewhere written down? I mean, is it- Yeah, I mean, well- |
| 00:32:33.43 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, I mean, well, yes, there's minutes. And, you know, of course, the hearing was recorded and televised. There was some deliberation on the dais about that there. It started at 500. There was discussion. And I think there were several that moved maybe to 750 and then even to 1000 after that. There was discussion on the dais about what the appropriate fine would be. And I think several commissioners felt strongly that it should be 1000. And that was what the final vote turned out to be. |
| 00:32:58.84 | Steven Woodside | No more questions? |
| 00:32:59.94 | Unknown | So one more thing, the cost of a 25 gallon bay tree, I think if we were to buy one is 600 bucks. |
| 00:33:05.61 | Steven Woodside | Okay. |
| 00:33:05.61 | Unknown | So I think that, at least when I was on planning commission, would often guide this. And we have some in our ordinance and guidelines that when people come in for design review, we may ask them to do a one-to-one tree replacement. And we also often look at the gallon size and the cost. So that might have guided some of the costs. |
| 00:33:24.58 | Steven Woodside | and no more questions, we will move on to the appellant presentation. |
| 00:33:28.41 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:33:29.00 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:33:31.28 | Walfred Solorzano | How many minutes do you want me to put |
| 00:33:34.06 | Steven Woodside | I think 15 is the standard. Yes, and if you don't want all 15, you're allowed to reserve your time for rebuttal. So up to 15 minutes, but if you want to reserve any time, |
| 00:33:46.03 | Unknown | Mayor Mrakas- Thank you, thank you mayor mayor ice mayor Council members, thank you for your attention to this matter this evening, I think my appeal has merit as this presentation will will demonstrate. |
| 00:33:46.75 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:34:03.64 | Unknown | I ask that the that the presentation be be put up on the screen, if possible. |
| 00:34:16.00 | Unknown | If not, I've given you each hard copy of the presentation. |
| 00:34:31.28 | Unknown | Okay, next slide, please. |
| 00:34:37.90 | Unknown | Thank you. So after moving to Sausalito about, to my current residence in Sausalito almost five years ago, I've been troubled by the condition of the trees on the lower part of the property. Historically, the trees were cut, they were reduced. And they had been repeatedly reduced I'm not sure. over time. and we're going to have a was a thick, tangled growth of dead wood and deformed crowns. that would, that, you know, occurred considerably high above the ground But again, was a flat thick band of foliage, mostly dead. Some living growth. But these the trees were were were not in good condition. They were in very poor condition. And I have a slideshow that will demonstrate this this later. And in fact, I considered it to be a serious fire hazard because there's power lines down slope and then the house is up slope of the trees. I met with several tree services regarding the problem and how best to repair the damaged California Bay trees. The consensus among experts was to remove the damaged crowns to allow new growth to emerge. The new growth that emerges will grow vertically, restoring the natural appearance of the trees. That new growth is occurring now. THEIR OWNERS. On February 8th, 2023 I submitted an application to the Dropbox Dropbox link as instructed by the city of Sausalito tree committee's tree alteration permit instructions. The Dropbox was dysfunctional and the tree committee apparently no longer active. I submitted the permit application form to CDD at Sausalito.gov. I provided an explanation that the Dropbox was not working and provided my phone contact number. So, Next slide, please. In late summer, Leo's tree service removed the crowns of the trees as a corrective measure to restore the trees to natural form. Allow sunlight to reach the ground as needed to grow ground cover. The foliage and deadwood was removed and deposited onto Glen Drive and chipped and disposed. Prior to the onset of rains, I spread six bales of rice straw under the trees to prevent the possibility of any topsoil erosion. from the area. This was not done to stabilize the slope as no stabilization had occurred. The trees were not removed. The straw was only intended to ensure that should a heavy rain occur on dry soil, no silt. would be carried offsite. for stormwater pollution prevention plan, best management practices. standard practices for anybody that's done any erosion control. Next slide, please. On October 17, 2023, I was issued a citation for unauthorized tree alteration. A hearing was set for November 15, 2023. In early November, I called Planner Mandich and resent the application form that I had previously submitted to CEDD on February 8th. planner management asks for proof of submission. Um, I'm not sure. you know, on that earlier date, However, at the time I couldn't provide a record of that transmittal. I was told that the hearing was postponed until December 13th. I was not informed that erosion was even a concern. during the period between the receipt of complaint on October 11th to December 13th. um, Uh, the, the, no city staff contacted me for information. or re or requested to enter the property. I was never contacted by any of the concerned neighbors. Next slide, please. Following the hearing on December 13th, I received an invoice for $10,000 to be paid on December 14th. The very next day, I was told the payment date was was later told to payment. date was in error. At 2.40 p.m. on December 14th, Planner Mandage, and informed me by email that I must perform immediate erosion control work at my expense and would be legally obligated to engage in erosion control specialist to assess the site institute mitigation measures and provide weekly updates under threat of fines and citations beginning the morning of December 18. three days later. Okay, so next slide, please. The basis, previous slide, please. Spaces for appeal. pre-judgment and bias of city planning staff insufficient and misleading staff reporting and failure by staff to present all relevant information to commissioners. Pursuit of. A false premise by both planning staff and commissioners and failure to consider existing conditions, sound engineering practices, and failing to rely on factual evidence when issuing an order. orders exceeding the authority of planning commissioners due to issuance on incorrect assumptions and without reasonable finding a factor documentation. Next slide, please. I'm not sure. pre-judgment indifference of planning staff and insufficient and misleading reporting. The staff report provided to commissioners at at the hearing contained information submitted to CDD. the arborist estimate and site map. Um, uh, it, And this was not disclosed as being submitted by the property owner in the application. THEIR OWNERS. yet it was presented in the SAF report. Staff refused to check CDD Sausalito government inbox for application submittal prior to hearing even when requested by residents. Staff then expressed doubt to the commission of the submittal of an application. It is entirely reasonable to expect staff to check and respond to CDD email and not have to do so is entirely irresponsible and unresponsive. I have sensed sent documentation to CDD showing that I had um, sent that to CDD on the 8th. of of february 2023 Staff selectively used information from application but excluded The provided site pre-conditioned photographs, or the explanation in the application justifying the tree alteration. Steph never communicated. The staff recommended fine amounts. or erosion concern in advance of the hearing. Was this an ambush or just indifference? would have been really useful to know that there were concerns about erosion prior to receiving an order that, that, that, If Implant if mitigations weren't in place within roughly 72 hours, I would be fine. THE END OF THE END OF THE Pursuit of false premise by planning staff and failure to document existing conditions and staff reports. Planning staff offered the opinion that the removal of tree canopies would lead to site erosion and destabilization. This assertion is up This assertion is unsubstantiated. is there was no technical report indicating removal of the tree canopy would cause site destabilizing erosion Tree canopies have at most a minimal effect on soil stabilization. Most effective is ground cover. But due to tree canopy density in this case, no ground cover was present. to compensate the residents spread sufficient rice straw to more than compensate for both canopy removal and lack of ground cover. This was done prior to any notice from the city to do anything. It was done on my own volition because I wanted to make sure that the site was 100% stable. Um, I WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE Because I believe in, I'm a big believer in water quality and runoff. can have, um, very negative effects on water quality. The purpose of the straw was to prevent any silt from reaching the gutter system on Glen Avenue. Site stability was never in question because the root system of trees was never compromised. Soil was not disturbed. No grading or changes in topography or drainage patterns occurred. Next slide, please. |
| 00:44:02.42 | Unknown | I'm. Erosion, removal of canopy is caused by as cause of erosion is a false premise resulting in substantial costs borne by residents. erosion control. report ordered by city at residence expense, expense clearly states that the site is highly stable. Lack of ground cover due to excessive density of canopy is compensated for by dispersed rice straw. Additional mitigations are unnecessary. The erosion control mitigations that were suggested by staff and ordered by the commission would be necessary only when soil is disturbed by grading, change in topography, or drainage patterns. THE FAMILY IS GOING TO BE Staff suggested Extensive mitigations and commission ordered same without an expert technical report no documentation has been presented that staff even conferred with an expert or that an expert visited the site. Next slide, please. |
| 00:45:08.54 | Unknown | One more, please. because, um, the commissioner referenced the prevalence of groundwater and the potential for landslides as a rationale for ordering erosion mitigations. This is almost entirely irrelevant to the site conditions as no trees removed, no grading occurred, and no changes in drainage resulted from the removal of the tree canopies. The ordered biweekly mitigation monitoring reports at residents expense report the complete lack of effective mitigations, conclusive proof that mitigations were unnecessary. testimony of neighbors, are all unsupported by technical reporting The photo showing silt in a driveway There's no there's... |
| 00:46:02.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:46:03.31 | Unknown | There's no conclusive evidence that this has anything to do with 230 Santa Rosa. or the trimming of the trees there. there's been extensive construction on on Glenn. where Caltrans replaced the culvert that's not going to be at the uphill from those residents. So it's hard to say where their mud came from. um Glenn road cut is highly stable and any erosion is unrelated to tree trimming activities. The near vertical road cut bordering Glenn is assessed as being highly stable, but minor erosion is caused by workers at assessing the site for various reasons, including removal of debris, from two 220 230 and 240 Santa Rosa Avenue Also tree trimming and debris removal was performed by PG&E just the week of the of December. 11 through 15 and again on March 1st. So there's lots of activity occurring above that road cut. And yet, there's virtually no dirt in the gutter, virtually none. And that's been the case all winter long. And if Planner Mandich had really looked at the site, he would know that there has been absolutely zero movement of soil on that side. Zero. So, Glen Avenue road cut is nearly vertical and clearly approaches the angle of repose for soil composition of on site. The tree treatment that occurred above Glenn has no impact on the road cut. What's really going on here? Next slide, please. One more. Um, clearly the complaining residents planning staff and commissioners do not like the temporary appearance of the trees or the fact that a resident would act without prior approval. However, creating spurious causation to erosion. to impose unreasonable conditions on the resident as punishment is entirely inappropriate. The only issue here is whether the unpermitted alteration of previously altered trees as a restorative measure warrants the maximum fine. If the unpermitted alteration of previously damaged trees in order to restore natural form warrants a maximum fine. What is reserved for someone who removes or alters trees that were of natural form? Clearly the commission misjudged. if erosion from canopy removal was such was of such paramount concern. Why did staff postpone the hearing for a month at the onset of winter? Was a month of research really required? Was it then reasonable to order a staff report and installation of mitigations at residents expense in 72 hours? THEIR OWNERS. I'm not sure. It was not easy to pull off either, to get those in place in 72 hours. I spent all day um friday |
| 00:49:17.31 | Steven Woodside | Sorry, sir, you're out of time. So now there's an opportunity for the city council members to ask me any questions they have from your presentation. Please stay at the podium, sir, sir. I have a question for you, sir. |
| 00:49:29.22 | Unknown | Yep. |
| 00:49:30.89 | Steven Woodside | Please do, I think actually council member had her hand up first. |
| 00:49:33.44 | Unknown | So thank you very much. That was a very thorough analysis. I understand where you're coming from. What do you think is fair? |
| 00:49:44.22 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:49:44.24 | Unknown | Thanks. |
| 00:49:44.31 | Unknown | Excuse me. |
| 00:49:44.64 | Unknown | What do you think is fair? |
| 00:49:46.50 | Unknown | What do I think is fair, Will? I have, This hearing cost me almost $4,000 to be able to appear before you. Um, I have spent about $20,000 in mitigations and soil and analysis, site analysis and ongoing ordered. Um, uh, mitigation monitoring. Um, So I'm into this about 20 grand right now. If there's a $10,000 fine on top of this, That's $30,000. Granted, these trees are going to look better than they did |
| 00:50:29.41 | Unknown | Sorry, you gave us an excellent presentation. I understand where you're coming from. Okay. You had an unpermitted tree alteration. What do you think is a fair fine? |
| 00:50:39.74 | Unknown | A fair fine given. Given that it was a risk that this that the motivation is restorative, I would say a fair fine would because I did not, although I I attempted and made a very good faith effort to get a permit and if staff would have met me halfway we wouldn't be here right now. Um, I would say, I don't know. 250 bucks a tree. |
| 00:51:10.07 | Unknown | Thank you very much. |
| 00:51:10.98 | Chris Zapata | question. I did. You weren't able to use the city's portal, so you emailed your tree removal application. How did you intend to pay the fee associated with that? |
| 00:51:24.92 | Unknown | I expected the city to, if the city was concerned, I thought that I was, first of all, I was not even... even certain that this action would require a permit Um, I honestly didn't know that there was a fee There's nothing in the application that says there's a fee. We would have submitted a fee. So I honestly did not know. |
| 00:51:52.05 | Chris Zapata | And then staff mentioned that you had come to the window for other reasons. |
| 00:51:58.26 | Unknown | That was absolutely... |
| 00:51:58.26 | Chris Zapata | That was after. That was after. I just finished my question. |
| 00:51:59.34 | Unknown | I just finished my question. Thank you. |
| 00:52:01.60 | Chris Zapata | You had come to the window for other reasons after emailing your application, why not follow up what's going on with my application? |
| 00:52:11.32 | Unknown | That's incorrect. That was that I went to the window after the tree trimming had occurred. I don't know if I had been cited at that point because there was there was some delay between the time that the tree trimming occurred and the citation was issued. But I can I can assure I can assure you, Councilmember, that it was after. other dealings I had with the city. |
| 00:52:38.80 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. And thank you for your presentation. I know it's not easy to get up there and face all of us and make a presentation. So thank you for doing a really thorough job. |
| 00:52:46.42 | Unknown | Thank you. You're welcome. |
| 00:52:50.98 | Steven Woodside | All right, if there are any more questions and public comments, please. City Clerk. |
| 00:52:59.45 | Walfred Solorzano | At this moment, anybody in house wants to make any public comments. Seeing none, but we do have Sandra Bushmaker on Zoom. |
| 00:53:10.52 | Steven Woodside | Please go ahead. |
| 00:53:12.73 | Sandra Bushmaker | Good evening. Well, I don't endorse unpermitted work in Sausalito. In fact, I think we need to do more enforcement on permitted work. I do want to comment about Bay laurels. I think that we need to take another look at bay laurels. I find them, I live, they're all around my place. They are filthy trees, they drop black, growth of some sort, not only on the tree leaves itself, but also on the that surrounding area. In addition, These trees grow like weeds. And I, like I said, I'm not speaking to the appeal directly. I just want to take this fact into consideration that we should reconsider this tree as an undesirable in Sausalito. Thank you. |
| 00:54:06.17 | Steven Woodside | Any other public comment? |
| 00:54:08.38 | Walfred Solorzano | Seeing no for the public comment. |
| 00:54:09.51 | Steven Woodside | All right, we'll close a comment. Now there's an opportunity for staff to respond. If you wish, no obligation to. |
| 00:54:15.56 | Unknown | Mayor, I'd like to hear from staff just whether we've checked that portal and whether that online submittal format is working. |
| 00:54:29.92 | Matthew Mandich | So the Dropbox portal is not something that we use anymore. I think that was something that was used prior. It was really never in use since I've been a staff member here. In fact, this whole submittal and everything occurred before I was hired to CDD. So we use a OneDrive now, which is a submittal software through Microsoft that is part of our whole teams in Microsoft ecosystem. So that OneDrive has been working just fine. I know there, I don't know, I really can't speak to what was going on with the Dropbox prior. |
| 00:55:00.43 | Unknown | I guess my question is if I need a tree alteration permit and I went to the city's website, would it be abundantly clear that there was a OneDrive link for me to upload? |
| 00:55:09.12 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, there's OneDrive links on the city's website under the planning and building division sides. There's click here to submit, big box, clickable. Thank you. And there are just to say there there are instructions on the website, too, about how to submit a tree permit, the flow chart that goes along with that, the fees associated with it. and all those things. So I don't want to spend too much time. I don't want to pick apart the appellant's presentation point by point. I will say that I strongly disagree with several things that were mentioned there. But I don't think it's worth anyone's time to go back through that. So I think I'll just leave it there unless there are further questions. |
| 00:55:44.03 | Chris Zapata | question. |
| 00:55:44.42 | Unknown | Yes. Thank you. |
| 00:55:46.49 | Chris Zapata | Have you done a search for the Dropbox portal to ensure that it has been removed from the Google search engine so that no one in the future is misdirected? |
| 00:55:59.42 | Matthew Mandich | Yes, thank you. First of all, I want to apologize earlier for referring to you as Councilmember Cox. I know that you are now Vice Mayor Cox, so apologies for that. But yes, regarding the Dropbox, I have not personally checked whether or not it's been removed from Google, but as far as I understand from our other staff, it's not an option anymore. It's a dead link. We don't pay any more Dropbox fees, so I don't think there's any ability to submit anything through a Dropbox to CDD right now. |
| 00:56:24.82 | Chris Zapata | So that's my point. If it still shows up in Google, in the Google search engine, and it's a dead link, then an applicant such as the appellant here is left trying to figure out how to submit an application. |
| 00:56:37.36 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:56:37.91 | Chris Zapata | I would like to undertake the steps to remove that from the Google search engine or redirect the Google search engine to the OneDrive. link. |
| 00:56:50.23 | Matthew Mandich | Yes, I will state that at the time, the Dropbox was the method of submittal back in February of 2023. |
| 00:56:55.11 | Melissa Blaustein | back in February 2020. |
| 00:56:56.38 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:56:56.91 | Melissa Blaustein | I hate to break it to you, but it is still on the website. So given the feedback that I just did a quick search, Sausalito.gov Dropbox, and it says to qualify for this Dropbox option, it says on your own time, submit revisions without the need for an appointment, upload a zip folder with your files to a Dropbox link by a certain day and time for staffing routing within 48 hours, for staff routing by Wednesday, and there's ongoing discussion. But then it says to this one drive by 8am and it has a link to the one drive. So I think there's just been a lot of amazing changes at community development department and a new director and new hires. And so I would ask that we spend time just sweeping our website to make sure that all of the instructions are current and up to date. |
| 00:56:59.87 | Matthew Mandich | Okay. I just did a quick search. |
| 00:57:03.26 | Steven Woodside | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:57:38.41 | Matthew Mandich | Absolutely. And I can add that our director has recently put together a website committee as of several weeks ago. So this can be a really hot item for them. |
| 00:57:47.59 | Steven Woodside | Sure. Councilmember Weissberg-Cox. |
| 00:57:51.52 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. So I looked at the Planning Commission report and resolution, and the Planning Commission did demand that the property owner employ an erosion control professional to perform erosion mitigation reports. Did you at some point cease the demand for those reports? And did you realize that the appellant had spent $20,000 on this, on the required reporting? |
| 00:58:27.03 | Matthew Mandich | So regarding the reports, the planning commission did ask for immediate action on that. And we had a discussion in the office about what constituted immediate. And we thought that, you know, the hearing was Monday. The hearing was Wednesday. So Monday seemed. Pretty immediate. Um, and regarding the, the $20,000, uh, I don't know what he spent on those erosion control reports. Um, I will say that the $10,000 he was fined. That's never, we haven't collected that money. That money is just, he submitted a check. It's not been cashed. It's been sitting there since the entire time. So whatever amount maybe that he's figuring that fine into that fine has not been cashed. We've been holding it ever since the appeal was filed. |
| 00:59:04.52 | Chris Zapata | Oh no, he was clear that his expenses were in addition to the fines. |
| 00:59:07.85 | Matthew Mandich | So it was $20,000 for the erosion reports. Okay. I don't have an invoice for that. I don't know what those erosion reports would have cost. They seem pretty cut and paste to me. It's kind of the same report four times over. So it seems like a lot of money. |
| 00:59:10.03 | Chris Zapata | Right. |
| 00:59:21.14 | Unknown | Agreed. Thank you. |
| 00:59:21.91 | Steven Woodside | Councilmember Kelman. |
| 00:59:23.12 | Unknown | Thank you. Sorry, just one more question. So the appellant makes the argument that this was not a true removal, it was a true alteration, and therefore the erosion status of the property would not have been altered. Does staff have a point of view of that? |
| 00:59:35.96 | Matthew Mandich | Again, not an erosion control specialist, but obviously removing the canopy of the trees exposes that hillside to significant and heavy rainfall. And it's especially with the vertical cut you were discussing. And the fact that the tree canopy is no longer there to redirect the water in different areas. It's just coming straight down onto that slope now. I would imagine that the removal of those canopies does have some effect on the erosion there. |
| 00:59:57.39 | Steven Woodside | My question is whether, how much did it cost the appellate to go through this process to be here, the feed and cell? |
| 01:00:05.90 | Matthew Mandich | The appeal, I believe it's $28.50 plus a noticing fee of $600. |
| 01:00:11.42 | Chris Zapata | So he had said 4,000. |
| 01:00:13.49 | Steven Woodside | So approximately 3,400. We only have a check for a second, sir. Okay, thank you. No more questions. You actually do have a one-minute rebuttal period, sir. |
| 01:00:21.69 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 01:00:22.72 | Steven Woodside | Oh, I'm very sorry. I didn't see you. Okay, go right ahead. |
| 01:00:27.31 | Jill Hoffman | Sorry, this is for staff. So I, too, did a quick search on the city of Sausalito website, and I'm looking at the trees and views page, Is the information that's listed on there regarding tree removal alteration permits and the process that set forth there, the links for the trees and views and municipal code. you know, all that information is correct. |
| 01:00:57.53 | Matthew Mandich | It should be, yes. |
| 01:00:59.46 | Jill Hoffman | So there's no secret that you have to have a permit. In fact, the appellant knew that. That's why he submitted the application for a permit. Okay. |
| 01:01:05.86 | Matthew Mandich | I believe so, yes. |
| 01:01:05.87 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Thank you. Okay, thanks. |
| 01:01:09.08 | Steven Woodside | So you have one minute for rebuttal to any of these points you wish. Put one minute on the clock, please. |
| 01:01:16.74 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor, I had some photos that I had submitted a slideshow with some photos that I think will be very helpful to this discussion. |
| 01:01:27.47 | Steven Woodside | Bye. |
| 01:01:27.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:01:27.51 | Steven Woodside | the clock while you pull those photos out? |
| 01:01:40.90 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:01:42.02 | Unknown | Yes, it is. Thank you. |
| 01:01:43.01 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Which one? Which photo? Or do you want to see them all? |
| 01:01:50.91 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:01:51.49 | Steven Woodside | Okay, so- Please restart the clock, city clerk. |
| 01:01:53.93 | Unknown | Okay, so, okay, you can go through these slides quickly, but they show the condition of the canopy prior to removal. It was just a mess. Here's a picture taken on I was taken this morning and it shows a tree in the far left side that's cropped. The tree on the right is a coast live oak. The reason why that that tree was cut there even though the canopy was was normal is it was growing into this oak and The, um, the, uh, uh, the bay trees are a known vector for sudden oak death. Next slide. |
| 01:02:41.42 | Unknown | You can see the oaks that are dying in my neighbor's yard. Um, Again, sudden oak death, that tree with the pots, the stuff. That's all the time we have. |
| 01:02:50.92 | Steven Woodside | That's all the time we have. Thank you very much, sir. We will now close the public hearing and have deliberations here on the dais. Does anyone wish to start? |
| 01:03:01.94 | Melissa Blaustein | I can start. |
| 01:03:02.55 | Steven Woodside | Please go ahead, Councilmember Boston. |
| 01:03:04.54 | Melissa Blaustein | So I appreciate the time that was put forward by staff and by the appellant. And given a number of factors, I am inclined to support staff's recommendation of the $500 fine, namely just in the appellant's description himself noted that a resident would act without permission. And given that this is a violation, a clear violation of our code, I do believe it requires a a fine of some kind but i think that the thousand dollars as assessed by the planning commission especially given the erosion reports is is um a number that is excessive and especially given the efforts that were made um but i would direct staff certainly to improve our permit approval processes and update our website and make sure that going forward, we have a more clear process, but I that would be my recommendation at this point. |
| 01:03:59.47 | Steven Woodside | Vice Mayor. |
| 01:04:02.67 | Chris Zapata | I agree with Sandra Bushmaker that removing trees without a permit is concerning. And I, after reading the staff report, was prepared to support the $500 per tree penalty. I'm concerned that at this one question that I asked of staff, that staff did not communicate to the Planning Commission that an application had been transmitted in February of 2023 like eight months before the complaint came in. And also that our website, Evidently misdirected people and so it was more difficult and not utterly transparent for our residents to actually be able to avail themselves of our staff services and this is not through any fault of staff necessarily. We've gone through lots of transition. enjoying huge improvement. in the level of service that we provide, I'm confident that these types of issues won't occur. moving forward. But I'm concerned that the failure to communicate to the Planning Commission that this applicant made an effort to transmit an application that wasn't fulfilled may have influenced them towards imposing a harsher fine which has caused the appellant to spend nearly $4,000 to bring this back to us. And so for those reasons, I would be inclined to adopt the appellant's recommended fine of $250 per tree. |
| 01:05:36.11 | Melissa Blaustein | I could support that if you, yeah. |
| 01:05:37.74 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:05:38.22 | Steven Woodside | Right. Council Member Huffman. |
| 01:05:40.45 | Jill Hoffman | So, um, I might have the opposite view. And the fact that an application was at least submitted indicates to me that the appellant respectfully Knew the permit was required. And he, there's, you know, the phone number's on the website, right? It's not that hard to walk down to City Hall and go up to the desk and say, hey, I submitted this application. Where's my application? There's plenty of time. There was no exigent circumstances, clearly, because he did the application. whenever it was, February, And the hearing was in December. There doesn't seem to be any indication or any evidence that he, before he started cutting down the trees that he again engaged with the staff. Thank you. in CDD to our community development to get the permit. So to me, it indicates you know, acknowledged that he needed the permit, yet he didn't confirm that he did need a permit. I know that's a negative, but the indication was, hey, you need a permit. Um, Karen Hollweg, understand sometimes it's frustrating to deal with any city government and apologies for that, but that doesn't excuse behavior of moving forward and cutting down trees in a quite. Karen Hollweg, You know significant manner and certainly was evident to anybody who might have driven down there that that would require to permit, which is why there were complaints. very quickly to the staff. I'm happy that it appears that there isn't soil erosion, but that's one of the reasons why you need a permit. That's one of the reasons why you need to go to planning. I mean, I can't speak to the mindset of the Planning Commission, Um, I think, that moving forward with this significant cutting knowingly. without a permit. may have played into the maximum fine that they established. I'm not. And then you know, we can talk about what's an appropriate fine level. But- Um, The erosion, the bi, I'm sorry, it's biweekly. So None of us here are erosion experts, you know, so, and there's a reason why the planning commission, I'm sure, issued that because it wasn't known at the time what this soil erosion aspect was and what the impact was. It seems that maybe we've got four reports, right? Have I got that right? It seems that... you know, maybe maybe there's an indication that the soil erosion concern, you know, isn't as, emergent as the planning commission thought. So, you know, I, I think we're being asked also that whether or not we want to lessen that or maybe make it, you know, not biweekly or maybe some other sort of recommendation from maybe the staff or or maybe even the appellant or what I think you asked what the appropriate fine was, but We didn't get any indication on that. So I'm thinking that that might be under consideration. So those are my thoughts. |
| 01:08:57.56 | Steven Woodside | Those are my thoughts. |
| 01:08:58.57 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:08:59.00 | Unknown | Great, yeah, thank you. That was a really helpful, excellent presentation from our staff and from the appellant. So, yeah. First of all, certainly true removal, you need a permit you submitted. you were thwarted by some antiquated technology that we had on our website, but you were aware of it. And so then when you proceeded without the permit, you knew you were proceeding without the permit. That's sort of one piece of it. The second piece of it is this erosion. You showed us some really great slides of a very thick canopy. And you probably know bay laurel are a significant habitat for birds to make their nests and actually have a significant contribution to Sausalito's natural environment, which we haven't really spoken to. And so I don't see an arborist report telling me that the health of the tree needed to be pruned. And I don't see a biologist telling me that nothing was in the tree when it was pruned. And so that's concerning for me. So, where I am, however, going to come out on this is you sort of lucked out that we had an antiquated system, because I do think that you deserve that $5,000 fee, and I think it should be mitigated by the fact that we had a system in place that didn't enable you, even though it was your obligation. ignorance of the law is not a defense, right? You knew it was there and you knew you didn't have it. I also think we should keep the erosion control measures in place through the end of the rainy season and then actually phase those out because for your pictures, that is a significant canopy that no longer exists. And I think part of this is just the knowledge of the tree removal, but I do think you have a mitigating circumstance with the fact that you put something forward and it wasn't received by staff. And it is your obligation to follow up. Obviously, you know that you work in regulation, but at the same time, it's something we need to improve upon. So I could be convinced towards a more downward fine, but with the statement that I actually think that the 5,000 staff is recommending is appropriate. |
| 01:11:03.25 | Steven Woodside | Thank you for everyone's comments. Because of all the difficulty in the application and the substantial amount of money that the applicant had to spend that the city's collected as part of this process, which is a kind of fine, I'm more inclined towards the level that the vice mayor articulated in terms of the fine. The staff, I guess I would just personally, I would accept the staff recommendations at the $250 fine. request. All the other staff recommendations on erosion control, everything else. So the period... |
| 01:11:33.40 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:11:33.42 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. |
| 01:11:33.44 | Unknown | RECORDING TO THEM. |
| 01:11:33.50 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. |
| 01:11:33.60 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:11:37.40 | Chris Zapata | So rescinding the biweekly erosion control reports and replacing it with periodic site visits by staff following significant rain events. |
| 01:11:48.02 | Steven Woodside | I think the Council Member Kellman's suggestion to just to the rainy season, which is what, one more month really, one month and a half, I think that's a reasonable ask. And then having to go away. So let's say April 1 or April 15, and then reduce the fine to 250. And then accept all other recommendations would be where I am, but respectfully. |
| 01:12:02.53 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:12:02.55 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. |
| 01:12:02.75 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:12:11.29 | Chris Zapata | My only concern is that these four reports cost him $20,000. So I'm concerned that staff is recommending we rescind the erosion control reports based on their observations on the site, and that staff perform periodic site visits following significant rain events. I feel as though this guy has been punished enough. So I would tend to follow staff's recommendation on the, Erosion control and. adopt the appellant's recommendation on the $250 per tree. Thank you. |
| 01:12:46.98 | Marco Lee Mandry | That's all I'm not from. |
| 01:12:47.99 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:12:48.01 | Marco Lee Mandry | you |
| 01:12:48.09 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:12:48.14 | Marco Lee Mandry | Thank you. |
| 01:12:48.65 | Jill Hoffman | So I think he probably would have had to have this erosion reports anyway, if you were going to have, even if he got permission to remove the canopy in the way that he did. And it's quite possible that he might have gotten that permission had he gone through appropriately the process. But he still would have had to have those reports. And the issue of the fine goes to you knowingly went forward and trimmed. you know, only $2,000 per tree is really close or at what he would have had to pay anyway for his permit. And so there has to be some sort of you know you don't pay you know the same the permit fee that you would have paid had you gone through the process the fine is to address the fact that you went forward and cut the trees without without. you know, going through the process when you know that you needed to have a permit. So that's my That's my issue with the fine. The fine is a fine. The fine is because you violated the process. And I understand that all these other costs have flowed from that. you know, I, I'm sorry for that. Like, I understand your frustration that, that, other things have flowed from you trying to trim your trees. But on the other hand, that's why we as a city and we as a policy want people to follow the rules and why you need to have notice and why your neighbors need to have a notice. And your neighbors shouldn't drive down the street and see this kind of drastic cutting of the trees and the potential impacts without it having gone going through planning. So, you know, I think that also addresses concerns of other people in Sausalito who are concerned with illegal tree removals that may, have occurred in the past and that they're concerned about and that we're serious about getting permits and you have to have permits or you're going to be fined. So that's sort of my. |
| 01:14:48.88 | Steven Woodside | That's something for blasting. |
| 01:14:50.03 | Melissa Blaustein | I just would like to see us come to consensus on this. So I'm willing to work with all of the council members to get to a place where we feel comfortable with the fine. So I'm open to. So we're stationed about, I mean, my feeling is I really respect council member Hoffman's comments about that. It is a fine. So, and, |
| 01:15:00.64 | Chris Zapata | I'm sorry. |
| 01:15:00.71 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:15:00.73 | Chris Zapata | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:15:05.59 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 01:15:05.71 | Unknown | you |
| 01:15:05.74 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 01:15:05.77 | Unknown | you |
| 01:15:06.21 | Melissa Blaustein | I agree. |
| 01:15:06.97 | Chris Zapata | but he did pay $4,000 to bring this to us. And so for me, that's... that's a penalty in and of itself. So I'll make a motion and see if I get a second that we uphold the administrative citation for the illegal alteration of 10 protected heritage bay laurel trees without a city issued permit, that we amend the Planning Commission ruling mandating a $1,000 fine per tree and reduce that to $250 per tree. that we follow. Staff's recommendation to rescind the biweekly erosion control reports required by the Planning Commission and instead instruct staff to perform periodic site visits following significant rain events to determine if additional remedial actions are required by the appellant. |
| 01:15:54.36 | Babette McDougall | She wants to make a friendly amendment. |
| 01:15:57.18 | Unknown | I would like to, yes, I can support that if you would entertain the additional month of the |
| 01:16:02.37 | Chris Zapata | We want to reach consensus. Absolutely. I just was making a stab. Thank you. Until when? |
| 01:16:02.46 | Unknown | Thank you. THE FAMILY. |
| 01:16:07.25 | Chris Zapata | Until April 15th. April 15th that you just suggested. I kept your friendly amendment. All right. |
| 01:16:08.45 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:16:10.12 | Jill Hoffman | that you'd suggest. I think you'll have one as well. Yeah. Yes. I mean, OK, so my friendly memory is to... |
| 01:16:13.09 | Chris Zapata | Yes. |
| 01:16:17.21 | Jill Hoffman | go up to the 500 per tree. Fine. Everything else, I agree. |
| 01:16:23.82 | Unknown | I just want to be clear, the only reason that I'm not supporting the 500 per tree is because we had a technical issue and it's a balance of that, even though it is his responsibility to go and get the permit, I want to acknowledge that. |
| 01:16:34.03 | Chris Zapata | you So does anyone want to second my motion as amended? |
| 01:16:38.52 | Melissa Blaustein | I will second the motion as amended. Is that with the $250 or the $500? |
| 01:16:42.01 | Chris Zapata | That's with the amendment proposed by Councilmember Kelman. With respect and understanding, I decline the amendment proposed by Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 01:16:42.30 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:16:54.87 | Steven Woodside | So that's the seconded motion, $250 with all those other stipulations, including the biweekly until April 15th. And |
| 01:17:06.53 | Sergio Rudin | Council, if I may interject here, you do have to make a decision in writing on this particular item, and there is a draft resolution in your packet. That draft resolution in Section 2 sets a fine of $500 per tree for a total amount of $5,000. |
| 01:17:07.22 | Steven Woodside | It's fun. |
| 01:17:22.65 | Sergio Rudin | and suggests per the staff recommendation that staff be directed to perform periodic site visits following the significant rate events and collaborate with DPW to determine if a soil report is needed. and to potentially mitigate further erosion damage to the property and public right of way. So with respect to the proposed motion, I think the intent would then be to adopt the proposed resolution with changes to Section 2 to reduce the fine amount to $250 per tree. And to change section three to direct staff perform periodic site visits through April 15th. |
| 01:18:00.60 | Steven Woodside | you city of Cheney. Thank you. |
| 01:18:01.80 | Chris Zapata | THAT. |
| 01:18:01.86 | Steven Woodside | Bye. |
| 01:18:02.81 | Chris Zapata | Yes, I thought that was the motion I made since I, anyway, that was my intended motion. Thank you, City of Congress. |
| 01:18:07.75 | Unknown | I'm sorry, but Vice Mayor, did he include my friendly amendment? Yes, he did. Through April 15th. Okay, he said the site visits, but that's not what I was intending. It was the biweekly erosion control reports. |
| 01:18:10.15 | Chris Zapata | Yes, I did. |
| 01:18:19.08 | Steven Woodside | you get that city attorney the bi-weekly erosion control reports continue until april 15th and then the periodic site visits after that Did you get that city attorney? |
| 01:18:29.03 | Sergio Rudin | I did, yes. And that is also the movements motion, yes? |
| 01:18:34.30 | Chris Zapata | Yes. |
| 01:18:36.10 | Steven Woodside | Okay. All in favor of that motion. |
| 01:18:39.14 | Chris Zapata | Bye. |
| 01:18:40.19 | Steven Woodside | post. |
| 01:18:40.90 | Chris Zapata | No. |
| 01:18:41.00 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Thank you. PB, David Ensign, A motion passes for to one and that public hearing is closed, and we will move on to our business items. PB, David Ensign, The oh and one housekeeping note I received a note from our city attorney that because the matter does need to be heard the item that was pulled off consent calendar item. 3B will be heard as item 5B immediately after this item 5A. So we will hear that tonight, but just so you can plan, if you wish to make public comment on 5B, it will occur after 5A. We're now moving on with item 5A, and I need to just announce that I take matters of conflict of interest seriously. I have hired a FPPC expert legal counsel and been advised that I do not have a conflict of interest under section 871. |
| 01:19:26.95 | Unknown | Hearing. |
| 01:19:34.24 | Unknown | on your mic. |
| 01:19:35.56 | Steven Woodside | I'm going to hear you. uh, I take matters of conflict of interest seriously. I've hired an FPPC expert legal counsel. Cass, I've been a- |
| 01:19:45.46 | Chris Zapata | Cass and Brandon. |
| 01:19:47.54 | Steven Woodside | and been advised that I do not have a conflict of interest under section 87103B because of the clear evidence that my property is not impacted by this business improvement district. Also any effects from the business improvement district will be the same on other residential properties. So come within the public generally rule. We'll now move on with 5A. |
| 01:20:09.57 | Jill Hoffman | Sorry, pardon me, Mayor, but I have a follow-up for that, a clarification for our city attorney. |
| 01:20:15.28 | Steven Woodside | Here's a question for the city attorney from Council Member Hoffman. |
| 01:20:18.89 | Sergio Rudin | just, |
| 01:20:20.22 | Jill Hoffman | City Attorney, notwithstanding the comment made by the mayor, my understanding is the 500-foot rule under the ethics rules is a presumption of materiality that can only be rebutted by written advice from the FPPC, finding that the decision will have no measurable impact on the value of the official's property. at the end. Am I correct that you do not have a ruling from the FPPC? |
| 01:20:45.45 | Sergio Rudin | So let me address that. So no, there's not a requirement that you get a written opinion letter from the FPPC. yes, there is a rebuttable presumption and you need to have clear and convincing evidence that it's not going to have, um, a material impact on the value or of your property, but ultimately the decision to recuse on a business item is made individually by each individual council member. So if the mayor has consulted outside legal counsel on this, you know, ultimately this is his determination to make. |
| 01:21:21.78 | Steven Woodside | Thank you item 5A is endorsed the draft management district plan associated with the proposed downtown. Socelito property business improvement district provide feedback on the city's commitment to vote in support of the district during the district petition process. And authorize the city manager to begin the district petition process to gauge if there is sufficient support for the district formation in order to meet the requirements to engage in a formal proposition 218 ballot process. Director Phipps. |
| 01:21:50.93 | Unknown | Hello again, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, members of the public and staff. Still happy to be here. Now to introduce Item 5A, which is revisiting of the proposed Property Business Improvement District. And thank you, Mayor, for reading the very long agenda title. This was last reviewed by the Council in December of last year. So at that meeting, City Council endorsed the proposed Downtown Sausalito Property Business Improvement District PBID boundary and endorsed the proposed |
| 01:22:17.23 | Chris Zapata | Hold on, we have the wrong presentation up online. |
| 01:22:20.29 | Unknown | I don't have a presentation for just the intro. However, Marco will color his presentation with a slide deck. |
| 01:22:30.58 | Unknown | We have a great day. |
| 01:22:30.65 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:22:30.67 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:22:32.14 | Unknown | Okay, but I appreciate appreciate Vice Mayor ensuring that I have slides as needed. So Council endorsed the downtown Sausalito property business improvement district boundary and endorsed the proposed budget and financial commitment. with direction from staff, or excuse me, with direction to staff, including that staff bring the management district plan back to city council before it is finalized. That is the primary reason we're here this evening for city council to review and provide feedback in connection with this draft plan, which is the primary document that provides the framework for how the PBID will function once it's formed and contains details on district elements, including the district boundaries, the budget, the benefit zones, the improvements and activities the PBID will undertake, among others, which Marco will detail during his presentation with slides. Additional council feedback at the December meeting included direction to the consultant to provide greater specificity associated with the term demand creation, which has been included in the MDP before you this evening. and that council will review the bylaws that underlie Pbid management, which are also contained in the MDP. Additional council direction was provided in relation to the potential future petition and balloting process related to an explanation of the city's financial contribution. And staff's ready to carry out that direction if council endorses the MDP and we initiate the petition drive. In addition to reviewing and providing feedback on the draft MDP staff is requesting city council provide feedback on the city's voting in support of the district during the district petition process, as well as authorization of the city manager to initiate the petition drive and sign the city's petition on behalf of the city. To summarize, staff are seeking council feedback on three things. One, the management district plan and any attitudes towards the plan as presented. Two, the city's vote of support for the district as part of the petition process. And number three, authorizing the city manager to begin the district petition process and to sign the petition on behalf of the city. staff's recommendation to council this evening is that council review the draft management district plan provide feedback on city's potential vote and on behalf of the city. Staff's recommendation to council this evening is that council review the draft management district plan, provide feedback on city's potential vote in support of the district and authorize the city manager To vote on behalf of the city during the petition process with the city exercising up to 40% of the city's total voting power so to complement this item, as mentioned, we're joined by cast green and active Member and representative of the P bids during committee. and stakeholder within the proposed district as owner of the In Above Tide, as well as Marco Lee Mandry, president of New City America Inc. and district formation expert. I'll also note a number of the proposed district steering committee members are in attendance this evening. Hello, everyone. With that, I'll give Marco the floor, and I will be available to answer any questions from council. Happy to answer any questions now as well. |
| 01:25:34.89 | Steven Woodside | I'm sorry. |
| 01:25:34.96 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. |
| 01:25:34.99 | Steven Woodside | Two hands raised first by Smitter and then Council Member Kellman. |
| 01:25:38.77 | Chris Zapata | Director Phipps, I apologize, you caught me flat footed. I wasn't able to. type. what it was you were saying your three requests of council art. You were reading from something. Is that something we have in front of us? |
| 01:25:53.08 | Unknown | It should be summarized on the staff report. However, I'm happy to... |
| 01:25:57.22 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. |
| 01:25:57.23 | Steven Woodside | Is it in the recommended action? |
| 01:25:57.64 | Unknown | Thank you. It should be in the recommended action. I had just numbered them for ease of comprehension on the dais. I'm happy to repeat, Vice Mayor. |
| 01:26:05.72 | Chris Zapata | On the diet. |
| 01:26:08.54 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:26:08.56 | Chris Zapata | If it is the recommended action just with three bullet points, I'm good. Yeah. |
| 01:26:12.07 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 01:26:12.49 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. |
| 01:26:12.94 | Steven Woodside | you You need me to read back the recommended action to verify that that is the sum total of the request from staff. |
| 01:26:18.58 | Unknown | If counsel so desires. |
| 01:26:19.98 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. The recommended action is that staff recommends the city council review the draft management district plan associated with the proposed downtown Sausalito property business improvement district. provide feedback of the city's support of the petition process and authorize the city manager to begin the assessment district petition process and sign the petition on behalf of the city exercising up to 40% of the city's total voting power. Perfect. That's it. OK. Councilmember Kelman. |
| 01:26:47.93 | Unknown | Thank you, Mayor. Director Phipps, who tonight will have a map for us to show the district boundary? Is that attachment four and five? So can we get that up on the screen or do we not have that? |
| 01:27:00.48 | Unknown | So attachment four and five are, I believe, the boundaries shown previously to counsel. |
| 01:27:06.64 | Sophia Collier | Sure. |
| 01:27:06.89 | Unknown | Thank you. Um, The primary attachment that Council ought to be reviewing this evening is the Management District Plan, which is attachment number one, which contains a number of district boundaries including the totality of the district as well as boundary maps for benefits on one and two. And Marco will be providing that as a slide during his presentation. |
| 01:27:27.11 | Unknown | So let me ask you director Phipps, I'm looking at attachment. Let's call it four, it could be five. Does the proposed district map include city property that are designated as parks? |
| 01:27:41.52 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 01:27:41.56 | Unknown | Yes. Can you outline those for us? |
| 01:27:44.22 | Unknown | Three Parks Gabrielson, Ye Talk Chi, And the name is escaping me at the moment. Vinya Dhammar. Thank you. |
| 01:27:51.93 | Unknown | Pina Domer. You're welcome. And approximately how much of the total property do those three parks contribute to the overall? |
| 01:28:02.50 | Unknown | Off the top of my head, I'm not aware of the specific percentage, but those properties do not have any improvements on them. They are assessed as part of benefit zone two. Their relative assessment to the total should be small. |
| 01:28:17.09 | Unknown | Okay. Maybe while others are speaking, we could see how small, because my understanding is that the 50% requested from the business owners of the contribution of the city is premised on the idea that the city has 50% of the property in the map. |
| 01:28:34.69 | Unknown | It's premised, and I'm happy, or I defer to Marco to give his expertise on this, but I believe it's premised on the fact that the city will receive special benefit equal to the amount that they are assessed, as opposed to a size-related statement. |
| 01:28:52.23 | Unknown | Okay, so then my follow-on question would be then how, does one come up with a percentage number of contributions? |
| 01:28:58.96 | Unknown | We have an engineer who is doing the objective analysis to ensure that the general benefit and special benefits provided to the parcels within the district are appropriate. And again, that is an expert process that I would defer to Marco and his engineers consultant on. |
| 01:29:18.50 | Unknown | Okay, and did you just say that the city would be entitled to a special benefit? |
| 01:29:23.31 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 01:29:23.85 | Unknown | Okay, and what is a special benefit? |
| 01:29:27.44 | Sergio Rudin | So I can help assist on that one. So under Prop 218, you're not allowed to impose assessments on real property unless they receive a special benefit commensurate to the assessment. |
| 01:29:28.02 | Steven Woodside | I- |
| 01:29:39.22 | Sergio Rudin | So you're not allowed to impose property assessments on property for general benefits like, say, fixing streets or other services the city normally provides, you know, regardless of taxation. So. |
| 01:29:53.30 | Unknown | What's a special benefit, Sergio? |
| 01:29:55.37 | Sergio Rudin | So that would be something over and above what the city would typically provide for those parcels. |
| 01:30:03.00 | Unknown | But these are parks, so why would a park need marketing? It's not a business. So I'm just trying to apples it over here. |
| 01:30:12.97 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, and I think that's a really good question to be asking the engineer. But my understanding is that the city will receive some additional maintenance services, potentially additional trash cleanup, potentially some beautification projects. So I don't know the exact scope because we do not have the engineers report, which would normally detail exactly what the benefits are that would be received and would explain how the assessments are calculated. |
| 01:30:39.40 | Unknown | So to be clear, tonight, we don't have specific information as to the benefits that are being asserted as part of this program. Is that correct? |
| 01:30:52.66 | Unknown | We have some of the quantitative analysis completed, but there is generally an engineer's report that's provided to accompany a management district plan. This management district plan is in draft form. So as requested, we brought it back to council. The engineer's report is an in-progress document. |
| 01:31:10.10 | Unknown | Okay, and the engineer is the only one that can respond to what the special benefit would be to the city-owned property? |
| 01:31:15.33 | Unknown | I'm not sure that they're the only one who can respond, but they're most likely the most appropriate person to respond. And again, Marco may be able to speak to that as well. |
| 01:31:23.43 | Unknown | Yeah, thank you. I'm just trying to understand what the program is, so thanks very much. Thanks, Mayor. |
| 01:31:31.29 | Unknown | With that, I was finished with my introduction of the item, so I'm happy to turn it over to Marco Lee Mandry for his more detailed presentation on the item. Marco, the floor is yours. |
| 01:31:39.63 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:31:50.14 | Cass Green | Hi, folks. Karen Hollweg, I just wanted to introduce it the issue again that we've the Council requested that he he accuses as its top priority, I had some introductory slides but the emphasis of time I don't want to bring them up and so. We urge you to move forward and to accept the staff's recommendations. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Mark. |
| 01:32:25.21 | Marco Lee Mandry | Thank you. Mark LaMandri, New City America. I'm the consultant working on this. Councilwoman, let me see if I have one on the slides. Yeah, let's go to the next slide. It's just the cover of next slide. So I wanted to show you the budget and that budget. I'm sorry, can you guys see what page that is? I can't see it. Thank you. because it's taken out of the management district plan. And you'll notice that on the management district plan, we talk about the draft. So that looks like that's page four. I'm not sure if you have the entire management district plan within your packet. |
| 01:33:04.54 | Unknown | We have it. Thank you. |
| 01:33:05.35 | Marco Lee Mandry | Thank you. Okay, so you'll see on page four, we have demand creation, 132,000, which is 55%, civil sidewalks, which the council wanted to ensure that that included beautification and maintenance. And that was included or emphasized as compared to the proposal that was given to you in December. Administration, management, 25%, conting percent if you go to the next page if you would uh on the slide yes so i wanted i highlighted here what the difference was between what the council council had noticed and what i had inserted into the plan for demand creation we have have now public art displays, public space design and improvements, beautification programs. And those I believe as someone who forms public spaces and has done seven in the main district that we manage, we know that we cannot have parks or public spaces unless they're maintained and managed. The city can do basic things, but what we want to do is enhance those public spaces. So they become great gathering places. Thank you. spaces unless they're maintained and managed. The city can do basic things, but what we want to do is enhance those public spaces so they become great gathering places. So we did add the public art, public space design and improvements and beautification programs in demand creation. We also put it in the civil sidewalks and you'll see that that was all highlighted. Maintenance and beautification, the district sidewalks, maintenance of existing and new public spaces public space design and improvements beautification programs and then parking and transportation management one is much more of a design the demand creation is bringing people to the area the civil sidewalks is the maintenance of those public and they're two different functions so i wanted to make sure that the council knows that we did bring those things back this is not a huge district there's not a lot of space in terms of large public parks but there are some really great little boutique parks and when it gets to the question of what is the special bench and benefit as compared to the general benefit as sergio had mentioned in his analysis of Prop 218, if you look at what's going on today, all up and down the proposed area, including the parks and sidewalks, that is a general benefit. The property owners clearly want more. The businesses clearly want more than was currently existing within the district. That has to be funded through some mechanism. The best way to fund it, at least in the state of California, which is allowable under the state constitution is your property assessment districts. So those general benefits within the city will stay and be maintained unless they're dropped citywide, which does happen at times during recessions. but we're assuming that everything will be maintained the same in terms of trash emptying, I don't think the city does regular sidewalk sweeping and gutter sweeping. They might do street sweeping, which is tied to the storm drain. But these services that are being proposed in ongoing pressure washing of the sidewalks are not current city benefits. And that would also include the parks. So if someone happened to go to a park, they happened to have ice cream, they spilled the ice cream in the summer and it melted all over the place, you wouldn't have to look at it for a week. It would be taken care of within a day or two. So those are the special benefits that would be provided. There was also a discussion about the map. Let's go to the next page if we would. I think the maps, you know, the next one. Okay, here's the map as it now stands. And this is the proposed district. I think we have one more map too, if you can go one more. The blue is the city's contribution and then the, uh, parcels that are listed without any color are the private property owner contributions. The city does own Old City Hall, which is on Brightview. And so there is a small portion, about $12,000, if I'm not mistaken, in the private property section that is owned by the city. And the balance of the assessments would be levied on those parking lots and some of those parks. And it would also include the Spinnaker, which is part of the overall city ownership of that property. When we spoke in December, I said the committee was pretty adamant that they wanted to make sure that the city had a major part of this. So they wanted to match the $120,000 that they were putting in with $120,000 from the city. So the assessments on each of those districts are different because there's a lot more buildings on Brightview as you go down to, as you get, and basically at the Trident And by SCOMA's. So the only way to equalize it, as was requested by the steering committee, is to create different methodologies. There's a lot more building square footage than in benefit zone one, which is the private property, as compared to benefit zone two, and there's a lot more lot size. So the assessment shifted from one of the three factors to another. The three factors that are used right now are linear frontage, lot size, and building square footage, because we can't use assessed valuation. So in order to equalize the private property versus the city, the we had to create two assessment methodologies, the services that would be provided on bright view. up and down in the private property area would be similar to the ones that are provided from the city. So if there's pressure washing of the sidewalk being done on the west side of the street, it would also be done on the east side of the street and include the sidewalks on the city properties. If trash needed to be emptied more than once a day because of a large event, then that's where the maintenance would come in and do that special benefit. They would not take over the regular trash emptying, but they would do supplemental. The whole point of the district is to create more activity. More activity takes the form of more people coming to the area. More people are going to create more trash and they're going to create more ice cream on sidewalks and other things that they might do while they're enjoying downtown Sausalito. So that's what we try. This is not a huge budget. This is a pretty modest budget, but we think that it would. It's a budget that's strong enough to make an impact and increase the value of all the properties, including the city properties within the downtown boundaries. Can you go to the next slide too? Marco. Marco. |
| 01:39:36.06 | Chris Zapata | Marco. |
| 01:39:36.85 | Marco Lee Mandry | you |
| 01:39:36.87 | Chris Zapata | I think you mean Bridgeway. |
| 01:39:36.90 | Marco Lee Mandry | Yeah. Pardon me? Bridgeway. Bridge. What am I saying? Thank you. Brian, it's been a really, really long day. I can just tell you that I had a pretty intense board meeting this morning at 830 in San Diego. So I apologize for that. Thank you, Chris. This is the schedule for what we anticipate being the timeline on the district. And I'll read off of my sheet because, again, it's a little difficult for me to read there. So what is being presented to the city council right now upon your request is that you would look at the management district plan prior to the approval of it. Normally the state, the process is if a city manager or a group of property owners hire someone like my company to do something, we come up with a management district plan. We present to the city manager and the city attorney. They review it to make sure it's compliant. Then we get an engineer's report. They review the engineer's report to make sure it's compliant with Proposition 218. And then petitions are circulated based upon a review by the city attorney to make sure they believe that the petitions are valid. What we're hoping to do is initiate a petition drive And normally it's done just as part of the process of the formation. It's not normally done going to a city council, but I know the city council is extremely cognizant of it because of the contribution the city will be making to this overall district. So what we're looking at today is saying that we would move forward if the council decides that they want to proceed on this basis. In March, we would have approval of the plan by the city attorney and the city manager. We would mail out petitions to all the property owners, which we wouldn't have, we just email it to the city. We wouldn't have to mail it to the city. That would be done in March. um the city council action and instructing the city manager to sign a petition vote in the mail belly mail balloting process ideally would be done this evening so that could be part of the package that we bring back to you once the petitions are completed we're assuming that we'll hit the 50 threshold on the petitions which means that out of a budget of 241 000 we'd have to get approximately $121,000 to sign a petition and then submit that to you. And that's by dollar amount. which means that out of a budget of $241,000, we'd have to get approximately $121,000 to sign a petition and then submit that to you. And that's by dollar amount, not by individual property owners. And that's consistent with the state constitution. So it would bring them back and submit those two in April. Council then adopts resolution of intention. expressing its intention to form the downtown Sausalito Property Business Improvement District. That would happen probably in May. The first action that the city council would really take, and normally the procedure is the resolution of intent. You would then authorize the city manager to mail out all the ballots to property owners. They have a minimum of 45 days to return those ballots. This is not a general election. It's completely controlled through the process of the government code. It has to be with the property owners, at least 45 days. That's a minimal amount of time that the property owners have to have the ballots. When they receive the ballots, they have the option of signing yes or no and signing it. If they don't. Mark yes or no, the ballot doesn't count. If they mark yes or no and they don't sign it, it doesn't count. So we have to make sure that the instructions are very clear. We're assuming that the public hearing would be held sometime either in late May or June. A lot of this depends on how long it takes us to get the petition signed and approved by the not only the property owners, but also by the city council. So the actions that would be coming forward to the city, if we can move forward as of this date. would be we would launch the petition drive, bring it back to the city manager. City manager, they would calculate the weight of those petitions. If the city council authorizes the city manager to also sign a petition not to exceed what the legal requirement is, that no property owner can pay more than 40% within a district under the property business improvement district law. So we just think that the city would have to use its authority and its weight to get us over the 50% threshold. The petition does not create the district, the balloting creates the district, the petition is just a trigger for the balloting. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD |
| 01:44:01.25 | Unknown | I'm sorry, Marco. There's a lot of information coming at us. So the city will need to use its authority and weight. |
| 01:44:04.03 | Marco Lee Mandry | Sorry. |
| 01:44:07.68 | Unknown | Can you unpack that? I didn't, I don't understand what's happening there. |
| 01:44:10.70 | Marco Lee Mandry | So you have $120,000 in assessments. The private property owners have $120,000 in assessments. If we don't get 100% of the private property owners to sign a petition, then we might be at 45%, 46%, 47%. And then the whole process stops because the city is not weighing in. So what we want the city to do is weigh in to fill that gap from whatever we get signed in the private properties and fill the gap to get to the 50% threshold, which is a requirement of the legislation. |
| 01:44:42.34 | Unknown | but the city only gets 50%. Involvement so how does the city fill the gap? What does that mean? |
| 01:44:48.74 | Marco Lee Mandry | I'm sorry. So let's let me try to restate it. If we get to 40 percent, 44 percent, we have a six percent gap. Right. Then we would ask the city manager to sign a petition filling that four percent, six percent gap, which would then put us over the 50 percent threshold. And keeping in mind, the petition is just a symbolic act that's required in this, like a landscaping and lighting act, which is also a property assessment district, does not have a petition requirement. The PBID law has one of the highest petition requirements in the state. Once we reach that threshold, then it would be up to the council to determine whether or not they want to mail out the ballots. I hope that clarifies things a little bit. I hope I impact it OK. |
| 01:45:33.32 | Jill Hoffman | Sorry, I have a follow-up on that. And so are you asking us tonight to authorize the city manager to do that? |
| 01:45:40.10 | Marco Lee Mandry | That's one of the three points, if I'm not mistaken. I don't have those three points in your staff report in front of me. But if I'm not mistaken, those are the odds. |
| 01:45:47.21 | Jill Hoffman | The alternate decision would be that we don't authorize that. And if we don't reach 50% by the businesses who are going to be assessed, then we move forward. No, it's not. |
| 01:45:56.49 | Marco Lee Mandry | We're done. Go forward. No, it's over. |
| 01:45:59.21 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 01:46:02.23 | Marco Lee Mandry | Randy, do you want to Thank you. |
| 01:46:04.61 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE Thank you, Marco. I'll just reiterate to counsel that the staff recommendation is that city council contribute a not to exceed amount of 40%. of the city's voting power in support of the district during the petition process, with no recommendation at this point for the city to contribute any of its voting power during the balloting process. |
| 01:46:27.88 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, I don't, sorry, I'm gonna have to have a follow up on that one. |
| 01:46:31.03 | Steven Woodside | Go ahead. |
| 01:46:32.35 | Jill Hoffman | I don't really, Director Phipps, if you can rejoin us. Okay, so- |
| 01:46:39.03 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:46:42.24 | Jill Hoffman | So there are different avenues we can go down. One is that We don't vote at all, and we let the property owners decide what they want to do. And if we leave it at that, then the property owners not the city, but the property owners decided what they didn't want to do because the district has been arbitrarily drawn To boost the city's percentage overall, one entity, the city, has 50%, as opposed to all the other property owners who have various weighted votes because of the size of their properties. Have I got that right? |
| 01:47:24.41 | Unknown | I would respectfully push back against the statement that the boundaries of the district have been arbitrarily drawn. |
| 01:47:31.61 | Jill Hoffman | They've been, okay, not arbitrarily drawn. They've been intentionally drawn to boost the city's contribution to 50%. |
| 01:47:38.04 | Unknown | I would also push back against that, respectively, and say that the assessment formula is what provides the basis for the assessment value. And that assessment is linked with a special benefit that will accrue to those parcels in the future. |
| 01:47:54.70 | Jill Hoffman | Thanks. OK, so then let me ask you a specific question for Marco behind you. Because, Marco, we went through this at the last meeting. When we started this process, the city was at about 20%, right? |
| 01:48:07.29 | Marco Lee Mandry | 20%. |
| 01:48:08.33 | Jill Hoffman | of the overall district. |
| 01:48:10.65 | Marco Lee Mandry | No, I think when it was presented, we presented the fact that it was going to be 50%. |
| 01:48:15.40 | Jill Hoffman | When you presented at the last meeting, I'm talking about before that, when the steering committee met, |
| 01:48:17.11 | Marco Lee Mandry | Right. |
| 01:48:20.72 | Jill Hoffman | when you met with people, when you guys were talking about what you wanted to do, I agree that when it got to the city council level, we were at 50%. |
| 01:48:28.69 | Marco Lee Mandry | And I didn't if just to answer your question, I didn't make up that figure. This is something that came from the steering committee, and we discussed it over three different meetings prior to the meeting on December 19th. |
| 01:48:40.26 | Jill Hoffman | At some point, you will agree there was a decision by the steering committee that the city should be at 50 percent. |
| 01:48:46.23 | Marco Lee Mandry | Yes, that's true. |
| 01:48:47.30 | Jill Hoffman | Well, you also agree that the steering committee or whoever could have decided we don't want to have the city at 50%. We want to have it more industry standard, which is I understand it from our December 19th meeting. was between 15 and 25%. |
| 01:49:01.02 | Marco Lee Mandry | I said that I have I managed some districts that have 25 percent. There's also one other. It's a small district where the city of the L.A. is about 38 percent. But I said no one I've ever worked with was 50 percent. |
| 01:49:14.48 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. So at some point, there was a decision made to come up with a formula that gets the city to 50%. You'll agree with that. |
| 01:49:19.85 | Marco Lee Mandry | Correct. That's correct. |
| 01:49:21.82 | Jill Hoffman | okay thanks um and so my question i i think back to my question to director phipps is was um since the city has whatever you want to call it, intentional 50% weight in this thing that, you know, we could decide that the property owners should be able to decide whether or not they want to go forward with the district. If we don't have 50% of the property owners, then we're not going to go forward. |
| 01:49:55.14 | Marco Lee Mandry | On the petition phase, I think what was stated by Director Phipps previously is that the city could decide that it's going to weigh in on the petition because the threshold's so high. The city can also determine that they're not going to submit a ballot. That's up to the city council. So you can do that. It's the ballot that creates the district, not the petition. But the threshold is so high, it's difficult for us to assume that 100% of the property owners within the commercial area are going to sign. |
| 01:50:15.00 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:50:15.03 | Jill Hoffman | I understand. |
| 01:50:24.45 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, so you understand my point, though. If, if. property owners don't support the thing and, you know, should the city be engaged in forcing an assessment against property owners that don't support it or just don't care because they don't turn the ballot in. |
| 01:50:37.32 | Marco Lee Mandry | they I disagree that the city would be forcing it. If you don't participate in the balloting, you're not a player. |
| 01:50:45.69 | Jill Hoffman | Well, they might vote no. |
| 01:50:47.18 | Marco Lee Mandry | the city |
| 01:50:47.23 | Jill Hoffman | Right. No, a property owner, they might vote no, |
| 01:50:50.33 | Marco Lee Mandry | You're right. And then they would decide. |
| 01:50:52.04 | Jill Hoffman | And then, but we also have at least one large property that's neutral. |
| 01:50:56.73 | Marco Lee Mandry | We'll see what happens. |
| 01:50:56.76 | Jill Hoffman | I'm sorry. I'm looking at the map. All I can know is what I've been presented |
| 01:51:02.08 | Marco Lee Mandry | Okay, and I'm just telling you that I speak to these property owners quite a bit. I know that for many of them, the 50% threshold or the contribution by 50% is, in their minds, a condition of moving forward. |
| 01:51:18.13 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. THANK YOU. |
| 01:51:19.06 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:51:19.07 | Marco Lee Mandry | Sure. |
| 01:51:19.29 | Steven Woodside | Can I ask, is there a more presentation or are we now in the Q&A portion of this? |
| 01:51:24.51 | Marco Lee Mandry | No, I just wanted to do an overview to show that we did include a lot of those concerns. |
| 01:51:29.30 | Steven Woodside | Are we now in Q&A? Is that what I understand? |
| 01:51:31.95 | Marco Lee Mandry | whatever you, |
| 01:51:33.23 | Steven Woodside | Okay, there's no more staff presentation or? |
| 01:51:35.09 | Marco Lee Mandry | No, I don't believe so. |
| 01:51:37.09 | Steven Woodside | Okay, so we are in Q&A for the staff still. So I guess it's to Director Pips, I just want to reiterate one question for you, sir. On December 8, 19th, I think we passed a resolution from city council that endorsed the proposed district boundary, endorsed the budget, which reflected the 50-50 split that you were talking about. and directed the city manager to bring back the management plan to the city council before it proceeds. So do I understand correctly, that's what we're doing here is looking at the management plan? of course, still, as we always do, as the city council retaining the latitude to change our previous unanimous vote, but but that the operating thing you want feedback on is the management plan? |
| 01:52:25.91 | Unknown | Correct. With that in mind, future decisions of counsel as related to the petition process, I believe, are inextricably tied to counsel's endorsement of the management district plan as presented. So, for example, if counsel were to endorse the management district plan, but not engage in lending its support during the petition process, it would be akin to the council not endorsing the management district plan. And this formation process is likely to stop. |
| 01:52:59.73 | Steven Woodside | So again, the thought is that under the requirements, there's one district. You have to get 50% plus one total participation from all property owners inside the district. half the district is the city. So if the city doesn't vote, unless every single property owner both votes and votes unanimously in the affirmative, the district cannot be formed. |
| 01:53:20.69 | Unknown | Yeah. Absolutely. So, so, so, Thank you. |
| 01:53:22.93 | Steven Woodside | If I could just, I just needed the yes confirmation. And so it just helps me clarify my own understanding of the way the voting works. an alternate situation be if you wanted to say, you know, how do we decide who president, not president, unfortunately, at the Electoral College, but usually 50% plus one decides things. So you say the people have decided 50% plus one. So to say the businesses have chosen to do something would be presumably 50% plus one of the businesses would be the voters. would be deciding. So if you got that from the businesses, if you've got half participation, that would be only 25% of the total district. So you would have to match that with 25% of the city's votes to get to the legal threshold of half the district voting the affirmative. |
| 01:54:09.51 | Unknown | Mayor, you are absolutely correct. |
| 01:54:11.64 | Steven Woodside | Thank you for helping me clarify that. Council Member Kellen. Thank you. |
| 01:54:15.23 | Unknown | Thank you. I see we have our director of public works here, but whomever on staff wants to handle this. There's some conversation about park and public space maintenance. And I'm just curious how we deal with that today downtown. |
| 01:54:31.87 | Steven Woodside | Dr. McGowan? |
| 01:54:32.73 | Unknown | presumably in the budget that we approved unanimously, we all put money towards those things. |
| 01:54:38.53 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:54:38.55 | Unknown | Thank you, Kevin. |
| 01:54:41.08 | Kevin McGowan | Kevin McGowan Public Works Director and yes, we do maintain our parks. There were some discussion there about whether we actually clean some of the sidewalks and we do do that as well. We have power washing and other things that happen in the parks as well. So we do maintain our park systems. |
| 01:55:04.28 | Chris Zapata | I want to say back in 2014, the city removed from its staff the arborist that was responsible for evaluating trees and such in the city's parks and throughout town. Has that arborist position been restored? |
| 01:55:18.61 | Kevin McGowan | No, it hasn't. We use a consultant. |
| 01:55:22.93 | Unknown | Dr. McGowan, a follow-up question. I think for the city manager, I can't seem to find it, but I feel like in one of the last two or three meetings, didn't we just hire a parking person who would be a part of the police department? And can you remind us of that contract? |
| 01:55:39.55 | Chris Zapata | Yes. Councilmember Kelman and Council you're asking me if we hired someone to replace Elliot Holt |
| 01:55:46.71 | Unknown | I'm asking if we hired a parking manager. |
| 01:55:48.65 | Chris Zapata | We did. |
| 01:55:50.42 | Unknown | And what was the budget for that, do you recall? |
| 01:55:53.43 | Chris Zapata | Um, Chief, can you? you help me out with that. So we hired a full-time person. We hired a full-time person. Okay. Fully loaded, I'd guess it's close to six figures. |
| 01:55:59.94 | Unknown | So we hired a full-time person. |
| 01:56:05.46 | Unknown | Okay, so... I just understand the duplication of efforts in the management plan, which were tasked with understanding tonight. So one of the things is parking and transportation management. How does that differ from the brand new hire we made of a full time employee. |
| 01:56:22.18 | Chris Zapata | May I ask, I have a hearing challenge. So when there are more than one person speaking, I cannot understand what one person is saying. So might I ask the audience, if you need to chat, that you please step outside to do that so that I can hear what's going on and understand. I would greatly appreciate your forbearance. |
| 01:56:41.74 | Marco Lee Mandry | Yes, Councilman Kellman, what we're thinking about is if you were to do a valet program. So, for example, as you get around the park and people could get the little hook area, the little dead end that's by in at the. Sorry, I'm going to forget things again, but Cass's Hotel, that would be a great valet place. What this allows for is just saying if you were during special events or things where people didn't want to walk 200 yards, you can actually do a valet program. That's why I put it in there. It doesn't assume. That's why it says may include but are not limited to. So I just wanted that option in there too. |
| 01:57:19.05 | Unknown | Got it. And thank you. Thank you, everybody, for. Participatory collective answering the the administrative costs who would be the who would receive those funds who's the administrator. |
| 01:57:29.98 | Marco Lee Mandry | So we have it at about $60,000 because that would include insurance if you have any office supplies, phones, and things like that. So no person is going to get $60,000. What normally happens when the districts are formed, you create a new nonprofit corporation, a 5.1c3. You have an interim board of directors. They issue RFPs for all that stuff. So if they said we're looking for an administrator, either a person or a company or something like that, it's not my company, then you would issue an RFP and say we have this much. What's your experience in doing that? Same could be done with maintenance. Same could be done with event planning, et cetera. |
| 01:58:07.63 | Unknown | Have you ever seen that subcontradot to the Chamber of Commerce? |
| 01:58:10.81 | Marco Lee Mandry | It could be if they responded to the RFP and they were the ones who had the best proposal. That's not up to me. It's up to that board of directors. |
| 01:58:19.23 | Unknown | Okay, thank you. Super helpful. And then the last question is around decision making the governance for how some of these things are decided. Let's say we wanted to plant new trees versus valet program. What is the governance structure of decisions? |
| 01:58:35.14 | Marco Lee Mandry | Normally, we run six districts, so we use the same model over and over again. So, for example, you have a demand creation, which is the largest part of this budget. You would have a demand creation committee. They would look at all the options. What do they want to do this year? Is it events? Do they want to do the lighting, complete it all up and down downtown? They would make that recommendation. Their advisory, they go to the board. Board is subject to the Brown Act, so it's got to post all of its action items, 72 hours in advance. And they'd make a recommendation say out of our first year budget this year, we'd like to spend X on this, please allow us to issue an RFP. And then we can see what the responses are. |
| 01:59:15.08 | Unknown | Is that a public process? |
| 01:59:16.99 | Marco Lee Mandry | It's a totally public process. |
| 01:59:18.57 | Unknown | Thank you so much. Sure. |
| 01:59:20.78 | Marco Lee Mandry | Spice Mayor. |
| 01:59:23.59 | Unknown | Thanks. |
| 01:59:23.64 | Chris Zapata | So the city is being asked to stand toe-to-toe with the business community and contribute monies to this PBI. What happens in six months or a year if the city says this PBID is trash? It's not operating the way that we anticipated. We're unhappy with the outcome. What recourse does the city have once the voters vote to form the improvement district? and if the city is unhappy, since the city is only a 50% property owner. |
| 02:00:05.74 | Marco Lee Mandry | So there's two answers. Once the district is formed, then that new entity must enter into a contract with the city and the city will lay out all the stipulations have to adhere to the Brown act. Your records have to be open, et cetera, open meetings, et cetera. Let's say that the group, for whatever reason, decided to violate that agreement with the city. That's grounds for termination of that, what's called the owner's association. The city can then go and appoint another owner's association to carry on and implement the special benefit services that are funded by the PBID. That's one option. The other option, let's say the property owner say, this thing is horrible. It never wasn't supposed to go this way. We don't like what's going on. In the legislation, there's a disestablishment process. And the disestablishment process is identical to the formation process, which means, and I would tell you that the easiest thing to do would be to have property owners sign a petition against an unpopular assessment district. You'd probably get all the petitions you needed in one week. And then you would submit that. And once you get the 50% threshold, then it would entail a balloting. And then the property owners can say, do I want to disestablish this district? Yes or no. |
| 02:01:19.94 | Steven Woodside | That's the powerpoint. |
| 02:01:20.68 | Chris Zapata | I was going to ask one follow-up and then you. um, If the city is a 40% voter, than in this process, then the city would only need to collect 10% Um, of business owner votes to dis establish the improvement district if the city was unhappy. |
| 02:01:44.81 | Marco Lee Mandry | The weight is only relevant in the formation process. The weight is not relevant in the management process. |
| 02:01:50.70 | Chris Zapata | So what weight does the city have as a 50% property owner in the Improvement District if the city is unhappy with the manner is one of those property owners who's unhappy with the manner in which the Thank you. PBID is operating. |
| 02:02:08.35 | Marco Lee Mandry | I'm sure that the city manager would appoint people if they came back to the city manager and just said these people are wacko and they're not spending money consistent with Proposition 218. They can make the report and then the city manager could bring it up to the city council and say, you have the option of triggering a disestablishment, changing the management corporation, or putting the assessments in abeyance for one year. The city has that authority. you have to reissue and tell the county on an annual basis that the property owners are to be reassessed annually. The maximum term to first go around is five years. After that, it's 10 years. But the city has that authority. You have to reissue and tell the county on an annual basis that the property owners are to be reassessed annually. quite a bit of authority in this process, but it's not as if the city has 40% of the votes on the board. City could have maybe two or something like that members, but I've never seen that happen, and I've done this quite a bit. Someone really has to be out to lunch to not do this properly within the first year or so. |
| 02:03:06.13 | Steven Woodside | I want to ask a follow-up question just because I think I hear where the vice mayor was going. I want to make sure I understood the mechanism myself. to do the disestablishment if the city had as it's currently constituted in the draft 50 of the parcels the city could with just an affirmative petition so it could sign a petition with 50 weight and get a property private property owner if let's say a 10 property owner then that's enough to begin the balloting process for in theory yes you're absolutely right that is a virtue of 50 50% is that 50% plus one could initiate that. So to. balloting process for it. In theory, yes. You're absolutely right. That is a virtue of 50% is that 50% plus one could initiate that. So if my... |
| 02:03:35.51 | Marco Lee Mandry | In theory, |
| 02:03:41.20 | Daniel Chodor | Yeah. |
| 02:03:41.44 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:03:46.40 | Steven Woodside | Tell me if this answer to the vice mayor's question is wrong. If the city council after a year thinks this is trash, then all it has to do is find one, one property owner in the district, Thank you. to sign a petition saying so to go with the city's petition, and that would initiate the disestablishment process. |
| 02:04:04.84 | Marco Lee Mandry | But you could also decide as a city council not to authorize the reassessment for the coming fiscal year. |
| 02:04:11.81 | Steven Woodside | That's a different tool, but I just wanted to get a yes, no answer. And you said yes. And then you added on, there's yet another tool, which is we simply don't do an assessment. |
| 02:04:13.23 | Marco Lee Mandry | Right. |
| 02:04:19.44 | Marco Lee Mandry | Yeah, there are multiple ways to unwind this. That's what my point is. So it's not five. |
| 02:04:24.97 | Steven Woodside | years commitment, like going to prison. It is a five-year potential experiment before it has to be reauthorized by the property owners. |
| 02:04:33.02 | Marco Lee Mandry | Thank you. |
| 02:04:33.07 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:04:33.19 | Marco Lee Mandry | right? |
| 02:04:33.44 | Steven Woodside | that they're going to be. |
| 02:04:33.60 | Marco Lee Mandry | It certainly is not a prison, but... I would say that I think that if you don't do it, you don't even try it, you'll never know whether or not it functions and it works in the way it was envisioned to work. So that's what that's what we're looking at, I think, this evening. And I'd like to just reiterate one more thing, Mr. Mayor, is that, again, the city can decide they're not going to cast a ballot in the balloting process. We're only asking at this point for the city to to get us over the 50% threshold. That's it. |
| 02:05:04.02 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:05:04.07 | Marco Lee Mandry | Councilmember Kelman and then Councilmember |
| 02:05:05.29 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:05:05.31 | Unknown | THANK YOU. |
| 02:05:05.51 | Steven Woodside | Okay. |
| 02:05:05.63 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:05:05.71 | Steven Woodside | blasting. |
| 02:05:05.73 | Unknown | Thank you. I'm gonna ask a question for Babette McDougall because I know she likes the group iteration ideation. It's okay, Marco, she's in front. So we heard from our director of public works that the majority of the civil, sidewalk improvements is already covered under our city's budget, which probably leaves mostly trees, which historically we have done a fantastic job of planting new trees and we want to do more of that. Can you help all of us reconcile some of the duplication that I'm hearing around budget that the council has already allocated for certain things. Are there ways that we might think about this? Because the mayor raises and the vice mayor raises good questions around how potentially tenuous this might be. Are we better off simply doing this? matching the $132,000 for demand creation removing most of these administrative costs and empowering our downtown to have more marketing efforts. Is that since a lot of the civil stuff is already covered by the city budget? and it sounds like there's this tenuous one vote can tank it kind of thing. Can you help us think that through a little bit? |
| 02:06:18.69 | Marco Lee Mandry | So, I know there's been, and I know Carolyn very well and beautiful Sausalito. I know that they're always looking for opportunities, whether it's hanging plants on the light poles, which don't exist right now, and also planting flowers and seasonal, particularly around the parks. That's not being done right now. So that's what you mean by special benefits and enhancements. If someone comes here and maybe there's better signage that's needed on the parking lots that direct people to go one way or the other, those are things that normally a city could do but doesn't always do. But it's something that this group can do much quicker. And I think that they'll have a much better pulse as to exactly what the needs are within the downtown area. So it's not to replace because there's a baseline that the city is currently performing. If people believe that increased use of the downtown area is going to lead to, again, more trash, maybe the bathrooms have to be cleaned out more than they are right now. Those are things that can be done with the assessment district because they're supplemental to what the city is currently providing. |
| 02:07:21.32 | Unknown | So thank you so much for that. So plantings, way finding, things that will help beautify the city. Why is the administrative cost so high? |
| 02:07:29.64 | Marco Lee Mandry | They're 25%. For example, we had a million dollar budget. They would not be 25% because there's an economy of scale. There's certain fixed costs when you do something. Your insurance is going to cost X. And if you have to get phones and you have to pay rent, all that's going to take away from that $60,000. I think that the way that you're going to probably effectively be able to hire somebody who says, I can't live on $40,000 a year, even if I have multiple contracts, is maybe if you do activities or events. And then that can maybe throw off net revenue that can help the administration personnel. But it's $60,000 because I don't think that you can run this district for anything less than that. |
| 02:08:08.84 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:08:10.46 | Marco Lee Mandry | Sure. Thank you. |
| 02:08:10.91 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, great. Thank you. So just given that our direction and request from staff was direct feedback on the management plan, I did have a couple of questions that would be helpful for clarification. First of all, there are 19 sites and parcels here in the assessment, and some of them are unlabeled. I know that's no one's fault because they don't have a specific street, but I would ask that could you potentially find some way to designate each of those more specifically in the interest of transparency beyond just the map as a point of consideration? You mean like add? |
| 02:08:40.78 | Marco Lee Mandry | You mean like addresses or something? |
| 02:08:42.60 | Melissa Blaustein | There's no address listed for some of them, which is understandable because they don't yet have a clear address. But I would like to ask that they at the very least have some sort of name so that we're aware of which ones they are. |
| 02:08:55.18 | Marco Lee Mandry | So what we can do is just do a run that says instead of parcel number XYZ, because we have to have an assessment role as part of it that is included in the back, we can also put the name of the property owner, their address, and then their assessment. |
| 02:09:08.12 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah, that would be helpful. And even just for the city properties, if you can say like adjacent to Vienna Del Mar Park or something, just because I know members of the public want to know which parcels are city and specifically why they're assessed, and it would just be helpful. Okay. And then additionally, in looking at the management plan, it's great to see all of these bullets for the different buckets, but I don't necessarily see yet clear benchmarks of this is what we want or these are the goals for each of those. I imagine that's something that you could include at some point for demand generation, for example. |
| 02:09:21.20 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:09:39.52 | Marco Lee Mandry | That's a great question. I would tell you that There are certain things that I would do, but I'm not the new board. And I don't want to presuppose that the new board made up of the property owners, which includes the city, would have other priorities. So I would think that what they want to do is try to get more involved in updating a really good downtown website, making sure that you have social media contacts. Do the RFP so you can get the body of people that you need to perform the tasks that you want to do. So that's why I'm not presupposing what the priorities are. I said, these are the options you can do under this bundle. However, they decide to do it. They might say over five years, we never needed parking management. So that, that tool is never used, but that would be up to the board of directors to make the set those priorities. |
| 02:10:29.00 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, now I have some questions for our finance director, Chad Hess, who I think is here, right? He was here. Okay. Is he gone? Where'd he go? I have questions. Where is he? Thank you. Is he going to come back? |
| 02:10:44.98 | Chris Zapata | Let me see. I gave him permission to leave Councilman. |
| 02:10:47.61 | Melissa Blaustein | Maybe I have a question. I have other questions to ask. |
| 02:10:50.97 | Steven Woodside | But sure, go ahead. Why don't you go on to your other questions? Okay. And we'll see if Chad comes back. Okay. And then you go to the vice mayor after that. Actually, okay. Why don't you go on to your other questions? |
| 02:10:55.78 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay. Actually, Why don't you go ahead, because it's sort of a good |
| 02:10:58.72 | Chris Zapata | you I don't think |
| 02:11:00.56 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:11:00.59 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. |
| 02:11:00.61 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:11:00.64 | Chris Zapata | THE FAMILY IS |
| 02:11:00.73 | Melissa Blaustein | really. |
| 02:11:00.96 | Chris Zapata | So go ahead. Thank you. I just really had one question. In your presentation, you highlighted some categories under demand creation and civil sidewalks. Right. And I seem to recall at our December 19 meeting, we gently criticized you for having too much marketing and not enough other benefits. |
| 02:11:24.03 | Marco Lee Mandry | Correct. |
| 02:11:24.39 | Chris Zapata | And so did you add some of these- |
| 02:11:27.14 | Marco Lee Mandry | the highlighted parts. |
| 02:11:28.27 | Chris Zapata | You added the highlighted parts in order to address our criticism in December. |
| 02:11:31.35 | Marco Lee Mandry | December. |
| 02:11:32.28 | Chris Zapata | And now we're criticizing you because- No, it's okay. It's not the services we already provide. |
| 02:11:33.92 | Marco Lee Mandry | No, it's okay. It's okay. Yes, no problem. |
| 02:11:38.71 | Chris Zapata | And so the point you're making is that these categories you've identified would be supplemental to those services already provided by the city. |
| 02:11:48.94 | Marco Lee Mandry | They have to be legally. |
| 02:11:50.26 | Chris Zapata | And they would constitute a special benefit to the city as required by Proposition 218. |
| 02:11:56.65 | Marco Lee Mandry | Correct. And we believe that that special benefits will take the form of additional people parking there, more parking meter revenues, attracting more people to stay in the hotels, more TOT revenues, and fill any vacancies that exist within the downtown area, which would lead to greater sales taxes. |
| 02:12:13.44 | Melissa Blaustein | THANK YOU. |
| 02:12:13.63 | Unknown | you. |
| 02:12:13.83 | Melissa Blaustein | That was really cool. |
| 02:12:14.05 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 02:12:16.14 | Melissa Blaustein | Do we know where Chad is? |
| 02:12:20.07 | Chris Zapata | Council member, if you can ask the question and if I can answer it, I'll do it. If I can't, I'll take it down and I'll get the answer back to you. |
| 02:12:28.88 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, well, I'm wondering, given that we as a council have previously given, and maybe let me start with a question for Cass Green, actually. Cass, can you come back up to the mic for a second? So at the onset of your presentation, you said that the business improvement district is the number one priority for EDAC. And I know we've heard from EDAC, and Scott's here too, so you could respond to this as well, that this is really critical for you. And we recently granted a six-month, as you know, extension on our marketing budget, and there were questions about whether or not the contribution from the city into the PBID would be part of or instead of what was made to EDAC. Is the understanding that you'd be willing to work with us in terms of the funding for marketing as a part of what your request might be going forward or what you would need there as well? Yeah, definitely. Okay, so you're seeing this as contributing to this is like contributing to EDAC or instead of? |
| 02:13:16.49 | Cass Green | Thank you. |
| 02:13:21.72 | Cass Green | Yeah, I think so. I'm not sure you want to. You look like you got. Yeah, that's Scott's more articulate than I am. |
| 02:13:22.86 | Scott Thornburg | . |
| 02:13:22.90 | Melissa Blaustein | Sure. THANK YOU. |
| 02:13:27.57 | Scott Thornburg | I don't know if that's true, but yeah, our intent is for the PBID to take over the work of EDAC for the last two years, two and a half, has been to market all of downtown businesses and we will continue to. partner with the PBID to support downtown businesses, but the marketing work that we've been doing there, the funds that the city council approved for that marketing work would be hopefully picked up by the PBID at their discretion. And they would issue new RFPs. There would be a whole new process that goes into establishing what the scope of that work would be. Now the work of EDAC will continue to support all city businesses. And we have new focuses as of yesterday's meeting. And I'm happy to share notes on that if you're, |
| 02:14:06.79 | Melissa Blaustein | So that's a really critical point because, so the next questions which were for Chad and hopefully our city manager can answer them, but if not, how much money did we give EDAC when they had their initial request, $225,000? |
| 02:14:18.20 | Chris Zapata | My recollection is a council member and I could be off a little bit, but I thought it was $227,000. |
| 02:14:23.38 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, and how much money just about, oh, Scott knows. You can just. Director Thornberg, you can answer the questions for Chair Thornberg. And then additionally, about how much money did we authorize for the marketing budget as well? |
| 02:14:36.47 | Chris Zapata | I thought it was $37,500. |
| 02:14:38.68 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:14:38.72 | Scott Thornburg | Thank you. |
| 02:14:38.82 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:14:38.97 | Scott Thornburg | THE END OF |
| 02:14:39.01 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:14:39.04 | Scott Thornburg | But there was a recently was 37 five city managers. Correct. That was for the six month extension. Prior to that, it was $75,000 per year for two years. |
| 02:14:47.68 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, great. So that was already, and we've given about $225,000 total. And so in the total plan, this is maybe a question for Marco, but it's in the management plan as well that we can see, the total cost for the PBID estimated right now is $241,000 annually. So the city's contribution is just over $120,000. |
| 02:15:04.99 | Unknown | That's correct. |
| 02:15:05.53 | Melissa Blaustein | Which is less than what we've given in total to EDEC. Okay, and so this would be a replacement of the EDAC funds, and then it would continue to support our downtown. Okay, great. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify those points. I don't know if you're Hoffman. |
| 02:15:17.11 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:15:17.26 | Melissa Blaustein | you |
| 02:15:17.29 | Jill Hoffman | Hi, I have some other questions, but I have follow up questions on those. So, City Manager, we authorized $220,000. That was from the American Recovery Act plan, the ARPA funds, correct? |
| 02:15:29.78 | Chris Zapata | Correct, that came the year before I got here. |
| 02:15:32.16 | Jill Hoffman | And so that was specifically for recovery from the pandemic that was given to us, that was part of the federal funds that we received specifically for recovery from that. |
| 02:15:45.58 | Chris Zapata | It's COVID money, ARPA money. |
| 02:15:47.11 | Jill Hoffman | And of that amount, how much did EDAC actually use? I think it was around for the marketing plan. Did they use... I know that they didn't use a full $220,000. |
| 02:15:58.98 | Chris Zapata | Well, and At least I'm fairly certain. Let the EDAC person answer how much was used. |
| 02:16:00.56 | Jill Hoffman | I'm not sure. |
| 02:16:03.68 | Scott Thornburg | Okay. I don't have the direct numbers in front of me, but I can tell you it was the marketing contract. The city also put up money, matched money from the Chamber of Commerce to put toward Visit California, which is a statewide destination marketing organization. I think that was about $10,000. And then there was also the Love Sausalito project. And I believe the city also used some budget to put toward the downtown lighting project in partnership with local businesses. |
| 02:16:19.21 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:16:30.77 | Cass Green | Correct. |
| 02:16:31.16 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 02:16:31.49 | Cass Green | Thank you. |
| 02:16:32.08 | Scott Thornburg | So I'll have to do some math, but- |
| 02:16:32.44 | Cass Green | Thank you. |
| 02:16:32.47 | Jill Hoffman | So. Yeah, it was less than $100,000, I think. Right. And the love Sausalito was actually when the pandemic, I think restrictions were still effective and it was to get people to go to local businesses for takeout and things like that. Yeah. Okay. And so, and moving forward then. So as I understand it, the P bid, the P bid budget will be for obviously the P bid, but there are other efforts throughout the rest of town that EDAC also requests funds for. So it's not that at least I, as I understand it, this will not be the end of asks for money from EDAC if the PBID is formed. |
| 02:16:48.66 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:17:21.06 | Scott Thornburg | Is that a question? Thank you. |
| 02:17:22.10 | Jill Hoffman | Yes, that's a yes or no. |
| 02:17:23.00 | Scott Thornburg | I don't know. Thank you. At this time, we've submitted no additional requests for budget. |
| 02:17:28.24 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, but the PBID only is gonna affect the downtown businesses, correct? |
| 02:17:32.72 | Scott Thornburg | That's correct. |
| 02:17:33.20 | Jill Hoffman | And your remit as EDAC is to support all the businesses in town. |
| 02:17:36.88 | Scott Thornburg | That's correct. |
| 02:17:37.58 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. So that's the end of my follow-up based on Councilmember Vlaustein's. I do have some additional questions. If nobody else has questions. |
| 02:17:46.20 | Steven Woodside | Please proceed, Council Member Hoffman. |
| 02:17:46.69 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Okay. Thank you. So, um, It's interesting, the budget, the number. And so there's nowhere in any of the staff reports, I don't think, that the number the collective number of 220 a year and then the city's contribution are, you know, the, 50% of 120. Usually when we have an ask, it's directed towards certain efforts. We want X to do X. This is just... This is just, I didn't see any specific projects. I see groupings and I see sort of, references that the money can be used for this or that the board can decide what they want to use the money on. But I don't see any specific projects that this money is tied to. Like we want to do X over five years. |
| 02:18:40.35 | Marco Lee Mandry | If I can answer that question, in the early days of PBITs, late 90s, early 2000s, people used to always earmark and it would say, like, line item security. Well, what if things, they didn't need all that money for security in the second or third year and they wanted to transfer that? The management district plan is kind of like the Bible. It's the guide as to how they spend that money. So over the course of doing a number of different plans, I would group them and say, you can do any of these bullet points within that. We can't project at this point, again, what the priorities are going to be year one, two, three, four, five. The only thing I can do is say, look, we're looking to try to enhance things in downtown, create much greater demand. What the form of that is, I don't know at this point, but I would think that the people that are involved in that and marketing and promoting their own businesses would have a much better idea. So we provide the funding base for those different bundles of services so they can decide what they think is most appropriate at a given time. Otherwise, if I line item to everything, then they would be locked into that for five years. |
| 02:19:48.59 | Steven Woodside | Can I clarify a question on that point? Because that was a news to me that I didn't understand. I hope it helps my colleague that if you, the more specificity, you then have to amend the plan or you actually can't even change it if you had 50% for sidewalks, you couldn't then use that for marketing. It has to be used for sidewalks. |
| 02:20:06.14 | Marco Lee Mandry | Correct. |
| 02:20:06.63 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:20:06.65 | Marco Lee Mandry | you |
| 02:20:06.89 | Steven Woodside | you |
| 02:20:06.94 | Marco Lee Mandry | you |
| 02:20:06.95 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:20:06.97 | Marco Lee Mandry | you |
| 02:20:07.02 | Steven Woodside | you |
| 02:20:07.06 | Marco Lee Mandry | Yeah. |
| 02:20:07.14 | Steven Woodside | It's correct. Can't change it. Right. So that's why you have the percentages. Badeness actually, or the lack of too much specificity allows flexibility and the reaction. Right. |
| 02:20:17.08 | Marco Lee Mandry | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:20:20.98 | Unknown | conversely, it fails to give notice to the people of Sausalito about what this money's going to be spent for, it also fails to give any kind of accountability afterwards that we approved this rather large funding wrote new string to the district, Thank you. But you can't really go to the problem other than trying to go through this process of, you know, just establishing the leadership that can happen. Thank you. No matter who. |
| 02:20:49.61 | Marco Lee Mandry | Yeah, Councilwoman, I would just tell you that, remember, this is a transparent organization. If anybody wants to know, they'll be able to figure out by reading the minutes on the website or looking at the budgets, how the money is being allocated. And if they ask the question, why is the money being allocated for X, Y, or Z, we can say it's consistent with the management plan, which was approved by the property owners, as well as the city council. So those are the safeguards in there. You don't. And one of the reasons why I capped the administration at 60,000, we didn't and 25 percent. I didn't want people to say, oh, we really like this person. Let's increase the administration to 40 percent. That's why those percentages are in there. And from the beginning, people had always stated in the steering committee over the course of six or seven meetings, they wanted to create demand. Your man creation is something that came out of Sausalito. I even used that term before. |
| 02:21:45.55 | Jill Hoffman | So let me ask you this, and that reminds me. So the executive director position at $60,000 a year, Under that bucket, it also says rent. It also says office supplies. The first question is, are you envisioning that as a full time job? |
| 02:22:02.18 | Marco Lee Mandry | Now, |
| 02:22:03.59 | Jill Hoffman | And so are you envisioning that, or has there been discussion of that at the steering committee level? Thank you. that they would have to rent space somewhere. |
| 02:22:13.84 | Marco Lee Mandry | If it was donated, then they save the money. But I don't want to assume that. I think anywhere that somebody goes and they have to have an office where someone can come and look at records, they have to have something to present to somebody. It can't all be virtual. |
| 02:22:26.78 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:22:28.16 | Marco Lee Mandry | And they might need meeting space. And if someone wants to donate it, that's great, but I'm not assuming all those things. |
| 02:22:35.74 | Jill Hoffman | So let me follow up on one thing before I forget about it. I've had several people ask me who's on the steering committee and I confirmed today with Director Phipps that he had sent me an email back in December prior to the December 19th meeting, you know, who the steering committee, and in fact, we might've had some reference to it. Karen Hollweg, Last time you asked if I wanted you to read off the list but yeah I think if you could, to be clear, the steering committee. It's called we call we're called the steering committee or I think the steering committee named themselves the steering committee. But it's not it's not a committee that was appointed by the council. Correct. |
| 02:23:15.70 | Marco Lee Mandry | You're correct. Yes. |
| 02:23:16.49 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. And so, let me, let me just have you read off the names or I can read them off. I've got your email here. Either one. Why don't you read them off? That seems more official. |
| 02:23:30.18 | Unknown | Okay. I hope we're looking at the same list. I believe that, yeah, I'm looking at the email chain now. Okay. Pete Petrie, Mike Monsef, Carolyn Revell, Monica Finnegan, Tom Riley, Scott Thornburg, Taryn Hopi, Yoshi Tomei, Jeff Sharosh, Michael Lappert, Mark Flaherty, Cass Green, Sam Jabbar, Lode Silverstein, Lloyd Silverstein, Teresa Anconona, Daniel Chodor, Jack Sherwood, Ken Robinson, Jim Gurney. And I'll just clarify, this may not be an exhaustive list. |
| 02:24:03.74 | Jill Hoffman | And Mayor Sobieski also participated in those. |
| 02:24:09.63 | Unknown | He was in attendance at some of the meetings. |
| 02:24:11.56 | Steven Woodside | I did visit some of the meetings, yes, but I wasn't part of the committee. |
| 02:24:15.35 | Jill Hoffman | I thought you had said that he was at the last city council meeting. I could be wrong. I thought when we discussed it, you or somebody, I thought it was you said, and Mayor Sobieski also is part of the steering committee. |
| 02:24:26.80 | Steven Woodside | with. |
| 02:24:26.86 | Marco Lee Mandry | Thank you. |
| 02:24:27.23 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:24:29.06 | Marco Lee Mandry | Councilman, the steering committee was open. So there are people that more people would show up at different meetings. The mayor showed up and Brandon was there, but they didn't vote. Whenever I had asked people what they wanted to do, do you support this or do you support that? They did not vote on it. And I know that for a fact. And that's how I was able to put together the plan. |
| 02:24:49.56 | Jill Hoffman | So, okay, thank you for that. I appreciate that. So let's go through the list. And I'm just gonna, these are people that I think people want to know who these people are in town, right? Like they're on the steering committee. What's their... association. Pete Petrie, he's the owner of Cultivar. Mike Monsif is a property manager throughout town. Carolyn Revell is on the Saucyote Beautiful and has sent us many pieces of content. of correspondence. Monica Finnegan, she's on EDAC. And please, if I'm getting this wrong or you want to add anything, please feel free. Monica Finnegan is on EDAC, also on the board, I believe, for Sausley, the Center for the Arts. Tom Riley was a prior chair for EDAC. and actually sat on the city council when I was deployed for a year. Scott Thornburg has also approached the podium today. He's the chair of EDEC. Taryn Hoppe, her family owns one of the buildings and the business, the Sausalito. Only in Sausalito, if I got that right. I think these are just what I know. Someone correct me if I've got this wrong. Or you can confirm that I have it right. Director Phipps, do I have it right? You don't know? Okay. Okay, Yoshitome obviously owns, well, it's obvious to me, owns Sushi Ron. Jeff Shirash is the owner and manager of Spinnaker. Michael Lappert owns Lappert's ice cream and also some properties in town. Mark Flaherty, I believe, is a general manager for In Above Tide. Thank you. Cass Green, obviously owner in Above Tide. Sam Jabbar, that name, Thank you. |
| 02:26:26.24 | Unknown | you |
| 02:26:26.25 | Jill Hoffman | I was going to do. |
| 02:26:26.79 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:26:27.06 | Jill Hoffman | you Oh, it's also yours. Okay. Thanks so much. Lloyd Silverstein. Lloyd, is he an owner? I just don't know. I'm sorry. Thank you. |
| 02:26:35.36 | Marco Lee Mandry | Floyd owns his property. |
| 02:26:36.80 | Jill Hoffman | owns a property in the district? Yes. Okay, thank you. Teresa Ancona is the owner in... |
| 02:26:38.40 | Marco Lee Mandry | Yes. |
| 02:26:43.89 | Jill Hoffman | I think she's a manager for Angeleno. |
| 02:26:47.23 | Marco Lee Mandry | It's her family. |
| 02:26:47.26 | Jill Hoffman | It's her family. Generationally, right? Yeah. Daniel Shendor is... |
| 02:26:49.15 | Marco Lee Mandry | Yeah. |
| 02:26:53.30 | Scott Thornburg | Hotel Saucyut. Hotel Saucyut, thank you. |
| 02:26:54.11 | Jill Hoffman | Hotel Saucyenne, thank you. And Gables Inn, okay. Jack Sherwood. Names not familiar. Yes. Barrel. God. Barrel house. Sorry. Sorry, Jack. Apologies. Ken Robinson. |
| 02:27:00.91 | Marco Lee Mandry | you |
| 02:27:00.93 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 02:27:08.58 | Unknown | We have to keep on playing. |
| 02:27:12.02 | Jill Hoffman | Games to play. Okay, so, okay, good, business owner. And then Jim Gurney is general manager, I believe, for Casa Madrona. So that's generally – the other people would come and go, but that's generally the steering committee or what we're calling the steering committee, what the steering committees name themselves. Right? I get that right? Thank you. |
| 02:27:28.91 | Scott Thornburg | Can I offer one clarification, which is EDAC as representatives, you know, this was a council directed priority for us for this year. So we attended the meetings, but we were non-voting members of the steering committee. |
| 02:27:30.88 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:27:41.80 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Okay. |
| 02:27:42.04 | Scott Thornburg | So that's it. I just want to clarify that, that our votes, we are there to provide advice to the group and represent, you know, the council's direction. But we were not voting as a part of those discussions. |
| 02:27:42.06 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:27:42.16 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:27:51.88 | Jill Hoffman | Uh-huh. So that includes you and Monica Fagan at Cass Green? |
| 02:27:58.91 | Scott Thornburg | Cass is the business owner. |
| 02:28:00.53 | Jill Hoffman | Okay? |
| 02:28:00.89 | Scott Thornburg | So she's wearing two hats. |
| 02:28:02.34 | Jill Hoffman | And so she voted. |
| 02:28:03.50 | Scott Thornburg | Yes. |
| 02:28:04.09 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. And Monica, you got |
| 02:28:04.84 | Scott Thornburg | I believe Gaskins is herself. Okay. |
| 02:28:06.32 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. Okay. And Monica Finnegan is also, she has a business in town as a property contractor. real estate agent. Thank you. |
| 02:28:14.45 | Scott Thornburg | Monica is a volunteer for the SCA. Right. So she, in this capacity, served as a member of EDAC and a local volunteer, but she would not be voting as a part of the steering committee discussions. Okay. Okay. |
| 02:28:14.47 | Jill Hoffman | Monica Zavanna. for the... |
| 02:28:27.57 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thanks. |
| 02:28:27.95 | Scott Thornburg | Thank you. |
| 02:28:28.11 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:28:28.73 | Carolyn Revell | I also say I was not a voting member. I was there representing Sausalito Beautiful. |
| 02:28:32.80 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thank you, Carolyn. We appreciate that. Okay. So thank you for indulging me on that. I was not, anyway, I have had questions about it, so I just thought I'd run through it real quick. Um, |
| 02:28:50.52 | Steven Woodside | If there are no more questions, |
| 02:28:52.29 | Jill Hoffman | I do, but I've got to go through my notes. If anybody else has questions. |
| 02:28:55.87 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:28:55.97 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. |
| 02:28:55.99 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:28:56.22 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:28:56.36 | Chris Zapata | Mayor, if I can, if I may. I can ask Marco to talk a little bit more about the administration and transparency and clarity about what is obligated by the board in terms of fiscal oversight. |
| 02:29:09.25 | Marco Lee Mandry | The board under the state statute is required to give an annual report to the city council and provide an audit for to the board. The audits are public, but there are neat. That's what I was speaking about. The reassessment for the next fiscal year that's done as part of the annual report. That is a presentation to the city council. So that will be something that anybody can participate in. Anybody from the public can ask questions about it. But again, under the Brown Act and the Public Records Act, all those records are made available to people. But we must have an audit or at least at a minimum, an accounting review submitted to the city on an annual basis. |
| 02:29:54.83 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:29:54.93 | Marco Lee Mandry | Vice Mayor. |
| 02:29:55.54 | Chris Zapata | Will meetings of the board be open to the public and be Brown Act meetings? Yes. Notice will be published in advance. There will be public comment at the PBID board meetings. |
| 02:29:58.32 | Marco Lee Mandry | the public. Yes, yes. |
| 02:30:08.61 | Marco Lee Mandry | Yes, and the only actions that can be taken state action item on that item. If it doesn't say action item, people can have discussion, but they can't act on it. |
| 02:30:21.35 | Steven Woodside | Okay, we are going to have to bring questions to a close. All right, so questions will be closed. We'll take public comment now on items. Oh, yes, we're going to take a three-minute. What time is it up there? I get too much glare. We will take a... We will reconvene at 940, so it's exactly six minutes. And please turn in your slips if you wish to make public comment from the room. If you're online, raise your hand and city clerk. |
| 02:30:50.68 | Walfred Solorzano | Okay, just one announcement. And I think we've run out of slips. So once I get through this first list, whoever hasn't commented, I'll get their names down. Okay, please just come. |
| 02:31:00.50 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:31:00.57 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Please just come. |
| 02:31:04.54 | Chris Zapata | It is on, but we have a hard time hearing. So can you adjust the level of the mic for people testifying here in the chambers? I can hear Council Member Hoffman. |
| 02:31:13.09 | Jill Hoffman | Hello. The chambers? I can hear Council Member Hoffman. So people who are doing public comment. Speak into the mic, then you can hear it. If you're like back up here or something. |
| 02:31:23.34 | Steven Woodside | All right. Public comment, please. |
| 02:31:29.51 | Walfred Solorzano | Can we start with Babette McDougall? |
| 02:31:31.35 | Steven Woodside | Ms. McDougall, you're the |
| 02:31:39.13 | Steven Woodside | Two minutes. |
| 02:31:40.09 | Babette McDougall | Okay, so thank you very much for acknowledging me. I feel a little nervous, especially after having read the staff report and so on, and I interviewed so many people involved with this project. And the thing that I found the most upsetting about this research that I want to share with you, is that there's this perceived lack of trust between the various entities. And I think that's something that needs to be addressed in the spirit that we intended this in the first place, which was the city's own initiative to say, Is there any possible interest in a business improvement district to help kick start some of our activities? So I mean, I think it's important for the city to follow through on this. I really appreciate that there is due diligence on the bottom line issues and the extent to which we can maintain control as citizens and as a citizen body. But I do feel very strongly that When you have such a contingent of prestigious business representatives from our own community step forward in such a unified fashion. I think that deserves a great deal of serious attention and merit. Hopeful that you will find a way forward with this activity. Thank you. |
| 02:32:50.83 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:32:50.92 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 02:32:50.97 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:32:51.04 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 02:32:51.12 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:32:51.22 | Walfred Solorzano | you |
| 02:32:51.59 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. |
| 02:32:51.61 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:32:51.71 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. |
| 02:32:51.78 | Steven Woodside | Thanks. |
| 02:32:51.85 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. |
| 02:32:51.86 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. uh... |
| 02:32:55.04 | Steven Woodside | and Brinton. Could you also call the next person in line just so that they can |
| 02:32:58.72 | Walfred Solorzano | Then it's Scott Thornburg and then Peter Van Meter. |
| 02:33:06.27 | Adrian Brinton | Adrian Brenton, I'm a South City resident and thanks for taking my comment. I missed the meeting on December 19th, but I think I heard we had a really pretty large turnout. There was a lot of discussion about the pivot about the 50%. contributions in the city about the overall budget. There was a unanimous direction to move forward with the budget and the, sorry, I lost my place here, for the city's contribution with the budget and the boundary. It seems like we've kind of taken a couple of steps back. There's been a lot of questions again tonight about the boundary and about the budget and about the city contribution. You know, we should move forward with this. We agree to move forward. unanimously before there was a good turnout tonight, maybe not as much as last time. |
| 02:33:55.62 | Unknown | There's, |
| 02:33:58.98 | Adrian Brinton | You know, there was talk on the last meeting about how sometimes the public doesn't understand some of the decisions that are made. And when things go back and forth, you know, people come back and they're mad because what they thought was gonna happen didn't happen. I think it was pretty clear last time what was going to happen. We were going to move forward. So hopefully we move forward. Hopefully, you know, we don't have to turn out a ton of people to come back and kind of say, hey, we decided to move forward on this. So love to see this. Keep moving forward. Let's keep get this thing done. Let's get downtown working. You know, we've got the ferry landing moving forward, which is great. That's one key piece of the puzzle. We've got this. This is another key piece of the puzzle. You know, downtown can really be improved. So I'd love to see it. Keep moving. moving forward, which is great. That's one key piece of the puzzle. We've got this. This is another key piece of the puzzle. You know, downtown can really be improved. So love to see it keep moving forward. Thank you. |
| 02:34:44.05 | Walfred Solorzano | Scott Thunberg. |
| 02:34:45.70 | Scott Thornburg | Thank you. And thank you for your time tonight. I'll be brief. This is not a lot of money, truly. This is less than 1% of our total business tax contributions to the city. And in the business world, we talk a lot about testing and learning and failing fast. And maybe fast for Sausalito is five years, but this is a test. And I think that's the thing that really excites me the most, right, is that we are testing something new. And I think it requires us to be breathe. It requires us to take a little bit of a risk, and to believe in something. And that's really what we're asking you to do here tonight, is to believe in our businesses and to believe in the business community to invest back into downtown. So, I would encourage you to do that tonight. And thank you for your time. |
| 02:35:33.51 | Walfred Solorzano | Peter Van Meter followed by Dan Daglow and they're all |
| 02:35:35.92 | Unknown | Good evening. You know, this is another private and public partnership. But this is the success of Sausalito Beautiful last 10 years is a great example of that. Finally, the merchants and the building owners are realizing the revitalization that's going on downtown. Want to join in that effort. And of course, you're not making any financial commitment tonight. So I urge you to do what it takes to move the petition space forward. If that means coming in with some votes, you know, to make that go to the next level. Then when you get the actual vote itself, That's when you can see what the merchant buy-in to this is. And that's when you can actually make your decision. That's the point when you're making your financial decision. You're not spending any money tonight. is helping this move forward to the next step. Let's go to the actual balloting. That's your role tonight. So please move us to that next step and get this going. Thank you. |
| 02:36:32.56 | Unknown | Hi, Don Daglow, EDAC member. I also would like to speak in support of this. I think the plan focuses its energies on the greatest leverage potential we have right now, which is downtown, just as EDAC is working both in the marine ship and downtown because we, in our work, we see benefits there. For this kind of program, downtown is the greatest leverage to produce the most initial tax revenue. most predictably and most quickly. And for that reason, I think it's very positive. I also think you have other people who put skin in the game with you, which always makes it a lot easier to make any business decision. So I respectfully recommend that you pursue and approve the plan tonight. Thank you. |
| 02:37:18.86 | Walfred Solorzano | Daryl Nimro followed by Linda Fotch and Joe Carr. |
| 02:37:23.82 | Unknown | Hello, my name is Daryl DeMoreau. I am the current Presidency of the Sausalito Chamber of Commerce. And I just wanted to start off by thanking mayor, vice mayor, council members, our city manager, their staff, our chamber board members, and our community members for all the time invested in this. It's been significant. And I'd like to reiterate the Chamber is committed to advocating on behalf of our members and supporting economic growth opportunities. But I wanted to highlight one piece. I feel like this process has fostered a renewed commitment to partnership building. collaboration and trust among our community. And the chamber wants to recognize that growth and momentum. It's important. It's a critical value piece of the work and it's to better our community. And it's, it's been significant. So I want to say thank you. Um, the call to action tonight is to tonight is to ask, you know, all of you to vote to support the bid. And it's positive. We're calling it generational impact on our local business community and our future economy. And the Chamber expresses our deepest gratitude to all of our partners involved in support in advancing this critical initiative. So thank you. |
| 02:38:40.00 | Unknown | Hi, I'm Linda Fodge. I think I have a kind of a unique perspective on Sausalito. I've lived here for over 35 years. I've been a downtown commercial landlord for 26 years and a Sausalito business owner for 16 years. I also own the only private parking lot in town that parks cars for the public. In the 26 years of being a commercial landlord, the first 15 years were pretty great. Rins were going up and without much effort from the town or the businesses, people fell through the doors. Sausalito reap the benefits of this through sales tax. In the last 10 years, though, things have changed. I track the number of cars that come into my lot, and there's a lot less people coming in. Um, The hospital business community, I have to say, has not been well acknowledged and downed. the residents in the hillside just marginally support them? and city government hasn't held them in high priority because most don't live here, so they don't vote. And that's important if you're a politician. There hasn't been much outreach to the city residents. I think it was surprised most of them to know that The city's not run on their property tax, but it's run on sales tax and hotel occupancy tax. Their roads are paved, their police force and firemen are paid through the efforts of small business owners in town. |
| 02:40:20.37 | Unknown | on the Saucyoteva business community hasn't been very well organized in the past. The Chamber of Commerce has had some good years and some not so good years. Um, So there's no one that's ever really been an advocate for the business community. Revenues have fallen, stores are vacant, and even the city woke up and said, hey, where's our money? Tonight, I urge you to reach out to |
| 02:40:52.53 | Steven Woodside | Let me finish your sentence. Just two or five words. |
| 02:40:55.23 | Unknown | I haven't been a supporter of the bid, but I am now. I think there's a lot of questions, and I agree with what you're saying, but hopefully we can work through it. Thank you. |
| 02:41:00.88 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 02:41:00.92 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:41:00.93 | Walfred Solorzano | And... Thank you. WE CAN'T GET THEM TO THEM TO THEM. WE CAN'T GET THEM TO THEM. Joe Carr followed by Carolyn Revelle. |
| 02:41:09.02 | Unknown | Good evening. I'm Joel Carr. I'm a proud homeowner in Sausalito. Um, I have been involved in BIDs before, some years back in New York City on the Christopher Street shopping corridor in the gay neighborhood. These are tried, tested, and well understood business improvement district process and approach. And I can't see any reason why Sausalito shouldn't participate in something that's being done across the nation. I would like to stress that the 50-50 plan, management plan, again, is a very reasonable approach to this. and the impact of a business improvement district, given the small amount that we're talking about here tonight. Granted, we're not asking for the money tonight, but I think that adopting the plan as it's drawn is the right thing to do. So thank you. |
| 02:42:21.38 | Walfred Solorzano | I have Carolyn Revell followed by Charles Melton and then Jennifer Silver. |
| 02:42:27.17 | Carolyn Revell | I've already been identified, as you know, and our board has voted to endorse the PBID, and particularly we're asking you tonight to adopt the management plan as presented, authorize the city manager to begin the petition process, and sign the petition on the city's behalf. It's been mentioned, our role as volunteers in Sausalito Beautiful. And we feel very strongly the importance of a bid to provide a more consistent and enhanced level of services. As you were asking, Ms. Kelman was asking about what the services are and We definitely feel that tree planting and tree maintenance is something that can occur at a higher standard than the city has been able to provide so far. As you mentioned, Vice Mayor Cox, we haven't had an arborist in a long time. And although we as volunteers in Sausalito Beautiful can help weed in our parks, and we've tried to plant some trees, we really need professionals to prune and plant trees and maintain them to a higher standard. So that's just a particular point of why Sausalito Beautiful is so invested in this approach of a tried and true bid formula, and we encourage you to embrace the vision of a more vibrant, attractive downtown through the bid process. Thank you so much. |
| 02:43:49.58 | Walfred Solorzano | Charles Malton, Jennifer Silva, then Daniel Tudor. |
| 02:43:53.43 | Charles Melton | Good evening. My name is Charles Melton. I'm a resident of South Salido. I'm not a business owner. I'm a taxpayer here and constituent and voter. I support the PBIT. Tonight I came late to the city council meeting, but I came through our downtown. Beautiful lights up, empty storefronts, bacon signs in the windows. I believe in Sausalito. I believe in our business is doing good. I believe in our city council doing good. I believe in our residents doing good. That's what this PIPIT does. It shows that we believe in every aspect of our city, everyone who contributes to our city, our businesses, our residents, and our city councilors. The PBID is here to really put a vibrant heartbeat back into our downtown. Our businesses have shown their commitment. to carrying half the water on this. My question is, No answer needed. What happens if this doesn't go forward? Who's going to pick up the ball? Is the city going to invest 100% of the funds? to cover the program management of this. I was here on December 19th. And I thought at that time this was done. City Council endorsed the plan. And now here we are once again discussing this. This seems to be the continuous rhythm of city council. I recognize you have very tough decisions going forward. And I recognize all the hard work you put into every aspect about this. And I appreciate that. I really do. But I'm asking you to move forward. Believe in your city, believe in your downtown, believe in your businesses and believe in your residents. I want a vibrant downtown. I believe we all do in this room, including our businesses, including everyone behind the dais tonight. And I believe one of the first steps to do that is a P-BID. So thank you for the opportunity to provide comments tonight, and please endorse the P-BID tonight. |
| 02:45:40.37 | Unknown | Hello, Jenny Silva, Houseboat resident and here today as a resident and somebody who would love to hang out in downtown. But, As we all know, the locals don't really hang out there now. We are in one of the most beautiful places in the world. There truly isn't a place that's more spectacular than downtown Sausalito. Yet it's not where the locals go and hang out. The last time I came to speak was for the ferry landing. And it was overwhelming, the support in the room of residents that want our downtown to be a nicer place, to be a place where we can hang out, a place that we're excited to be. I'm so excited to see the business community come together to try and make improvements and try to make it the sort of place that's going to be dynamic and exciting and fun to be. And I urge you with all of my heart, please move this forward. Let's make Sausalito just as awesome as it can be. Thanks. |
| 02:46:45.27 | Walfred Solorzano | Danny, I'll see you there. |
| 02:46:46.48 | Daniel Chodor | Hi, I'm Daniel Chador, Gables and Sausalito and Hotel Sausalito. We have four historic buildings in the district. I would first just say you're our partner and, when you mentioned the idea of What if it's trash? we're going to put out a significant amount of money, and we wouldn't put that money out if we felt it was trash. We're looking for a return on investment. And when we make money, you make money. So why would we get involved in something that we didn't see would be fruitful for both of us? So I urge you to do it. It commits us to you and you to us. Thank you. |
| 02:47:27.74 | Walfred Solorzano | Any more speakers in-house? All right. |
| 02:47:36.84 | Unknown | Good evening. Hank Baker, local business owner, resident of downtown, and recently a member of the Chamber of Commerce and EDEC committee. Just read you something. Standing still is the fastest way of moving backwards in a rapidly changing society. The bid may not be perfect. But if it's not, what else are we going to do as a town to enliven downtown. You have to take a risk. And that risk. can be mitigated, by some of the discussions we've been having today, but at the end of the day, not doing it is probably worse than choosing to do it with its imperfections. Thanks. |
| 02:48:29.24 | Sharna Brockett | Hi, I'm Sharna Brockett and I'm a resident here in Sausalito. I think we all can agree that it's much easier to tear something down or to stop something than to create or to build something. Let's start saying yes to building more here in Sausalito. And the PBID is a big part of this. Please approve the PBID and keep it going forward. Now we don't have all the answers, but we do have plenty of evidence in case studies of how P bids have proven to be effective in revitalizing struggling downtowns, such as in Petaluma. San Diego's Little Italy, Old Pasadena and Santa Barbara, and many more across the country. We can learn by their examples and by their successes and failures. But if we never try something new, nothing will never happen downtown. So let's try and we can improve and fine tune things along the way. Let's not overthink it. Some people say that the city's financial contribution to the bid is being paid by the residents, but that's not really true. The city's 125K contribution is a small fraction of what the businesses are already paying businesses taxes to the city. So the only organizations paying more with this program are the businesses and the property owners themselves, who have voluntarily asked to tax themselves to improve our downtown. And they are also asking the city council to other asking the city council to do is allocate part of the tax money that they are already paying. into taxes themselves. Plus, it sounds like a lot of the money that's already allocated to EDAC can be passed through to support the P-Bid as well. This is a unique moment in time when the downtown businesses are uniting with the residents to improve our downtown. Let's not miss this moment. Thank you. |
| 02:50:32.36 | Walfred Solorzano | All right, any more speakers in-house? |
| 02:50:37.99 | Unknown | Hello, I'm Ines Ponyay and I own and operate Soxelito and I've been in business here for 42 years. I was a little worried about asking my landlord whether they wanted to participate in this bid, and I was pleasantly surprised. when they said they were for it. Barbara Warnham is my landlord and she has a management company that runs the building. And they were all for it because they have other properties that they manage in other areas like Lakeshore in Oakland, Jack London Square, and downtown Berkeley. And they run very well and successfully. And they're for it. So that's wonderful to have that positive thing. And I'm looking forward to have a consistent and enhanced downtown area. So please vote for this. |
| 02:51:35.10 | Walfred Solorzano | Any more speakers in the house? All right, we'll go to Zoom. We have Lucinda Eubanks. |
| 02:51:51.94 | Walfred Solorzano | You can unmute yourself. |
| 02:51:58.23 | Walfred Solorzano | Lucinda Eubanks. |
| 02:52:02.79 | Steven Woodside | I think as you can plainly see, I'm not Lucinda, but Lucinda is my wife and I'm using her computer. So I apologize for that. I'm very impressed by the person who presented the staff report and answered your questions earlier. I've been dealing with Um, assessment districts before Prop 218 was passed. And I think what you heard, the quality of the answers, the level of knowledge is very impressive. I'm here because I support it. I'm a resident. I'm not a member. I don't conduct a business here. My wife does, but it's out of our home. and Essentially, however, I see the benefits throughout the community. of this district. Finally, I just want to make one comment complimenting our mayor. for seeking independent advice as to whether or not he had a conflict. and compliment the city attorney for confirming what I believe to be the case, this business assessment district, affects all of us in Sausalito. It benefits all of us. And therefore, uh, I think is something that affects the public generally. Therefore, there's no conflict for a mayor or anybody else who lives in this city. Thank you very much. |
| 02:53:35.99 | Walfred Solorzano | Next speaker is Teresa Ancona. |
| 02:53:47.33 | Teresa Ancona | Hi, good evening. I, as a property owner and business owner within the district, I would ask the city council tonight to approve the management plan as is with the 50 50 contribution to be an equal partner, to be an equitable partner with the businesses, and to move forward and allow the petitioning to happen. to allow it to go to a vote, to allow property owners within the district. to decide if this is something that they want. Thank you. |
| 02:54:24.52 | Walfred Solorzano | And then last speaker, we have Sandra Bushmaker. |
| 02:54:32.49 | Sandra Bushmaker | Okay. Good evening, everybody. I don't want to be a Debbie Downer because I do believe in a vibrant downtown. However, I have some real concerns. One in the staff report hearing Whoops, Steve. You're on video, Steve Woodside. Um, |
| 02:54:52.06 | Steven Woodside | can hear you, please proceed. |
| 02:54:53.77 | Sandra Bushmaker | Okay, that the staff said they cannot project the priorities. This is a big concern of mine if the city is jumping off on something where priorities are not projected. Yeah. Before I get too far into details, I want to say public comment that was sent into the council written was not attached to the agenda on this particular agenda item. And that's a concern of mine. So back to the other issue. I think that the council should not act tonight without the engineer's report. I think that The city, according to the staff report, says the city pays 50% into this district and manages the daily district services. What does that mean? What is that going to cost the city? And my overall, in addition, the survey that was attached to the staff report stated that only one third Only 48% of the businesses were supportive of this, excuse me, 40% of the property owners were supportive of this project. And one third did not respond at all. That is a concern of mine. And also, when I listened to the report tonight, I heard that the city would weigh in, was being requested to weigh in to fill the gap. I don't know. I think we got a clear answer on that and what the implication of that is. And lastly, I just wanna say, To make the downtown vibrant, why cannot we use our ordinary budget process to get the money necessary? And lastly, this project is taking us away from our strategic goals. something that you just spent four and a half hours on, on a Saturday to identify. Thank you. |
| 02:56:42.04 | Walfred Solorzano | And final speaker, Vicki Nichols. |
| 02:56:51.69 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Sobieski and council members. Thank you for the management plan this evening. I think in the December meeting we didn't have those details yet, so this has been helpful. I want to speak to you from the perspective of this major area, also being our downtown historic district. My question specifically regards the mention of Vena Del Mar Park, which is a California registered point of historical location. significance. And when I hear discussion about landscaping improvements in general, that's pretty broad. I wonder if in this process, the existing ordinance requirements for signage in the district and other kinds of improvements will be uh, in place to allow some of these improvements to be reviewed by the HPC as any other changes is in the district. I'm not hearing any of that mentioned. And, you know, I heard some discussion about sidewalks. I know there's a new... I believe it's a state law that has to do with the color of the the ramps, the buildings, Um, Bubble. I don't know what it's called. I can't think of the name now. But at one point when we were doing improvements for Vena Del Mar Park, which was taking the steps out and making the entrance uniform to address an ADA lawsuit that the city adds. We spent a good deal of time on the colors of those ramps or cutouts on, Vice Mayor Cox was actually part of those discussions with the HLB at the time. So I just would ask that when any of these individual improvements are being done or suggested, that there's also some oversight so that we have some uniformity and we're not going off with you know, different entities having sort of carte blanche ideas or suggestions that preclude any of the other required discussions. Thank you. |
| 02:59:11.11 | Walfred Solorzano | Any other public comment? All right. We have a Kieran Culligan. |
| 02:59:19.21 | Steven Woodside | Culligan? |
| 02:59:20.97 | Unknown | there. This is a great project. I'm super excited for it. Great comments both for and against. I think that there's things that get into great detail on once it's up and running, like historical questions around Vineyard Del Mar, but let's get going with this thing. There's a lot of improvement we'd love to see in the downtown. This could be a great model for other parts of the city. I believe that those attachments three and four were relatively dated from the last meeting. So it doesn't have the latest levels of support. But yeah, let's get this thing going. I'm super excited for it, even though it feels experimental. I don't know. each and every part, but it feels like we need to do something. And I really just want to acknowledge the contributions from so many volunteers in town who helped bring this to this point. I think that shows you that there's something here and people really care about this. Thanks. |
| 03:00:15.22 | Walfred Solorzano | Ron Albert. |
| 03:00:21.14 | Steven Woodside | Mr. Albert. |
| 03:00:22.39 | Ron Albert | Yes, I'm unmuted now. I'm not sure. it. just in response to one person's comments. There's no more questions to ask. The Council's had multiple meetings on this. You had an excellent presentation. You've had an extraordinary turnout by members of the public and members of the business community supporting this. vote approve it no further delay no further analysis stop wasting your time and the staff's time move forward with this, thank you. |
| 03:01:01.67 | Steven Woodside | All right, no further public comment. All right, closing public comment. We'll now bring it up to the diaspora. Discussion, who wishes to be acknowledged? first. |
| 03:01:11.28 | Jill Hoffman | I just have one clarification. I don't want to start my comments now, but sorry. on the issue of public comment, written public comment. I just refreshed my agenda, and I don't see any written public comment attached to |
| 03:01:30.67 | Walfred Solorzano | I'm sorry. Yeah, so I can explain that. I was at jury duty all day and didn't have a chance to get in there, but I'll put it up after, and I've got to report back to jury duty tomorrow. |
| 03:01:38.92 | Jill Hoffman | I don't think that solves it. So this is a, and I'm sorry, jury duty, you gotta go. I get, I got it. But that doesn't solve the issue of the Brown Act requirement that public comment would be attached to the agenda and then it'd be available. |
| 03:01:42.34 | Walfred Solorzano | Well, let's get it. |
| 03:01:53.08 | Jill Hoffman | for us to review and for the public to review it. So this is a question for our City Attorney. And thank you to our member of the public to point that out. |
| 03:02:09.97 | Sergio Rudin | Um, yeah, I mean, off the top of my head, I'm not aware of a requirement that we even take written public comment. Um, I mean, we do need to take oral public comment and allow people the opportunity to submit public comment. There's no specific requirement, I think, in the Brown Act that it'd be attached to the agenda that I'm aware of, but I will double check that. |
| 03:02:33.71 | Chris Zapata | I feel that all of the public comment was addressed to the city council as well as the city clerk, so that the city council did have the benefit of considering all of the public feedback regarding this item. |
| 03:02:46.43 | Jill Hoffman | That's not true because I got I got sorry I don't want but that's that's not true because I got at least one email directly to me that I reported to the city clerk. requesting it be attached and There's no way for us to know that. We all got it, but also the issue is, has the public been able to review it? And I'm going to, I'd like to pause for a second because I think we need to, We need to... be certain of this i don't want to off the fly that there's no requirement Karen Hollweg, That the public be aware of written public comment I I can't imagine that's true. So because public comment, the public who make comment at the meeting |
| 03:03:22.14 | Chris Zapata | No. |
| 03:03:25.05 | Jill Hoffman | they need to have the benefit of the other written public comments. |
| 03:03:28.44 | Chris Zapata | But the Brown Act requires that we conduct our deliberations publicly and therefore that we have the benefit of public comment in making our deliberations. It does not require that other members of the public have the benefit of all of the public comment because it's us, the Brown Act is to prevent, Secret deals negotiated behind closed doors. That's why public comment needs to necessarily be public. So while the city attorney is looking that up, may I ask the city manager for future meetings that if the city clerk is on vacation, out ill, indisposed, that we ask the assistant clerk or another assistant to take over that responsibility for posting public comment. This is the first time in my years on the council that we've not had public comment attached to our agenda. |
| 03:04:23.38 | Chris Zapata | Understood. |
| 03:04:23.97 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 03:04:24.28 | Chris Zapata | That can be done. |
| 03:04:24.99 | Steven Woodside | So we'll let Sergio do his research so it's done right and well, and we will begin our discussion. So did someone want to be acknowledged? Yes. Councilmember Kelman. |
| 03:04:35.23 | Unknown | Sure, happy to. Thank you, everybody, for coming. This is now... The fourth. hearing on topics related to this that I've seen so many familiar faces. So it's a shame that some people have a lack of trust in our interest in improving the Since we recently saw one another with CDA, where we approved $75,000, We saw one another with a very Improvement project. where we approved a significant amount of six figures. And then we saw you again last time with SCA, where we had a very robust conversation. And so I will just give you what the kids say, TLDR, too long didn't read. I am in support of a PBID. I'm not in support of this management plan. And let me tell you why. First of all, I had the honor of grabbing Chad before he hustled out, and I asked him what we spent on marketing last year, and he told me $96,400. That is $75,000 to CDA, $16,000 to visit Sausalito, the website that the city pays for. Okay, so that's just the level set where we start at 96,400. Additionally, at the hearing for CDA, the ferry and the SCA asked the same question that I asked staff for today and I still don't have the answer, which is, everybody's telling me it's going to increase tax revenue. Show me the numbers. Show me the HDL. Show me some examples. Show me some Models, show me something. And each time, I have not seen that. I've been told it will do these things, but I haven't seen it. So this is why, for those of you who wonder why we painstakingly say and nitpick, is because if you don't have the information, it takes longer. And so I just want to give that sort of clarification. The other thing that came up tonight was the duplication of efforts. I'm not sure. Park Maintenance. We do that. We approved our budget unanimously. Now, we may not do it the way everybody in this room would like to see us do it, and that's where we have room for improvement. parking and transportation we just hired somebody full-time and this council declined to entertain a valet program actually So I was surprised to hear that that was the parking and transportation component And so I just provide that as color for why I want to suggest the following. Um, So I heard people say I want a vibrant downtown. Locals don't hang out. and look at the city of Petaluma. City of Petaluma's bid assessment fund expenditures, 30% on beautification, 23% on advertising. 20% on administration and then they have a very high security number of 27%. But a pretty good balance between advertising and beautification, which I think is kind of where we're a little missing the mark. So my proposal to my colleagues is to entertain either a reduction in the city's contribution to recognize the fact that the boundaries are including non-revenue generating portions of our town, where we already have committed resources to actually maintain those, or keep it at 50% but increase the amount going to infrastructure, which would then align with our strategic priorities, which we did spend four hours on the 10th of February painstakingly going through. I'm open to hearing conversation around that. I think there's a way forward for this because it is a good idea, but I think it needs more work. So when it comes to demand creation, I would love to see some specificity because our job is to look at this management plan around Real estate, how are we gonna pull in new stores? I mean, people said there's vacancies. Nothing I see in this management plan addresses vacancies per se, and I think that's a big, big problem for us. When I look at the civil sidewalks, I'd rename that to infrastructure and I'd be more specific. More plantings and trees. More wayfinding. More lightings. trash cans, paint the steps that are adjacent to the old Wells Fargo building, right? There are things that we can do and we should be very specific about them because this feels And since this is the fourth thing that we've gotten now that to say it's going to do these things, I want to be a little more specific about it. And the Petaluma example, thank you, Sharna, is a good one because you can see some really great opportunities. I'd also maybe propose that we cut those administrative costs in half and we see if we can immediately get the chamber engaged on being the administrator of this. Sorry, Daryl. And why don't we use the SCA vacant upstairs area if we needed extra space to actually house this? There's no reason we should incur extra costs. Why don't we start weaving some of these projects together? So that's really kind of what I want to offer to my council. I think the city needs to have, if we say this 50%, needs to have better representation, better governance. We need to make sure there's a way to align with city priorities, to take care of things like historic resources. We're going to see there's some initiatives that may impact our historic resources, and I don't know how this currently resolves it. And I think if we don't bring it down, the contribution to reflect what Marco conceded is common practice, he hasn't seen a 50% contribution, then I think we need to increase the infrastructure costs. And I would recommend that we go 35%, 35% on infrastructure along with what we're calling lead generation. So I do wish we had the engineer's report. I would favor heavily having that in hand. And the alignment with strategic goals is actually really important to me. So I think great idea, love that there's this energy. It is the fourth project that we've seen in the last four months that I think tie in. I don't want that to be lost on the community, but now let's connect the dots and really go after what we want here. And if it's reduce vacancies and plant more trees and make things look prettier and more attractive to residents and visitors, then let's call that out. Because what we have right now doesn't do that. So I'll just start there and pause |
| 03:10:29.84 | Steven Woodside | Thank you for your comments. Who wishes to speak next? And just so I can understand the definition of term, infrastructure, you classified their sidewalk category in their infrastructure, so they had 15% Thank you. |
| 03:10:40.88 | Unknown | right? |
| 03:10:40.93 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 03:10:40.93 | Unknown | So in what Marco provided to us, sorry to interrupt you, it says civil sidewalks. |
| 03:10:40.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:10:40.99 | Steven Woodside | THE END OF |
| 03:10:41.03 | Unknown | I don't know what you're saying. |
| 03:10:41.82 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 03:10:48.47 | Unknown | Right, and we heard from our community development director, pardon me, our inspector of public works, that our budget already, he's already doing this work. And so it's something above and beyond, and that wasn't called out here. |
| 03:11:01.13 | Steven Woodside | Okay, I was just asking, so your definition of infrastructure would not be cleaning sidewalks? |
| 03:11:06.80 | Unknown | We're already doing it. |
| 03:11:07.98 | Steven Woodside | Okay, thank you. |
| 03:11:09.41 | Chris Zapata | Yes, well, except that we don't come in after every special event and necessarily do as much as we immediately need to. And so the distinction Marco made was that this would entail special event cleanups and other and and yeah |
| 03:11:27.00 | Unknown | Yeah, it's a really great point, Vice Mayor, and it raises the follow-on question of, Who's paying for the staff time? And then how much of it actually goes to that? Who makes it? Because we spent four hours, I'm sure we'll do it again on strategic priorities. How do we make sure, this is an opportunity to make sure that since we're 50% and we're meeting the business owners where we are, that we also align with our priorities. And I think we should, we'd be remiss if we didn't take that opportunity. |
| 03:11:56.05 | Steven Woodside | I guess I'll say a few words since no one else is leaping at the microphone, because I really love those feedbacks, you know? I mean, I'd love you and my board of directors. I really would. But it's like you've got to start somewhere. You know, I'm in the start of business, and I'm pitched all the time with a business plan, and never once, never once in 25 years of doing this has any company ever executed on their business plan. They had it all. laid out. And it always was different. And yes, sometimes those things failed. They ended up craters in the dirt, burning smoke. But once in a while they went public. But they went public by shifting, by turning, by dodging, by weaving. And you know the companies that never got anywhere You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. You know, Babe Ruth struck out 1,113 times. You got to try. And so... If this was a commitment of 10 years and we had no way to modify it, yeah. especially if we're 50%. City Council can affirmatively shut down at any time. And with that kind of hammer hanging over the thing, If it's not performing to the satisfaction of the elected officials of Sausalito, There will be. Amazing. feedback loop. It's not like a lease. where you may not be able to. It is, there's a lot of power in that. I think it's, you know, we always talk about local control. You can't get more local than that. I mean, part of the problem of us trying to manage and improve downtown is we're our politicians not... Thank you. |
| 03:13:22.99 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:13:24.24 | Steven Woodside | organizers and we have a whole town to think about and we've got our own rhythm and all that This is empowering local people with local control. They're putting up half their own money. Half the money is their money that they're taxing themselves. The other half is their other tax money that they're giving the city just reallocated from budget items that are generally marketing back to this effort and we're just empowering them. It's like a trust. It's like they're putting their hand forward and we're saying yes. So I think it's like this exciting new era thing of doing more with less. We don't have to pay a pension on this money. We don't have to hire and fire. We're not encumbered in all the ways we are if we hire city employees to do things. And you can just get incredible leverage. Like this is like the dynamic shining little City on a hill kind of stuff that we could potentially unlock. And if this works at this scale, then we can replicate it in the marine ship and in Paladonia and You can have people doing the barn raising that we saw with the Matthew Turner And that's the spirit here. And I know you were turned on by that spirit of the Matthew Turner and the barn raising that that represented. Everyone does. But it wasn't just the beautiful ship. It was the barn raising that that involved. And that's what's going on here. It's a barn raising downtown. And I think we should just, you know, lend the rope. |
| 03:14:52.50 | Chris Zapata | um, I do want to say that as one of the speakers pointed out, I'm really inspired by the way in which the business community has come together to support the PVID. And I do thank. EDAC. the members of the business community, the liaisons to EDAC, Jill Hoffman and and the mayor. for their participation in this directive that the city provided to EDAC to move this forward. And I think you've done a great job of getting us to where we are. No one has mentioned the level of the city's participation in the vote. So I endorse the 40% recommended by the staff report. If the city does not participate in the voting, the city is not being a player in the PBID. And we are contributing 50%. And so we should have some role in determining whether or not this moves forward or not. I agree with pretty much everything Council Member Kelman suggested. other than reducing the city's contribution. I believe that we should increase the amount going to infrastructure, I believe we should add to the management plan some of the categories that Councilmember Kelman mentioned. including addressing the vacancy rate. Um, I, um, requiring more wayfinding lighting trash cans, protecting historic resources. I don't want to tell the board that's not even yet formed how to run its business, but I would like to recommend that they explore the concept of having the chamber take a role in the administration of the PBID and that we seek free office space at the SCA. Um, I believe the management plan needs flexibility to pivot. And so, as the mayor mentioned, and so I... Um. I'm recommending that these items be added as bulleted points to the list of roles and responsibilities that are in the management plan. I am very convinced by the successes of PBIDs in Petaluma, Santa Barbara, Pasadena, San Diego, Lakeshore, Downtown Berkeley, Jack London Square um If we or property owners are unhappy with how this turns out, there are multiple ways to unwind this. You heard that testimony earlier this evening. I am happy with the fact of an annual report that requires an annual audit, with the Brown Act rules that apply to all PBID meetings that require that their process be open and transparent. And so for all of those reasons, I would like to grant the business community's request that they tax themselves and stand toe-to-toe with us in making the downtown a more vital and revived area. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:18:00.13 | Unknown | Can I ask, so the mayor mentioned, you know, this is not like lease. We can end it any time. But the enormous pressure that we all had to not change the SCA lease was very evident. And, you know, when the toothpaste is out of the tube, it's hard to put it back in. Any suggestions on governance structure? Should a future council choose to modify or somehow change course with this? What do you mean governance structure? So I think you said something about if it doesn't work that there's off-ramps. |
| 03:18:31.54 | Chris Zapata | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 03:18:37.44 | Chris Zapata | There are three off-ramps. One is the disestablishment, one is to suspend the taxation for a year, and the other is to replace the management committee. |
| 03:18:52.70 | Unknown | To be honest, I don't think we're going to need off ramps. I think this council is going to find that we're not aligned with strategic priorities and feeling a little friction around that. business communities that can do great, and they're gonna find ways to spend the money as they wish and that suits their strategic priorities, I think we may find that they're not necessarily ours. And I would throw out a valet parking concept as an idea around that. And I don't need to debate it, that's just my feeling around it. |
| 03:19:19.02 | Steven Woodside | THE FAMILY. Thank you. Thank you. I thought she was asking. |
| 03:19:22.70 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. |
| 03:19:23.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:19:24.03 | Steven Woodside | Okay. Can you show us the. |
| 03:19:27.31 | Chris Zapata | So the valet parking was proposed for special events, not as an overall concept, which is what we had sort of pooh-poohed. And so, You can go ahead. you know, |
| 03:19:40.79 | Steven Woodside | know, I don't. it's the latitude to experiment more vigorously. Like the valet thing that we look at. I'm a proponent of doing experimenting, but that was not a very baked proposal, right? And I told you we didn't like it. So it's sort of like this is just local control again. It's like local control. It's like they get to experiment and All right. Yeah, so that's the thought is that, well, the biggest guardrail is, you know, when people show up and they advocate, it's because there's something that are valued to the people that elect us. And that's why they show up. The way that we would disestablish the district is if it's trash. and the The business owners are like, this is trash. nobody shows up to advocate for it. And we're like, we're shutting it down or we're disassociated. You know, if people, if the room's packed, then maybe, Maybe it's not trash, but if you disagree with that, |
| 03:20:42.96 | Unknown | I don't think it's a real... Bye. Thank you. Ask for my concern. |
| 03:20:49.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:20:51.95 | Chris Zapata | So I think the city's financial contribution is not huge. I think, you know, when we raised the TOT and the business license tax back in 2019, we made a promise to the business community |
| 03:21:04.58 | Unknown | We didn't, well, it was not in a resolution, nor was it on the ballot. I believe it was a verbally... conveyed by council members at the time. You're exactly right. |
| 03:21:13.35 | Chris Zapata | which there's only, I mean, yeah, there's only two of us. |
| 03:21:13.39 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:21:17.37 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, not all the council members at the time, this one included. So anyway, I'll talk about that on my, |
| 03:21:25.65 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 03:21:25.67 | Jill Hoffman | I can't. |
| 03:21:25.81 | Steven Woodside | I- |
| 03:21:27.34 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 03:21:27.97 | Chris Zapata | actually I was just gonna final finalize my response to your comments which is it it's not a huge investment and there is one of the board members will be a representative of the city to assure that there is that guardrail entailed in how they run their |
| 03:21:46.10 | Unknown | Would there be more at 50% of a participation? |
| 03:21:50.17 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. |
| 03:21:50.19 | Unknown | I'm. That's an option. |
| 03:21:53.09 | Steven Woodside | It is. I'm going to keep it limbo. But let's have Councilman of Boston, who's been very patient and has indicated several times she wishes to speak. I apologize to you. |
| 03:22:01.01 | Melissa Blaustein | That's okay, Mayor, thank you. |
| 03:22:01.33 | Steven Woodside | Amen. I should have acknowledged you. |
| 03:22:03.94 | Melissa Blaustein | No problem. I appreciate it. I hear what my fellow council members are saying, and I appreciate it. that we're all saying the same thing in a lot of ways. And the staff actually asked us to give direct feedback on the management plans, And at the same time, do what the business community is asking us to do again. And the business community is asking us to provide a pathway so that they can use this 40% to move forward in the permitting process. And then we can continue working together in this rare opportunity we have where businesses who have historically not necessarily loved the city or loved working together are working together because we all believe in a vibrant downtown. I love how many times I've heard people say, I believe in a vibrant downtown. And I believe in our ability to craft a strong public-private partnership that invigorates a vibrant downtown through a PBID. And so I'm willing to have a conversation from the dais with my fellow council members about some of the specifics so that we can get to a strong positive vote here. But I really, really, really want to enforce and support the staff's suggestion of the 40% so that we can start the process to move things forward. Let's just move the ball. Let's give some feedback right now that we can have together around some of the pieces of the management proposal to satisfy some of the concerns that have been brought up here. But the bottom line is, business communities showing up again for the city to ask for something of us in a constructive way to work with us and to give us money for improvements. I mean, our contribution while not insignificant, is quite small compared to our whole budget. But if you think about the cost of rent for some of these business owners or these property owners and the amount of money that they're putting into this to make our downtown better, that is significant. So I want to honor that. And I want to just get to a place. We can talk about some of the specifics of the proposal. But I'm very supportive of the staff recommendation for the 40%. And I think if we can work in, Vice Mayor had some good suggestions around that. |
| 03:24:04.45 | Steven Woodside | Right you council member so we're having a chance let's hear from Councilmember Hoffman and then we'll have a motion. |
| 03:24:04.48 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you, council member. |
| 03:24:10.13 | Jill Hoffman | So- Yeah, let me just talk about process a little bit, because it's discouraging for us up here on the dais when we're presented with something new. Let's try this out. Let's take a look at it. Let's give staff some latitude. Let's give our fellow council members, let's compromise and see if we can figure out. what this is even about and whether or not we want to move forward. And somehow during the process, it morphs into you agreed to do this. We're mad at you now. You said you voted last time that you were going to move forward. Why don't you just move forward? So we had comments like that tonight. I went back and watched the meeting from our last meeting, and that's not what we decided to do. We clearly said, Those of us who were not, had not attended the meetings, and we're not on the self-described steering committee, You know, we found out about the parameters 72 hours before the meeting, right? And so, you know, we're concerned about, well, we started off in this conversation. The other three meetings or two meetings, the presentation was... the normal standard that we heard about was that it's 20 to 30% of the district So then all of a sudden we hear it's 50% that either artificially, intentionally boosted, right? And so that's a concern for me personally. And I think it was a concern for other council members as well. And so I just want to call that out as sort of process because this is the third time now that we've dealt with this very small business district, right? We were working for, I don't know how many years, five years, four years on the landslide improvement plan. We had a couple of very vitriolic meetings about that and kind of down the same road. You said you were going to do X. you know, somehow that morphed into now you must do this. We're not going to consider this. at the city council level have discussions at the city council level. This is really the only time we get to talk to each other. Because of the Brown Act, we're not supposed to talk about these things outside of city council meetings. So when you see us kind of fumbling around up here and going through a thought process, that's why. because this is the first time we're looking at things. So it's incumbent upon us to raise concerns at this level. And when we're talking about, we had a four and a half hour strategic planning or whatever you call it, priority setting, Saturday morning, I... There are a couple of you here, Most of you are not here. But I was here, and so was everybody else in this dais. And we talked about what are our goals? What are our personal goals? My goal is pretty simple. It's I'm here to serve all of Sausalito. When someone brings something to me, I've got a great idea. I'm like. Bring it. I love great ideas. Let's hear it. But my filter is, give me the idea, give me your details. Now, I've got to look at it through the prism of all of Sausalito. And is this plan something that's good, not just for the downtown business district, but for Caledonia Street, who I also serve, for people who have hillsides that are falling down. The landslide task force recommendations that we had in 2019 that we still haven't implemented, we still have landslides. So what is my order of priority? And I'm looking at spends, right? I'm looking at if I don't spend money on this or I allocate money for whatever you wanna call it, I by definition do not have money for this. And so that's why we have priority settings. That's why we need to adhere strictly to those priorities, not just for our money, but for our staff time. So one of the things that I asked specifically our staff, how much time have you spent on this sort of exploration? I never got a solid answer on that, but it's substantial from Director Phipps and from our city manager and from other people who have supported this just to this point. We spent about $80,000, and we're going to spend probably another $30,000 maybe. to get this, just we paid, the people of Sausalito paid for the consultant to put this together. So to say that the city doesn't have an oar in the water already, I think is inaccurate, because we've supported this for the past year about, you know, we retained a consultant, we're moving on. So that's the process, that's my perspective. Now let's drill down into this specific project. So this is the third project that we've had before us for a very small radius of real estate downtown in four months, right? Very land side. very landside improvement project. We had to get that done. We got that done, thank God. But- You know, that's a substantial spend and it's going to be a substantial spend for this same teeny tiny little area. Then we had a pretty robust meeting about Center for the Arts, right? Here's the interesting thing about Center for the Arts. That was also a compromise. That lease was a compromise. We're going to we're going to put guardrails in and we're going to have we're going to see if these guys can perform and We're going to give them 18 months of roadway, but then we're going to hold them accountable. If they don't hold accountable, then we're going to have to pivot at the end of this experiment. Well. you know. we got to the point where we hold people accountable And we didn't do it. When we talk about what are the guardrails on this, people are rightfully skeptical about whether or not, even if we put guardrails in. How are we going to hold people accountable? How's the council? Who's even going to be on the council, right? But, you know, What's our collective ability right now to hold people accountable for something that we're allocating, we can put all the guardrails we want if we're not absolutely committed to adhering to those guardrails, that means nothing. And so. When you look at the overall spend, yeah, I mean, I don't sniff at $120,000, sorry. I mean, that's how many feet of sidewalk that we could redo in someone's. You know, we have a problem right now with our insurance, right, because we have so many lawsuits, some of which are related to our infrastructure. We need to focus on our infrastructure. You know, $120,000 one year, but it's really five years, right? I mean, we can talk about off-ramps. We can talk about how do we... how do we unravel this thing? But putting it together has been a substantial amount of work, right? And we're not even done. So we still have a substantial road to hoe on this. The people of Sausley are committing $660,000. So is that a pretty good sizable thing that could fix a whole stairway, a whole set of steps that are emergency access that are part of our plan for people for evacuation? that are crumbling. Yep, it sure would. It'd probably fix a couple of those. So that's my perspective. And so, and then you look at the other aspects of the plan. and, So people are like, okay, so now I've said all the grumpy stuff, right? But here's the good stuff. The good stuff is the way that the business community has come together downtown. I think that's fantastic. Do we want to move forward? Yes. Does the city want to support that? Yes. The model we've been doing so far that we've worked with with Saucely Beautiful is, and we work with the Business Affairs Committee, and then I can't remember, EDAC, I guess, If you have a plan, bring it to us if it fits within our strategic plan. We can fund it. right if it if it but we have to look at that annually because we have to look at the rest of our budget where's the rest of our budget going if we have access in our budget our finance director has told us the number one priority should be paying down our highest risk financially, which is our pension debt. So if we don't want to adhere to you know, getting us on a financially stable platform then we keep veering off into these things that aren't priorities. I'm not saying they're not important. I'm not saying they're not merit. I'm just saying. You know, we need to look at everything through that lens of priority. So what are the options, right? So I think a couple of you guys have said, if not this, then what? Well, it's pretty, you know, we've talked about this too. What's the alternative? Just an informal business improvement district. The chamber can set that up. It doesn't even need to be a chamber. A collective group of businesses can set it up and say, we're going to form a business improvement district. You don't have all this incredible infrastructure that we have now. right you don't have you know, $100,000, whatever, we're up to $80,000 consultant, right? You don't have to go through the, the voting process. You don't have to go through this incredibly complex structure of creating a nonprofit, which also has its own overhead. which we all know because we all are involved in nonprofits. And so we know what that overhead is just to form the nonprofit. You know, you're talking about can a concept like this work Can we get traction? Can we build confidence? Yes. You can do that without moving forward with this concept at this time. So that's my challenge to the community is, can we move forward in a way that doesn't require the infrastructure, that doesn't require $60,000 in costs just to pay the administrative costs of it, which is insane to me. And so I think there's other avenues and I resent the fact that You know, we we say we're going to explore something. We're going to go down this road and then all of a sudden. when somebody challenges that or when you hold people. you know accountable Uh, against the priorities that we have a council has set. I think that's That's unfortunate that that's a dynamic that has seemed to have grown up in Sausalito in the last six months, and I think it's counterproductive. So anyway, but of course I'm willing to listen to whatever compromises my fellow council members think that we can come up with, because I think we can maybe get there, but I don't know, we'll see. |
| 03:34:10.23 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:34:11.31 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. I had one more thing. I'm so sorry. And I got side, This is just a clarification. I got sidetracked by the public comment aspect because I was gonna, there was a comment from somebody you know, the city attorney, that the city attorney had weighed in on whether or not there was a conflict with the mayor. and talking about public benefit generally out of town. I don't think the city attorney did that. If the city turns, I think that, Right. |
| 03:34:40.36 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:34:41.93 | Jill Hoffman | Stephen Woodside did, but Sergio didn't weigh in about the conflict. He just noted that the process... what the process is. He didn't weigh in or give an opinion about whether or not Right, because he represents the city, not the mayor. Yeah, that was just my clarification. |
| 03:34:55.64 | Chris Zapata | Yeah. |
| 03:34:57.68 | Jill Hoffman | I don't know. If our memory is consistent with the city attorneys, but if the city attorney wants to weigh in on that, if you feel like you don't want to weigh in, that's fine, too. |
| 03:35:06.49 | Chris Zapata | Can we ask the city attorney to close the loop on the whole public comment not being attached to the agenda? |
| 03:35:12.02 | Sergio Rudin | I'll answer both those things. One, Joan is correct. My client's the city, not the mayor in his individual capacity. So I typically will not render any sort of binding opinion on anybody with respect to conflicts of interest. They are entitled to seek their own legal advice, which the mayor did. With respect to the public comment, there is no requirement that we attach, you know, writings received by the council to the agenda. And the Brown Act actually never mentions written public comment. The one thing that it does provide is that all items and writings distributed to the council are public record. And so in order to ensure transparency and to comply with the public records requirements, you know, most cities will attach all of those written public comments to the agenda. It is a best practice, but it's not a legal requirement. |
| 03:36:08.10 | Chris Zapata | Thank you, city attorney. |
| 03:36:11.44 | Steven Woodside | Yep. Thank you very much. Yeah, I mean, this is, thank you very much, Councilmember Hoffman. Yeah, there are alternatives that do not involve the city contributing any money or being a financial partner. The proposition from the businesses, again, is that they are asking to tax themselves, essentially elevate their taxes, and put that money into activities that benefit the whole, all the residents of Sausalito. And they're looking for asking the city to partner with them toe to toe. So, you know, it's not the people, not just the residents who are contributing 660K over five years. It's the businesses that are reallocating part of the |
| 03:36:51.80 | Steven Woodside | millions of dollars of tax they pay every year. At least that's how I see it. So I honor your point of view. I just think the proposition here is, is a barn raising it's to do our part so yeah other people can raise the barn and we can compliment them for it but we can be part of the barn raising so |
| 03:37:08.76 | Chris Zapata | Mayor, based on the comment from those of us on the dais, given the late hour, I would like to take a crack at a motion to move this forward. So I move that the City Council approve the draft. management district plan. associated with the proposed downtown Sausalito Property Business Improvement District with the revisions that Councilmember Kelman and I enunciated, other than reducing the city's contribution, that it increased the amount going to infrastructure. Councilmember Kelman's suggestion was 35 percent, that it also addressed the vacancy rate, that it provide for more wayfinding, lighting, and trash cans, that it protect historic resources, and that it explore the concept of THE END OF partnering with the Chamber to administer the PBID, reducing the administrative cost of the PBID, and that the PBID offices be housed at the Sausalito Center for the Arts. In addition that we support the city's proposed petition process and authorize the city manager to begin the assessment district petition process and sign the petition on the city's behalf, exercising up to 40% of the city's total voting power as set forth in the staff report. |
| 03:38:37.19 | Unknown | Thank you. job in our ability to follow my fast talk. Very impressed. She did a great job, didn't she? Yes. But it's not quite a friendly amendment. It's an opinion poll. Given that the city is coming in with a 50% so be the largest single contributor. Does it make sense to request the city have an additional representative on the governing body? |
| 03:39:05.56 | Chris Zapata | you |
| 03:39:06.36 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:39:06.38 | Chris Zapata | May I open the public comment just to allow our consultant or Mr. Phipps to respond to whether that is feasible or advisable? |
| 03:39:21.35 | Marco Lee Mandry | The bylaws, which don't exist because the district doesn't exist, but once the bylaws are written, I'm sure that they would be presented to the overall city council and the city manager. In my mind, there's nothing wrong in Hayward. We have a small district that has two city representatives on it. It all depends the way you write the bylaws. And if that's something that the 50% contributor would like to see, that there's more than one seat, then you just put it in the bylaws and it is what it is. Seek Castro. |
| 03:39:49.65 | Steven Woodside | Cass Green nodding her head. Can I just ask about this infrastructure thing? Does that make sense to you? And is that an issue at all? |
| 03:39:50.09 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:39:55.83 | Marco Lee Mandry | Yeah, as long as you don't think that it's a long-term capital improvement because the district's only five years. You know, so things like decorative lighting, because you're not going to start putting in pedestrian lighting, but decorative lighting, things like tree planting, maybe hanging plants. Yeah, that makes sense. But I just want to make sure that people don't think that you're going, you're not rebuilding sidewalks because that's a whole different animal. We've got to include maintenance. |
| 03:40:00.80 | Steven Woodside | you know, |
| 03:40:18.98 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 03:40:19.03 | Marco Lee Mandry | Thanks. Yes, that includes maintenance. And I took the notes from what you had suggested, Councilwoman Kelman, yes. So I took the notes. And so it's easy to incorporate that. And I understand the concepts that you guys are putting forward. And I think I can include those in the plan so we have a plan that everybody is comfortable with. Thank you. |
| 03:40:25.56 | Steven Woodside | Yes. |
| 03:40:27.04 | Unknown | So I... |
| 03:40:39.16 | Chris Zapata | So then in response to the Councilmember Kelman's comments, I will clarify that infrastructure includes tree planting, decorative lighting, hanging plants, and maintenance, and such things, and that we will request that the bylaws |
| 03:40:39.31 | Unknown | and respond. |
| 03:40:57.13 | Chris Zapata | uh, require that at least two city representatives be a part of the board. |
| 03:41:03.49 | Unknown | You missed one, way finding, you had signage. |
| 03:41:05.27 | Chris Zapata | I said that way finding earlier in my motion. Great, I wanna make sure of that. |
| 03:41:05.98 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 03:41:09.08 | Unknown | second. |
| 03:41:09.62 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. you |
| 03:41:09.84 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. |
| 03:41:10.34 | Steven Woodside | which is the made and seconded discussion. Sorry, did you, |
| 03:41:14.99 | Chris Zapata | We can have discussion. |
| 03:41:15.93 | Steven Woodside | The motion is made and seconded. Is there any discussion on the motion? |
| 03:41:18.85 | Chris Zapata | We can also propose an amendment. |
| 03:41:21.45 | Jill Hoffman | Did you list in there the reduction in the administrative fee? |
| 03:41:25.52 | Chris Zapata | Yes, I said explore chamber administration of the PBID in an effort to reduce the administrative fee, as well as housing it at the Sausalito Center for the Arts. |
| 03:41:36.67 | Jill Hoffman | but I think Councilman McKellman had a number Thank you. |
| 03:41:40.37 | Unknown | I propose Cunningham and Huffington. |
| 03:41:41.29 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:41:41.33 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:41:41.40 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:41:41.50 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:41:42.98 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:41:43.00 | Unknown | And then moving that money into the other two categories. |
| 03:41:43.10 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. |
| 03:41:43.12 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 03:41:43.25 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. you |
| 03:41:46.02 | Unknown | If possible. |
| 03:41:46.66 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. |
| 03:41:47.47 | Steven Woodside | Again, we're- |
| 03:41:47.79 | Chris Zapata | So I'm happy to say with a goal of reducing it in half, if possible. Yeah. I'm happy to. So I. |
| 03:41:53.61 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:41:53.65 | Steven Woodside | I'm sorry. |
| 03:41:53.71 | Unknown | I'm happy to. I think that's with |
| 03:41:56.26 | Chris Zapata | With a goal of reducing the administration costs by half if possible. |
| 03:41:56.84 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 03:42:02.76 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. Okay, will you second that further amended motion? Yes. |
| 03:42:07.64 | Steven Woodside | Yes. Thank you. |
| 03:42:08.48 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. |
| 03:42:08.50 | Steven Woodside | We have a motion that's made and seconded. I'll call the question. All in favor say aye. |
| 03:42:14.59 | Chris Zapata | Bye. |
| 03:42:15.58 | Steven Woodside | All opposed? |
| 03:42:17.22 | Chris Zapata | No. |
| 03:42:17.95 | Steven Woodside | Motion carries four to one. Congratulations. Thank you. And everyone said I had one. |
| 03:42:27.41 | Chris Zapata | Can we make an announcement about what we're going to remove from the |
| 03:42:29.54 | Steven Woodside | So just an announcement that we need to take a matter. It's a late hour. It's a late hour, so the next item we're going to hear is the item that came off of the consent calendar. And then after that, we are going to skip and not hear the... Facilities Assessment, RFP. That will be done next time. And we're doing that first. |
| 03:42:56.52 | Unknown | Friends, can you please take your comments outside just so we can also continue? Thank you so much. WHAT ABOUT THE |
| 03:43:03.29 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:43:03.34 | Unknown | So what about the other thing? |
| 03:43:04.59 | Jill Hoffman | I think, |
| 03:43:04.81 | Steven Woodside | Just one moment. While it's noisy, let me get my act together over here. Council Member Altham. Yeah, sure. |
| 03:43:08.64 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:43:08.66 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, sure, go ahead. |
| 03:43:22.41 | Steven Woodside | I don't have my script. Thank you. |
| 03:43:25.78 | Jill Hoffman | all this. What about the other Thank you. |
| 03:43:31.42 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:43:31.45 | Jill Hoffman | All right. Thank you. |
| 03:43:33.99 | Unknown | All right. |
| 03:43:34.22 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:43:34.24 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:43:34.90 | Steven Woodside | All right, so we're gonna move on. The consent item that was pulled off of the consent calendar is item 3B, accurate and correct with respect to council actions at the January 22nd, 2024 meeting. Do we want to have any kind of staff report on this from? |
| 03:43:50.41 | Chris Zapata | but can we just announce that we will not be hearing, because I think there was a lot of talking. We will not be hearing item. Okay. |
| 03:43:53.92 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 03:43:58.74 | Steven Woodside | Yeah, just for everyone's benefit, we will not be hearing item 5B, which is receive and file a report regarding the development of the 2024 Building Facility Assessment Study. But we will proceed with 5C, 5D, and the item that was pulled off, 3B. So moving on to item 3B, which has become item 3B. 5B, adopt a resolution to queering correct with respect to council actions at the January 22nd, 2024 meeting. do we need any kind of staff report or are we all comp? Oh. |
| 03:44:34.77 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 03:44:34.82 | Jill Hoffman | Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 03:44:35.68 | Steven Woodside | Oh, you pulled it off. Yes, thank you. |
| 03:44:37.17 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, well, I think for context, we need to have a quick maybe staff report or city attorney. Like, here's the context. This is what this is about. Thank you. I mean, we don't have to have a... |
| 03:44:43.29 | Steven Woodside | Someone was. THE FAMILY. Thank you. Thank you. I mean, we don't have to have a... City Attorney Rudin, could you please summarize why this is here and what we are doing? |
| 03:44:47.05 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:44:52.77 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, so we did receive a cure and correct demand email from Miss Bushmaker. It's attached to the agenda. alleging that a council member participated without complying with the requirements for just cause. And additionally, the Brown Act allows the City Council to cure and correct an alleged violation without admitting fault. So In the interest of avoiding litigation, that item is being presented to you folks for consideration. |
| 03:45:23.15 | Steven Woodside | Thank you very much. |
| 03:45:24.18 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. Thanks. And that was Council Member Blaustein, and that was at the January. Ugh. What was the special meeting? I'm sorry, I don't have it in front of me. The January 2022 special meeting, correct? |
| 03:45:40.63 | Sergio Rudin | Correct. |
| 03:45:41.59 | Jill Hoffman | And so the action, it's interesting, the action that we're doing is we're rescinding all those votes and we're rescheduling all those votes for later agenda items, correct? Thank you. |
| 03:45:55.72 | Melissa Blaustein | No, because no direct action was really taken on those items, from what I understand from Sergio. That's not what the staffer said. |
| 03:46:00.07 | Steven Woodside | That's not what the staff report says. City Attorney, could you just answer Council Member Hoffman's question? What are we doing? |
| 03:46:04.75 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, you would rescind all of your prior votes. And to the extent that you need to take further action on those agenda items, they will be brought back to you for action at a future date. So for example, The public hearing item with respect to 426 Pine, that will be rescheduled to come back to you for action. The other agenda items, again, will come back to you for action at an appropriate time as determined by staff. |
| 03:46:32.18 | Jill Hoffman | So this is a process issue too. And the reason that I wanted to pull it off is that this is the second time we've had this kind of issue at the council level. for something that was happening during a meeting for which notice was not given to the council members. So we had an issue along these lines on April 11th in 2023 where a motion was added to the calendar I had no notice of that at all. And so, and then on this issue with regard to the failure to go through the motions, if applicable, that we could have gone through, there was a decision not to do that. And so... This is an agendized item. This is, you know, Thank you. I think my comments are within the scope of what's in the staff report, what's on the agenda. |
| 03:47:34.84 | Steven Woodside | in the Portland. I'm sorry to interrupt, but I'm actually still confused about the facts of this item. And I wanted, can we do the Q&A and then do public comment and then do the discussion just because it's. |
| 03:47:40.44 | Jill Hoffman | Q&A. I'm sorry, go ahead. Absolutely. No, no, go ahead. Go ahead. |
| 03:47:45.96 | Steven Woodside | I really apologize. I was getting |
| 03:47:46.69 | Jill Hoffman | I was like, It's just like- I was getting to my point, but go ahead. |
| 03:47:48.80 | Steven Woodside | Yeah, I know this feels like there's a Q&A opportunity for Sergio because I was actually surprised at his answer to that question. So is this the only way to cure and correct is actually to rescind all the actions? Yes. By the way, |
| 03:48:02.08 | Sergio Rudin | Yes. |
| 03:48:04.07 | Steven Woodside | There was an appeal at that meeting. |
| 03:48:06.40 | Sergio Rudin | Correct. |
| 03:48:07.26 | Steven Woodside | And there was something else at that meeting, but I thought that we didn't actually take a vote. So is it just the appeal that's that issue? |
| 03:48:14.04 | Sergio Rudin | So you heard two items and you continued an item to a future meeting, which is actually on this agenda, which is the building RFP. The other item was we received a presentation and the council gave direction to staff regarding the procurement of parametric insurance. which was a thing that his staff are already presently evaluating. And then, of course, the other action item was the appeal on 426 Pine, where you'd be rescinding your prior vote on 426. that agenda item and again, We're working with the applicant to reschedule that. |
| 03:48:48.22 | Steven Woodside | We think that vote was a continuous, continuing the item. |
| 03:48:48.49 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah. you know, |
| 03:48:51.39 | Steven Woodside | to a date uncertain. So. the only action we took was continuing an item to a date on search. |
| 03:48:57.31 | Sergio Rudin | Correct. |
| 03:48:57.77 | Steven Woodside | and you would be receiving |
| 03:48:57.80 | Sergio Rudin | and you would be rescinding that action. |
| 03:48:59.79 | Steven Woodside | but we still had the hearing, we still heard the facts. We don't have to do the hearing. We just are in limbo about the action. And so we could correct consent at the next calendar, which is that we're continuing the item to a date uncertain. That could be a consent item at the next city council meeting. Is that my understanding? |
| 03:49:03.44 | Dan Chagru | Correct. |
| 03:49:03.81 | Sergio Rudin | Thank you. |
| 03:49:08.92 | Dan Chagru | Correct. |
| 03:49:19.13 | Steven Woodside | That is correct. |
| 03:49:19.30 | Sergio Rudin | THE FAMILY. THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 03:49:19.70 | Steven Woodside | Yes. |
| 03:49:20.93 | Chris Zapata | So why did we not put it on for consent at this meeting? I thought that. uh, Correct. included ratifying the actions on consent that were taken without properly noticing the participation of one of the council members. |
| 03:49:40.92 | Sergio Rudin | So that is one option. The other option is the applicant has requested that the item come back to the city council for a hearing. So we're working to schedule that with the agenda setting committee and the applicant. |
| 03:49:55.21 | Chris Zapata | Right, but if we tonight rescind our sins, action to continue the hearing to a date uncertain. Now we have no action that we've taken on that appeal. |
| 03:50:09.30 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, but I mean, you could correct it either by one placing something on the consent calendar at your next meeting. Or alternatively, you know, staff are working to try and schedule that to come back for a decision by the city council at the next meeting. |
| 03:50:23.12 | Chris Zapata | But my question is, why is this not on our agenda tonight as by the Agenda Setting Committee four the rescission and adoption tonight. |
| 03:50:37.67 | Sergio Rudin | I mean, I don't have a clear answer for that. You know, I think being in limbo with respect to your quote unquote decision to continue the meeting again, since that wasn't exactly a. significant action, I don't think that it really makes a significant difference here. |
| 03:50:55.99 | Steven Woodside | But so the legal path forward here is we take this action and then on consent at the next meeting, we will have a continuance matter or the appeal matter itself. And the same applies to that other matter, the report filing. Is that correct? |
| 03:51:09.69 | Sergio Rudin | That's correct. I mean, your other option is you can just vote to approve this resolution that is presented to you with a modification that you are also ratifying your prior action to continue the 426 Pine appeal to a date uncertain. |
| 03:51:28.88 | Steven Woodside | We can do that tonight. Thank you. |
| 03:51:30.22 | Sergio Rudin | Yes, you can. |
| 03:51:31.46 | Steven Woodside | maybe someone will make a motion to do that. |
| 03:51:32.92 | Chris Zapata | Because this is a cure and correct. Sergio? |
| 03:51:32.95 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 03:51:36.44 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:51:36.51 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. |
| 03:51:36.56 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:51:36.69 | Unknown | Thank you. you Yeah. |
| 03:51:38.26 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. |
| 03:51:38.64 | Melissa Blaustein | I just want to like hang a lantern on the issue and have a little bit of discussion back and forth with you to make clear because the Brown Act is really important. I'm happy to see that this is on Kieran Correct. I, in fact, called Sandra Bushmaker to speak with her about this. And I'm happy to see us bring the issue forward and have a discussion about it if need be. Just to clarify and for members of the public, you and I talked about at the date of the meeting, I am in residence in a master's program at the Naval Postgraduate School, which is specific for governance and for public servants, and is a training program for things like disaster preparedness. So the understanding at the time when you and I spoke was that it would qualify potentially for one of the just cause, right? |
| 03:51:39.06 | Unknown | I just wanna, |
| 03:51:39.43 | Chris Zapata | I'm not sure. |
| 03:52:19.05 | Sergio Rudin | Yes, we discussed that it was a potentially qualifying item, but that there were going to be some uncertainties about that particular issue. |
| 03:52:28.52 | Melissa Blaustein | Sure, and also I will acknowledge, because if you go back and watch the meeting, it's clear that we did not denote that I was joining from a remote location and there wasn't a minor under the age, that we didn't make clear that there were no minors under the age of the age. No adults over the age of 18, I don't remember what No liners under the age of 18 present in the room with me. |
| 03:52:45.16 | Sophia Collier | Yes. |
| 03:52:48.26 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, so I just wanted to bring that forward and say that's what happened at the meeting, and I appreciate that this is being brought up and going forward because of these discussions. When I am in residence in this program, based on the concern that was brought forward, I will either go off campus to a location where I can publicly be accessible for the meeting and notice it and give that notice, not using the just cause clause, or I will drive the three hours back to be here in person in Sausalito from the program. So I just wanted to go over those questions with you and put that out there. So thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you. |
| 03:53:23.97 | Steven Woodside | Please, come on. |
| 03:53:24.56 | Chris Zapata | And I wanted to add also that as staff, we implemented a correction to our agenda setting approach, which is that we now have a placeholder on every single agenda in which to identify the remote participation, if any, by any council member. So that that is never overlooked and all of those guidelines are met as part of the agenda setting process for every agenda. And so... |
| 03:53:24.69 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 03:53:24.80 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 03:53:24.81 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 03:53:24.85 | Steven Woodside | I'm not. |
| 03:53:50.72 | Chris Zapata | we have implemented measures to assure these kinds of technical issues do not arise again. |
| 03:53:58.56 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. I did want to honor the Q&A part and then public comment and then discussion for everybody. |
| 03:54:06.44 | Chris Zapata | Isn't that right, Sergio? Yes. |
| 03:54:10.22 | Steven Woodside | Yes. Okay. Okay, I have to follow up. And so, and, but I also just wanted to, so yes, the council member Hoffman. |
| 03:54:12.97 | Unknown | And it's, |
| 03:54:21.40 | Jill Hoffman | So it's interesting, this section of the Brown Act. So, you know, the cure and correct... The cure and correct process is under a different code section. So a cure and correct is, I mean, in some ways, and I think the city manager, I mean, actually, I'm asking the city attorney for this. So if something's not properly agendized, then there's the cure and correct process, I think, that we just talked about. And that is, we didn't properly agendize it, we're now properly agendizing it. of violating the section of the Brown Act where you're appearing, where a member of a body is appearing and you haven't complied with the Brown Act, that's a different analysis. Isn't that right? I mean, that means the vote is void. It's not like you can fix them. They're... |
| 03:55:12.44 | Unknown | I mean, Asshole. |
| 03:55:18.21 | Jill Hoffman | hey, it's void because you haven't properly convened your panel. And not only is the council member who appears improperly, liable so is everybody else on the panel. |
| 03:55:31.27 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, that is not my understanding, that you cannot cure and correct. |
| 03:55:31.61 | Jill Hoffman | That is- |
| 03:55:39.69 | Jill Hoffman | Well, the cure incorrect is you have to re-agendize it and you have to have the hearing again. Okay, well, then. |
| 03:55:46.51 | Steven Woodside | Let's leave the questions to Sergio. That's a question, Sergio. And let's give him time to respond instead of moving on to the next question. So let's take it one question at a time. If you need time, if you can't answer the question quickly, Sergio, let me know. |
| 03:56:02.80 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, no, I mean, I'd like a couple of minutes just to, you know, not speak off the cuff on something like this. |
| 03:56:10.32 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:56:10.93 | Sergio Rudin | general, you know, the cure and correct process, You have 30 days in which to cure and correct inaction. the manner in which you cure incorrect typically takes by, It typically occurs by rescinding the prior action or vote that you take and then taking whatever action you need to in compliance with the Brown Act to address that issue. So, You know, if you rescind a prior action... and it's the direction of the council not to do anything further, that may actually be enough. |
| 03:56:42.32 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:56:45.46 | Sergio Rudin | You know, You can oftentimes just stop there. Alternatively, you know, you gendize it, you come back and you you know properly cure it by putting it back on the agenda for a subsequent meeting and complying with the Brown Act when you you know, redo the action. |
| 03:57:08.27 | Jill Hoffman | So are you saying that there's not a misdemeanor penalty for failing to follow the notice requirements for appearance of the legislative body? Because I'm pretty sure that we discussed that and that that's part of the Brown Act and it has to do with that particular section. Thank you. |
| 03:57:29.42 | Sergio Rudin | The only criminal penalties that I'm aware of |
| 03:57:29.45 | Jill Hoffman | The only... |
| 03:57:33.55 | Sergio Rudin | are in 54959. |
| 03:57:33.70 | Jill Hoffman | Uh, That's why I wanted to bring it up because we've, you know, it's not just the, the, decision of us not to follow the the appearance requirements for a member of our body. It's not just a consequence for that member. It's a consequence for all of us on the panel. If we all appear. and we have a member that's appearing that hasn't complied with the rules under the Brown Act, we're all liable for that. We are all responsible for that. which goes in, that's why I'm surprised now that, that |
| 03:58:11.65 | Sergio Rudin | So are you, Council member Hoffman, are you suggesting that you should be reported to the DA's office? |
| 03:58:17.42 | Jill Hoffman | Well, interestingly, when I talked to the FPPC, that's what they said. They said that those types of issues under that section of the Brown Act were actually, it is a misdemeanor and it is covered by the district attorney, the DOJ, and you can also make a complaint directly to the FPPC. But that was just background because I was trying to figure out what was going on. |
| 03:58:37.20 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, I mean, I will say that there's a pretty high bar under this for proving a misdemeanor because it requires intent. It requires proving an intent to deprive the public of information, which I think is very difficult to prove with respect to a council member. appearing actually in public, at least via Zoom. I mean, there's no deprivation of information there, so. |
| 03:59:00.83 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, I think we have a different, I mean, the research that I've done on this and what we've discussed is that there is a difference. That is absolutely true. |
| 03:59:10.18 | Sergio Rudin | You and I have never discussed this provision. to my knowledge. except for right now. |
| 03:59:15.00 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, we did discuss this because I said, why is Councilmember Blaustein appearing and we haven't noticed it? and we didn't go through the analysis at our meeting. And that's part of my issue, right? when we have things that come up And, Look, no one's perfect all the time. Like, let me just obviously... very clearly and obviously acknowledge that. But when we have, so this is the second time, right? So April 11th, we had a motion added to the added to our calendar out of order We all voted on it, but then we had an objection to it later. It was like, yeah, we did violate the Brown Act on that. But I didn't know about that beforehand. I didn't know there was gonna be emotion that was gonna be introduced directly relevant to some issues that were, you know, as part, not particularly called out, but what I suspected was going to be the subject of some action later. that meeting. But I wasn't informed of that. And I was accused of being part of that collusion by a member of the public. And I had no idea that that was going to happen. So, and then, you know, I'm sitting on a Zoom meeting on whatever it was, January 22nd. I'm sorry, I was here in person. council member blousey appears on zoom i didn't i didn't have any notice of that and certainly no one called me aside and said hey we've got this issue you know we didn't properly notice it that she was going to appear you know remotely with the proper notice under 72 hours that we're all familiar with that we have to do nor did we go down the analysis of you know, here's how she might. qualify under this exception, but there's a question about that. We should have been briefed on that as a council, as a body. My point being, we're all responsible for what happens at this body. If something like that comes up, We should be briefed on that. Certainly on – you and I did talk about this because I was confused about what had happened and whether or not the just cause – you know, under that particular section, that new exception to the Brown Act actually applied, my opinion was that it didn't. |
| 04:01:32.09 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. Given her comments, I would like to make some |
| 04:01:34.04 | Jill Hoffman | as well. |
| 04:01:34.81 | Chris Zapata | you |
| 04:01:34.96 | Jill Hoffman | Well, it's not asking questions. |
| 04:01:36.67 | Steven Woodside | we, we, |
| 04:01:37.31 | Jill Hoffman | Well, Our city attorney said we never discussed it. |
| 04:01:40.62 | Steven Woodside | We do need to take public comment on this matter. Typically, we do the Q&A, take public comment, then we have discussions. So I see we have no more questions. Let's have the public comment on this matter. Any public comment here in the audience? Ms. McDougall. |
| 04:02:04.43 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. Thank you for acknowledging me. So yes, this is not the first time we have thrown our meetings off the rails in terms of legality. And I think we see at this point that the city attorney has a certain job to do. and it is not to be the parliamentarian. And so I've put in my written comment to you all that it's really time to revisit bringing back the parliamentarian. I'm not sure who decided to disband the parliamentarian, but there was one. Thank you. attached to this body at a certain point. And I would like to encourage you, to think seriously about that. Now we use a parliamentary at the Sausalito Women's Club, for example. Thank you for acknowledging me. We also have saying the Pledge of Allegiance. Yes, this is not the first time we have thrown our meetings off the rails in terms of legality. |
| 04:02:43.75 | Unknown | Thank you for acknowledging me. of the |
| 04:02:45.62 | Unknown | and |
| 04:02:45.84 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 04:02:51.71 | Babette McDougall | And I think we see at this point that this. Thank you very much, Walford. |
| 04:03:00.15 | Steven Woodside | I think that's the one. |
| 04:03:01.57 | Babette McDougall | Okay, I get to hear myself. |
| 04:03:02.82 | Steven Woodside | Please go ahead and speak to a goal. |
| 04:03:04.47 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. All right, well, I think we made the point that we should seriously consider the wisdom of having a parliamentarian. |
| 04:03:11.89 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Thank you. Any other public comment in Chambers? We have a public comment on Zoom, city clerk. We have Senator Bushmaker. Ms. Bushmaker, please go right ahead. |
| 04:03:25.17 | Steven Woodside | You're still muted. |
| 04:03:27.89 | Sandra Bushmaker | Okay. Since I'm the one that wrote the letter about this particular issue, I just want to say that I'm relieved that the council is wrestling with this. It's about time. um, that while your action to rescind the actions of 122-24 meeting was appropriate to cure the agenda matters, It does not address or cure the improper appearance by counsel by by zoom under the brown act requirements all that needed to happen was to for her to post on the agenda as. Councilmember Kellman did recently that she was appearing by zoom. This whole matter would have been resolved right then and there. Absent that, My reading of the Brown Act states that there has to be just cause or an emergency, which is defined in the Brown Act itself, and then requires a deliberation amongst the council members of whether or not to accept the appearance by Zoom. In addition, I did find that code section that Sergio just referred to, government code section 5495.9. which states that each member Uh, of a legislative body who attends a meeting of that legislative body where action taken in violation of any provision of this chapter and where the member intends to deprive the public of information to which the member knows or has reason to know The public is entitled under this chapter, Is Guilty of a Misdemeanor. So there are serious consequences. Oh, And I'm pleased to hear that actions have been taken to remedy this situation in the future. And I think it's really important because you're exposing yourselves to to liability and the city to liability for continued violations of the Brown Act. Thank you for your consideration on this. Appreciate it. |
| 04:05:32.29 | Walfred Solorzano | Do you have Kieran Culligan? |
| 04:05:40.72 | Unknown | Hey there. I hate to spend any more time on this, but here I am. You know, just one thing I want to acknowledge, like this could have been done with an email that wasn't a cure incorrect that said, Hey, it looks like something wasn't up to stuff here. Could you clean it up next time? If it comes in the future, we could have then not had to have done the cure incorrect and losing a whole meeting, all of your city council time, all of the staff time. Greatly appreciate our council's advice, but it is costly. And I can only imagine how many hours went into writing a staff report and being in the meeting now and answering these questions. So I would hope that like, if we are cautious about our city's budget, like we just burned through a good couple percentage points of the PBID budget. They were just looking at just on this issue that could have been totally avoided if we thought about it as like a true civil, let's work on this together. So hopefully we can do better. |
| 04:06:33.06 | Walfred Solorzano | All right, Ron Albert. |
| 04:06:39.41 | Ron Albert | Okay. Can you hear me? |
| 04:06:39.42 | Steven Woodside | Okay, can you hear me? Yes, we can, Mr. Albert. |
| 04:06:42.95 | Ron Albert | Okay. Um, I can't believe how much time you've just spent on this. Um, One of the previous speakers read the code and she confirmed what your city attorney stated, or there's a requirement that there be an intent to deprive the public of the opportunity to participate. There's no intent here. This is insane that you're spending this much time on this. Please listen to your city attorney, that's all. |
| 04:07:17.04 | Steven Woodside | because |
| 04:07:17.27 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 04:07:17.34 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:07:18.08 | Walfred Solorzano | Steven Woodside. |
| 04:07:25.09 | Ron Albert | I can't believe how much time you've just spent on this. One of the previous speakers read the code and she confirmed what your city attorney stated, which third, There's a requirement that there be an intent to deprive the public of the opportunity to participate. There's no intent here. This, this is insane spending this much time on this. Please listen to your city attorney. That's all. |
| 04:07:55.53 | Unknown | I understand. He just needs to. |
| 04:07:57.18 | Ron Albert | Stephen Woodside. |
| 04:07:58.06 | Unknown | Thank you. on the TV. |
| 04:08:03.75 | Ron Albert | I can't believe how much time you've just spent on this. One of the previous speakers read the code and she confirmed what your city attorney said. |
| 04:08:13.89 | Steven Woodside | We'll get him. We will get him. Could you please unmute Mr. Woodside? |
| 04:08:19.14 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you very much. |
| 04:08:19.85 | Steven Woodside | Just Lucinda Eubanks. |
| 04:08:20.60 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 04:08:22.73 | Steven Woodside | Did he hang up? |
| 04:08:29.72 | Walfred Solorzano | Are you able to- |
| 04:08:29.75 | Steven Woodside | you |
| 04:08:29.80 | Unknown | of music. |
| 04:08:30.17 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:08:34.81 | Unknown | He just needs to. |
| 04:08:35.84 | Steven Woodside | Stephen Woodson. Hi, I don't know if you can hear me. Please go right ahead. |
| 04:08:39.15 | Unknown | this week. |
| 04:08:40.87 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. I think your city attorney is correct. |
| 04:08:42.59 | Ron Albert | Exactly how much time you've just spent on this. So, One of the previous spankers read |
| 04:08:51.03 | Ron Albert | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:08:52.62 | Steven Woodside | We look at him. |
| 04:08:54.03 | Steven Woodside | Sorry. |
| 04:08:54.86 | Steven Woodside | who's unmute Mr. Wood. |
| 04:08:56.01 | Steven Woodside | Your city attorney is correct. |
| 04:08:56.03 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:08:58.90 | Steven Woodside | Um, member Hoffman, you're wrong. You're being obstructionist, disruptive, wasting time. I'm sorry to say it. I used to support you. I'm very disappointed. |
| 04:08:59.38 | Steven Woodside | You said that. |
| 04:09:08.43 | Unknown | I'm pleased to support you. |
| 04:09:13.48 | Unknown | And he just needs to. |
| 04:09:14.52 | Steven Woodside | Stephen Woodson. |
| 04:09:14.54 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 04:09:15.68 | Steven Woodside | Hi, I don't know if you can hear me. Please go right ahead. |
| 04:09:17.96 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 04:09:19.57 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. I think your city attorney- |
| 04:09:21.61 | Ron Albert | Exactly. How much time you've just spent on that? |
| 04:09:32.71 | Steven Woodside | Sorry. Mr. Woodside. Your city attorney is correct. Um, member Hoffman, you're wrong. You're being obstructionist, disruptive, wasting time. I'm sorry to say it. I used to support you. I'm very disappointed. |
| 04:09:52.15 | Unknown | He just needs to go. |
| 04:09:53.20 | Steven Woodside | Stephen Woodson. Hi, I don't know if you can hear me. |
| 04:09:56.37 | Unknown | Can you not |
| 04:09:57.06 | Steven Woodside | Go right ahead. |
| 04:09:58.23 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. I think your city. How much time did you just. |
| 04:10:10.43 | Walfred Solorzano | I don't think it's Granicus. No, it shouldn't be. Granicus has no sound. |
| 04:10:19.71 | Chris Zapata | Is there any other public comment, Walford? |
| 04:10:22.09 | Walfred Solorzano | Yeah, we have Vicki Nichols. |
| 04:10:24.32 | Steven Woodside | We don't have to wait. |
| 04:10:26.17 | Chris Zapata | We don't have to. |
| 04:10:26.78 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 04:10:27.30 | Chris Zapata | Yep, she said. |
| 04:10:28.50 | Steven Woodside | Yep. Thank you. |
| 04:10:32.13 | Chris Zapata | Nope. |
| 04:10:32.79 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:10:32.80 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 04:10:32.82 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 04:10:33.09 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:10:33.85 | Unknown | THE FAMILY IS |
| 04:10:34.04 | Walfred Solorzano | Nichols? |
| 04:10:34.22 | Vicki Nichols | Right. |
| 04:10:34.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:10:35.07 | Walfred Solorzano | OK. |
| 04:10:35.07 | Vicki Nichols | Okay, I wasn't able to unmute. This is... |
| 04:10:35.69 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:10:37.95 | Walfred Solorzano | Yeah. |
| 04:10:40.38 | Vicki Nichols | Yeah. I've never seen anything like that. This happened before. But I do agree that these kinds of things, regardless of the other comments, are agendized and they do deserve to be discussed in public. What I'm more concerned about is this recording thing. These are supposed to be the records of these meetings. And this is just... You had one or two speakers. being repeated. Maybe it's just a gaffe. but I hope this is not the way the recording goes forward for this meeting. And I wonder if there could be any, maybe retraining or something. embarrassing, really. And I'm sorry that One of the council members was called out like that. Any one of you I think is unnecessary and bad form. Thank you. |
| 04:11:34.19 | Walfred Solorzano | No further public. Actually, no, we have one from Fred. |
| 04:11:34.31 | Unknown | of the |
| 04:11:34.48 | Charles Melton | Thank you. |
| 04:11:41.32 | Walfred Solorzano | Oh. All right. Yeah. |
| 04:11:47.93 | Unknown | Yeah, I'm sorry. It took a while to unmute. And I guess I apologize for the late comments, but I appreciate all the work that you do. And to reiterate, I just find it hard to believe that any of you have conspired with any intent to deprive anybody of participating, etc. So I appreciate all the work that you do and all the hard work. And I am sorry also that someone was called out there unjustifiably. So thank you again for your work. |
| 04:12:16.62 | Steven Woodside | Any other public comment? We'll close public comment. And is there any motion or discussion? You're in a motion. |
| 04:12:27.22 | Chris Zapata | Yes, I had discussion and I also wanted to ask the city attorney a question so city attorney are we able to amend our resolution to cure and correct or must we only do what you drafted, which is direct staff to. Correct. |
| 04:12:45.53 | Sergio Rudin | I would suggest that we direct staff to correct, because the best way to ensure compliance with the Brown Act is to have any actions to ratify be their own agenda item. |
| 04:12:57.51 | Chris Zapata | Okay. um, Then I'll make brief comments and then I'll make a motion. So I, too, take umbrage at any one of us, pointing a finger at any other of the one of us, because every one of us up here has made a mistake at one time or another, myself included. I know that's hard to believe. And so I really think we have a duty to one another to work collaboratively and agree to disagree where we disagree, but not target one another. It's just counterproductive. I also do agree with the comments of Ron Albert, the city attorney, Stephen Woodside, that Government Code Section 54959 requires an intent to deprive the public of information or the opportunity to participate. that is something none of us did. Further, another section of the government code requires that prior to any action being commenced by an interested party, by the district attorney, or by anyone else, the district attorney or interested person, quote, shall make a demand of the legislative body to cure or correct the action required to have been taken in violation of the government code statutes. The demand shall be in writing and clearly describe the challenged action of the legislative body and nature of the alleged violation. I, for one, have not yet received any such demand from the District Attorney, and so I am will sleep well tonight, not worrying that an impending arrest is imminent. And so with that, I move that we adopt a resolution of the Sausalito City Council, curing and correcting under the Brown Act by rescinding prior actions made at the January 22, 2024 City Council meeting. and giving staff direction to correct. I'm waiting for a second and then we can have a discussion. Thank you. |
| 04:14:52.00 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:14:52.02 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. |
| 04:14:52.04 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:14:52.07 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. |
| 04:14:52.17 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:14:52.46 | Steven Woodside | Second. |
| 04:14:54.05 | Jill Hoffman | OK, so let me clarify. |
| 04:15:00.02 | Jill Hoffman | we can go through the process to correct the issues at that meeting. But it's a different issue. It would have been the same if it was, I think... My problem is the process. My problem is that and something and why I pulled this to specifically discuss it, is that things are happening that the council's not informed of. and they're happening that have resulted in violations of the Brown Act. And so it's a process request of when the mayor, the vice mayor, somebody knows, that, another council member is gonna take an action that may subject us to a violation of the Brown Act. We should all be informed of that. And I think And the point is that This is just a process, no matter, and Like I said, like I make mistakes too, right? Like all of us do. But the point is that we want to, as a council, And my point is actually not to attack any person. But. that. We've... had to do this twice now. And we need to come up with a policy of the council. This is one of the only times we're all five together. of how we're going to address this in clear direction to our city manager and our city attorney and whoever's sitting as the mayor and the vice mayor at the time. This is how we're going to address this. If we're veering into a violation of the Brown Act, we need to pause, I think, and talk about it as a council because we're all responsible for it. So that's really the purpose, and we kind of digressed down a rabbit hole that I didn't mean to go down, because this is what I meant to talk about. And I would just like to get to a way of motion on the table, but also as a policy direction and an agreement of the council is going forward, when these things come up, we're going to all be informed of this. |
| 04:17:00.25 | Steven Woodside | Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 04:17:00.93 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:17:00.95 | Steven Woodside | Maybe there's a fact that isn't known. Sorry, the hour is late. This was a Monday meeting, I think. |
| 04:17:11.42 | Jill Hoffman | Right, it was a special meeting. |
| 04:17:12.34 | Steven Woodside | And it was very difficult to schedule that meeting. I just want to let you know, if you don't know, that I asked our city attorney if Councilmember Gloucester can attend. |
| 04:17:21.30 | Dan Chagru | Mm-hmm. |
| 04:17:21.60 | Steven Woodside | under this emergency measure, and I was told yes. And so I thought it was all fine. So I agree with you that it should be informed, but The information I had is it was fine. I didn't know you were supposed to say that there was no one under the age of 18. So I'm sorry that I didn't catch that. None of us caught that, I guess, not knowing this provision. But city attorney, do I misremember that? And I'm just trying to help with, if I'm wrong, tell me. But my vague recollection was that we talked about this and that what I just said is true. This is... When. |
| 04:18:01.92 | Sergio Rudin | So, one, it's you have to announce if there's any adults in the room with you, not whether or not they're minor children. And... I don't exactly remember whether we had a discussion or exactly what the details were of it at this point. But I think you're probably right that we did discuss it at some point. |
| 04:18:21.90 | Steven Woodside | I apologize, but I do remember discussing. It was very hard to schedule that meeting. Everyone, we were trying to accommodate it Uh, And, you know, we all want to aspire for perfect process. So that was an omission. Anyway, just wanted to let you know that. |
| 04:18:37.17 | Jill Hoffman | But here's the issue. The issue is we didn't go through the procedures. And as the city attorney said earlier, there's a question about whether or not the just cause provision under this section applied. So the decision at some point was to go forward. We hadn't properly noticed it on the agenda, as we all know how we do. Councilmember Blousting has used this provision in the past. So she knew the process, I knew the process, we all know the process. But somewhere there was a decision not to follow that process. |
| 04:19:11.39 | Chris Zapata | There was not a decision not to follow the process. There was a mistake made by staff. This was not properly agendized and we have been if we have implemented a correction to be sure that never happens again. and to be sure that when there is a just cause exception, that we will vote on it as a council. That was left inadvertently omitted from the agenda for that special meeting. |
| 04:19:36.18 | Jill Hoffman | I don't think you you don't have to vote on a just cause. That's you don't you don't vote on that section of the Brown Act under that emergency section. If it's one of the other ones, if it's the family medical. |
| 04:19:36.53 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. |
| 04:19:48.21 | Jill Hoffman | or something else, then yeah, you vote on it. But if it's just cause, |
| 04:19:51.45 | Chris Zapata | In any event, this was not an issue of the making of any of those of us sitting at the dais. And this was an improper Melissa Blaustein does not type up the agenda, nor do I, nor does anybody here. That was that's performed by staff and I frankly I think we've pulled out and embarrassed our staff adequately to where careful attention will be paid in the future regarding these types of issues. |
| 04:20:19.21 | Jill Hoffman | OK, so I think it's clear now to me. So it wasn't because all the anyway, she appeared on Zoom. And it was just a fumble. All of us a fumble. Thank you. to the attorney that's a couple? |
| 04:20:34.33 | Sergio Rudin | I'll take responsibility for it. Yeah, no, I mean. |
| 04:20:36.91 | Jill Hoffman | I'm just looking for the facts and the truth right so |
| 04:20:37.49 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah. |
| 04:20:42.55 | Jill Hoffman | Anyway, I guess I don't want to believe or more. I mean, it seemed to me that there was a decision to move forward not to comply with either section of the Brown Act. Because we could have. And city attorney. I wasn't aware there was an issue. |
| 04:20:57.97 | Chris Zapata | until I received a letter. |
| 04:20:59.03 | Melissa Blaustein | from Sandra Bushmaker. Can I just say one thing about the process of this. So I'm in this great master's program, which is for public servants. You have to be working for a government to be a part of this program. I've learned a lot about disaster preparedness, how we better equip our community. That's why I pushed to put disaster preparedness drills on our agenda going forward. I've learned a lot about how our national security infrastructure works and how it better can serve our community. And so that's why the understanding and the conversation that I had had with our city attorney was that given that this was for city business and that it is a program that is only open to city employees. And in fact, it's on a naval base, which is why I could not use a just posting of the location because it's not a public location. So you can't, no one can just enter. And in advance of a special meeting, I had said, in fact, in my conversations with the mayor, I'm very happy to accommodate a special meeting, but I need you to know that these two weeks I am in residence and I will not be able to post the meeting as a remote standard practice if we get approval from the city attorney that this can work as just cause then I'll appear that way and we had a conversation and it really was just I think a fumble of not including it I can say with with total certainty that I had no intent whatsoever of not including or welcoming the public into any aspect of the meeting, and that I make mistakes and that we all make mistakes. And so I take the Brown Act very seriously, as I've said. I'm happy to have a number of conversations about best practices for transparency going forward. I'm happy to work together on how we might address this going forward. I have no problem with any of that. I do just want us to be able to get through this meeting because it is 11.32 p.m. So whatever needs to happen so that we all feel good about our process, but I want to honor that these changes have been made by the Agenda Setting Committee, that this has been brought forth by a member of the public, so we're having a conversation about it. And, you know, just again, hang a lantern on the issue and explain what happened, how we got there, and that I had, there was no intent to conceal anything from the public. So again, I really wish that we had said There was no one over the age of 18 with me in the room, of which at this, now you can all know, there was no one over the age of 18 with me in my sad dorm room at the Naval Postgraduate School. So, anyway. |
| 04:23:14.51 | Chris Zapata | With that, Mr. Mayor, I call the question. |
| 04:23:16.68 | Steven Woodside | The question's called? All in favor of the motion that's been duly seconded, say aye. Aye. Opposed? The motion carries unanimously. Moving on to item 5C, authorization to close Tracy Way for the 2024 season. Staff report from our chief of police. |
| 04:23:21.44 | Chris Zapata | Aye. |
| 04:23:21.98 | Sharna Brockett | Thank you. |
| 04:23:33.56 | Steven Woodside | Correctly. Good evening. |
| 04:23:38.07 | Unknown | almost good morning. |
| 04:23:40.39 | Steven Woodside | Don't make it so, please. Thank you. |
| 04:23:42.27 | Unknown | 100%. Good evening, mayor and council members. I'm here tonight to talk about the bike season that's, uh, upon us. I'm going to ask authorization to close Tracy way tonight and also authorization for the police department to actually manage the bicycle operation. Um, and that would entail hiring part-time seasonal staff, uh, under our umbrella as well. Now previously the city council has asked us to put out an RFP for this season. Um, South Slido Bike Return has been our contractor for the last six years. They are unable to continue that service. Knowing post-pandemic numbers, I don't think it would be, I don't think anybody would reply to an RFP anyway. I don't think there's numbers to support it. And so that's, you know, the reason that we're proposing to manage the service ourself. The season will start in mid-March, end of March, around spring break, run through October. The staffing schedule will be flexible. Based on the demand, we can increase and decrease as needed. A little history. Total bikes parked last year, 2023, was only 10,540 bikes. And that was from April 7th to October 9th. To give a little comparison, in July of 2019, we parked and returned, just in July, 11,614 bikes. The entire season for 2019, which is our last normal season, we parked and or returned 50 over 54,000 bikes. And I only share those numbers to put it in perspective as to why we're here and why we're talking about bike parking because of those numbers. So it's unclear what the season, this season will bring. Certainly not going to be 2019 numbers. I'm assuming that it's going to be similar to what we had last year, which is low numbers. Jeff Sears, one of the owners and operators of Blazing Saddles, which is the biggest buy rental company that comes into town is here tonight. He agrees with that projection that the numbers are going to remain low. So let's see. I'm guesstimating that our total employee cost for this season will be in between $20,000 to $35,000. That's pretty consistent with what we've paid Sauce Little Bike Return for the last five, six years. The staff that will be hired will make between $20,000 and $25,000 an hour. And then it's hard to also predict revenue because it's based on the numbers when they come. So the operation will function identical to last year. We're proposing $5 a bike using the square system. We're hiring some of the people that have worked down there. Some of them for the entire time South Slido Bike Return has managed the parking. We'll, you know, so they'll continue to take payment. They'll act as ambassadors for the city and answer questions for visitors as needed. And so that's our proposal. Any questions for me? |
| 04:27:05.86 | Steven Woodside | The chief. No questions for the chief. We will go to public comment. Any public comment on this matter? |
| 04:27:20.46 | Jeff Sears | Jeff Sears, Blazing Saddles. You guys have had a long evening. Congratulations, almost through it. I'll make it really quick. Well, it's been about 10 years since the late Herbie Wiener spearheaded this program to get the bike program under control so that it could relieve congestion both on the streets and the sidewalk. I think it's done a pretty good job over the years. |
| 04:27:21.29 | Unknown | saddle. |
| 04:27:47.98 | Jeff Sears | definitely improvement. Um, however, since, uh, post COVID numbers have decreased significantly as the chief just mentioned, I really noticed last year a lot and had some feedback from customers that, um, of a couple of things I wanted to share with you. First of all, my observation, maybe yours too, that even though there was a lot less traffic, it seemed that there were quite a few, um, Bikers that were discouraged from paying $5, that price was a little bit over the sweet spot for many people that we had feedback from. And I think that actually was detrimental to what the goal was and caused more congestion on the sidewalk unnecessarily by having the price at a point where it wasn't attractive enough and people chose to not take that and wound up blocking the sidewalk unnecessarily. So one of the things I'd like to recommend would be to lower the price to $3, something that might be more attractive. I think the volume that you will able to gain on that, you'll come up with a higher amount of, uh, a volume of revenue generated for the season And I think that will be really good. And I think that the most important thing, you're going to achieve the goal of having the visitors enjoy the downtown historic district, patronizing both the shops and the restaurants and i hope that you take that into consideration last thing is really quickly a way for |
| 04:29:30.21 | Steven Woodside | Okay. |
| 04:29:30.55 | Jeff Sears | you |
| 04:29:30.80 | Steven Woodside | I appreciate it. Thank you. |
| 04:29:31.16 | Jeff Sears | Thank you. |
| 04:29:33.71 | Walfred Solorzano | So we got. |
| 04:29:34.53 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:29:34.55 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 04:29:34.57 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:29:34.58 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 04:29:34.60 | Steven Woodside | you Any other public comment? Thank you. |
| 04:29:36.88 | Walfred Solorzano | See you, man. |
| 04:29:37.77 | Steven Woodside | All right, we'll have a discussion on the dice, please. |
| 04:29:40.17 | Chris Zapata | I will go ahead and make a motion that we approve the resolution of the City Council of the City of Sausalito authorizing the temporary closure of Tracy Way and Sausalito for bicycle parking from March 1 through October 31. 2024 and authorize the police department to manage the bicycle parking operation and staff along the lines described by the police chief. |
| 04:30:06.21 | Steven Woodside | Motion's made in second. Is there any discussion? All in favor, say aye. |
| 04:30:11.12 | Chris Zapata | Bye. |
| 04:30:11.15 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. All opposed. Motion carries unanimously. We'll introduce item 5D, introduction of waiver, first reading of ordinance 5D. three, Dash 2024, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Sausalito amending Sausalito Municipal Code Section 2.58.040 relating to residency requirements on city boards, commissions, and committees, which staff may have been giving this report. |
| 04:30:35.99 | Sergio Rudin | I think it'll be me. During the last city council meeting, there were some questions they came up with respect to residency requirements for EDAC. EDAC is a body established by resolution of the city council. And one of the resolutions that created EDAC indicated that it would be subject to Sausalito Municipal Code Chapter 258. That chapter includes a specific residency requirement the proposed ordinance before you tonight would modify. Those provisions of the Sausalito Municipal Code to authorize the council to modify residency requirements for boards and commissions where it's appropriate as determined by the city council. So that is the effect of the ordinance before you tonight. I'm able to take questions. |
| 04:31:22.15 | Steven Woodside | This does not change the residency requirement for any board or commission in and of itself. It simply allows the city council to have the flexibility to do so by resolution rather than issuing an ordinance. Correct. |
| 04:31:33.69 | Sergio Rudin | Thank you. |
| 04:31:33.74 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. |
| 04:31:33.89 | Sergio Rudin | Thanks. |
| 04:31:33.97 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for the city attorney? We will take public. Oh, yes. A question from Councilmember Hoffman. Oh, sorry. We will take public comment. City clerk. Anyone in the audience? |
| 04:31:39.90 | Unknown | I will. |
| 04:31:48.59 | Steven Woodside | I think that's the indefatible. I bet it would Google. |
| 04:31:55.07 | Babette McDougall | I think I told you I signed up for everything tonight. So I wanted to address you about this issue of residency. If I'm not mistaken, there was something called the Business Advisory Committee, and I think that's the predecessor of what we're now calling EDAC, if I'm not mistaken. Now, I served on that Business Advisory Committee because I was required to as part of the chamber. And there were people on that committee that were not residents of Sausalito, but they had businesses in town. So I can see how being in this EDAC environment does sort of push the question of residency, especially if someone has a long, well-established business here. So I, I'm not sure why the whole business advisory council thing got thrown out the window because I wasn't here at the time. So I don't know. I don't know why they threw all those rules out. I just know that now there's this EDAC thing. And the EDAC thing seems to be this, body that's still being defined, for lack of better words. And I'm not sure why this criteria for local business versus resident and local business was somehow thrown out the window. But I think it's an idea to bring back and revisit, at least with regard to trying to put some structure around someone who is well-established with a local business and would like to be part of the solution going forward, and serving on a committee does that. But how do we thread this needle? So it's important that the residency requirement be honored But at the same time, when we have these successful businesses and they're willing to step up to a leadership role We need to take that into account, and it was previously taken into account when it was known as the Business Advisory Council. Thank you. |
| 04:33:50.48 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Any other public comment online? |
| 04:33:54.05 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:33:54.44 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:33:54.64 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 04:33:59.98 | Vicki Nichols | I'm just curious why I totally understand the need for EDAC's RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT TO BE EXPANDED, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE owners that don't live in the city. And I think they've been a major contributor to that committee. I'm not sure. Can we not do something just for that committee rather than changing every other commission? or whatever. I mean, I think that many of the commissions that you have or committees, it's very relevant that local residents serve on them. I'm just, I'm not understanding why it has to be either or. I, I, Anyway. I think you're opening up a big loophole for a lot of other committees. |
| 04:34:59.70 | Steven Woodside | Is there any other public comment? |
| 04:35:02.23 | Unknown | See you then. |
| 04:35:03.38 | Steven Woodside | Public comment is closed. Is there any discussion here on the dice? |
| 04:35:05.67 | Unknown | I'll just say, Mayor, that if you read the staff report, it modifies the code to require a residency on a city board committee or commission by default. And then on occasion to the city council wish to change that we can. And then it further says in conjunction with second reading adoption, staff will bring forth an agenda item authorizing non-resident membership on EDAC. So while yes, there could be a future council that decides non-resident membership on others, this is specifically asked EDAC at this time and require council action for anything else. So with that said, I will make a motion. |
| 04:35:40.74 | Steven Woodside | And I'll second it. Oh, I'll fucking do it. |
| 04:35:41.88 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:35:42.04 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. |
| 04:35:42.07 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:35:42.27 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. |
| 04:35:42.37 | Unknown | We have to |
| 04:35:42.97 | Chris Zapata | actually say, introduced by... I move that we introduce by title only and waive first reading of ordinance number 03-2024, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Sausalito, amending Sausalito Municipal Code Section 2.58.040, relating to residency requirements on city boards, commissions, and committees. Allow me to second that. |
| 04:36:05.10 | Steven Woodside | Motion is made and seconded. Is there any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Passes unanimously. Moving on, we need to do public comment for the item we are not hearing. That is receive and file a report regarding the development of the 2024 building facility assessment study. Is there any public comment on that item, which we are continuing to a future meeting? |
| 04:36:29.94 | Unknown | See none. |
| 04:36:31.38 | Steven Woodside | All right, we will close public comment for that. And now we will hear public comment on item 3D that was pulled off the consent calendar, which has also been continued to a future agenda. Adopt a resolution authorizing the city manager to execute the First Amendment to the agreement with the county of Marin to increase the total amount available to the city of Sausalito to expanded homeless and housing opportunities to an amount not to exceed $1 million. Is there any public comment on this item? |
| 04:36:55.60 | Walfred Solorzano | Bye-bye. |
| 04:36:56.24 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:36:57.77 | Jill Hoffman | Can I just interrupt for a second? of order. |
| 04:36:59.98 | Steven Woodside | of order from the Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 04:37:01.37 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, sorry. City managers are leaning forward. I think there's a deadline on this, right? That's why it's on. |
| 04:37:04.56 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:37:04.57 | Chris Zapata | I think that's a good thing. |
| 04:37:04.83 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:37:06.12 | Chris Zapata | Mayor, if I may, this item was heard by the Board of Supervisors today, and the longer we delay on taking action on it, I think that doesn't bode well. I think it looks funny to the county that we wouldn't do that. They're trying to give us half a million dollars. I know that this is something that's going to take a whole lot of conversation about how to accept it. I know that in speaking with Council Member Blaustein, she has some ideas about how to stretch that or approach that, but I think you need to take action on it tonight. |
| 04:37:31.24 | Steven Woodside | All right. Thank you for that information. Thank you, Councilmember Hoffman, for the catch. We will hear this item then as a regular item. Can we please have a staff report from our city staff concerning this item? |
| 04:37:46.81 | Chris Zapata | One of the things that the city council did was advocated that the city of Sausalito reach out to Marin County for assistance with homelessness and reached out to the state of California. The city was granted $167,000 a year ago and was granted another $500,000 by the state of California through the county of Marin. The city has expended $193,000 of that on reimbursing ourselves for encampment expenses and set aside $307,000 for the Dorothy Gibson house conversion into housing for the unhoused and homeless persons. And the work that was done alongside that was with the Dorothy Gibson estate to honor the bequeathment which stated that the city should use that property for housing of a city employee and parallel to that was the idea that the city would then get matching funds from the county in the amount of $500,000 which the Board of Supervisors approved this morning so in total there are $807,000 that the city has to work with in terms of providing housing for an housepersons at the Dorothy Gibson site and the staff presentation Kevin McGowan can |
| 04:38:52.00 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:38:55.56 | Chris Zapata | Load that up if you want to see pictures. Yeah, and that |
| 04:38:58.53 | Walfred Solorzano | that beforehand I'll ask the city attorney do we have to make a motion to go past 12 o'clock |
| 04:39:08.23 | Sergio Rudin | uh only if you guys have a bylaw or council protocol that requires it and i don't think you do |
| 04:39:23.54 | Melissa Blaustein | We're about to approach that. |
| 04:39:25.44 | Walfred Solorzano | That's what I'm asking. I wasn't sure. That's what I'm asking. |
| 04:39:27.12 | Melissa Blaustein | We're about to approach that timeline. Go ahead. |
| 04:39:31.03 | Kevin McGowan | sounds great i'm kevin mcgown public works director good evening still council members and mayor i appreciate the time to talk to you this evening while walford is bringing up the quick presentation i only have a couple quick slides uh the dorothy gibson property at 429 and a half johnson street is a flag lot and what that means is it has a long kind of driveway approach into a very pretty small lot itself and uh Going second slide. There's only a couple slides here. So as you can tell from the parcel map as well as a aerial, this is just a flag lot, fairly small in size. Its general width is only 47 and a half feet. So it's pretty darn small to begin with. Next slide, please. This is just a summary of the costs that are indicated in your staff report. And a quick pictures of the actual property at this point. It does need some help. Our new project managers are working on that right now. So Ali Iqbal is working on that project to get some quotes to get things moving. Next slide, please. As part of developing this site for two units, one upstairs, one downstairs, one of those needs to be accessible. And so we need to have a path of travel from one of the parking stalls, which are shown in orange. They can be tandem on the site as well. There's no other way to do it. And to get the little purple lines are indicating a path of travel to the building itself, generally on the first floor. Next slide, please. Now, there was a question about installing an ADU, an accessory dwelling unit, and we reached out to our architect on this. The maximum size that we can install in this area is about 16 by 20. That's really small. But regardless, I've tried to indicate that on the property here with the big green square or rectangle. And there might be a possibility of putting something like this in place. However, we cannot disrupt the path of travel. So at this point, this is just a sketch. It doesn't mean it can, it can't be done. It means we haven't studied it enough, but we wanted to take those thoughts into account and report back to you. So next slide. Just in general pictures of the property, just to give you an idea of how kind of small this is. But that's it for my presentation right now. I'm still in the evening. Sounds good. |
| 04:41:59.16 | Chris Zapata | questions. |
| 04:41:59.53 | Kevin McGowan | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:41:59.99 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:42:00.02 | Kevin McGowan | Thank you. |
| 04:42:00.09 | Steven Woodside | you Questions, please, for the daisies. |
| 04:42:02.53 | Chris Zapata | City Manager, you talked about the Board of Supervisors approving funds. How much of the funds available to us have we already committed, and how much is not yet committed? |
| 04:42:14.70 | Chris Zapata | We've spent none of the Board of Supervisors' money, that $500,000. We've been allocated $193,000 to reimburse ourselves for the rentship park. So we have about $307,000 of the state money left, and this $500,000 would be in addition to that, which is unspent, so there's about $807,000 there. One of the things that's stipulated in the county's grant is that housing be adhered to, as explained by the senator's, allotment, which means services for unhoused persons, housing for unhoused persons. And then they also added emergency severe shelters or severe shelter funding as potentially use of the money that is unexpended or is remaining from the project that we are getting ready to bid as soon as we get direction from the council. |
| 04:43:26.47 | Chris Zapata | Yeah. |
| 04:43:31.92 | Chris Zapata | Yeah, Kevin, can you pull that slide back up? Because that shows the amount committed and what's left and what the total allocated with two units would be. |
| 04:43:41.88 | Kevin McGowan | Walford, that's slide three. |
| 04:43:49.52 | Kevin McGowan | I think the intent shown in your staff report under the fiscal impact has to do with showing How are we doing there, bud? showing the design cost as well as the Dorothy Gibson cost for their interior renovation and the exterior renovation, otherwise known as site work. And then we've got a contingency in there as well. So I'm. |
| 04:44:16.28 | Kevin McGowan | Thank you. |
| 04:44:30.98 | Kevin McGowan | Simple as it can be. We reached out to our architect to give us kind of a rough estimate of that. They're suggesting that about $250,000 is needed. That includes soft costs. |
| 04:44:44.06 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. out. Thank you. |
| 04:44:50.90 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:44:56.97 | Kevin McGowan | That sounds correct. It's late. Math doesn't work for me past 10. |
| 04:45:03.50 | Chris Zapata | And my mic wasn't on. |
| 04:45:09.49 | Steven Woodside | Other questions? |
| 04:45:09.76 | Chris Zapata | It's just confirming for members of the public that we have roughly $150,000 of the $1 million left in our budget based on our... current project estimate that the cost of an ADU is $250,000 if we were to endorse moving forward with an ADU in addition to the already Um, to the renovations already proposed, that would cost the city an additional $100,000. |
| 04:45:40.95 | Steven Woodside | That's when we're blasting at our hand up. |
| 04:45:42.85 | Melissa Blaustein | it's fine. I mean, I didn't have an opportunity to talk about why I pulled it off or even mentioned that the questions that you so I don't know if we want to do that after public comment or if you want me to |
| 04:45:52.47 | Steven Woodside | I think it's supposed to be Q&A, then public comment, and then we'll have discussion. Okay. |
| 04:45:53.22 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 04:45:57.74 | Melissa Blaustein | Typically, you get an opportunity to say why you pulled something off first, and then it's in the context of that that we have a discussion. But it's late, so let's take both comment and all. |
| 04:46:02.63 | Steven Woodside | All right. Are you sure? Because I'm happy to follow. I'll take public comment. It's okay. I apologize if I got it wrong. Don't worry. Public comment, please, on this item. City Clerk. |
| 04:46:05.52 | Melissa Blaustein | to follow. Thank you. No, it's okay. |
| 04:46:13.57 | Walfred Solorzano | We have Senator Bushmaker. is, |
| 04:46:19.19 | Steven Woodside | fishmaker. |
| 04:46:22.73 | Sandra Bushmaker | Okay, I'm unmuted. . Just a question. Obviously, this is a change in use from that which Dorothy Gibson in her estate plan had suggested, and that went from, you know, residential for city employees to now the residents for the unhoused. I'm just wondering, have the neighbors been apprised of this situation and this change of use? If not, I think they should be. |
| 04:46:54.69 | Steven Woodside | any other public comment? |
| 04:46:55.74 | Walfred Solorzano | you Yeah, Vicky Nichols. |
| 04:47:03.70 | Vicki Nichols | I'm not sure how many of you knew Dorothy or had the pleasure of knowing Dorothy. I know several of you did. But... I think, you know, my conversations was her, she always intended for her house to be the I think it's admirable to consider this ADU, but I also know Dorothy, she would have had this remodel done by now, probably by herself. So we're missing an opportunity for someone to take advantage of her gift. And I would urge you to just go ahead, proceed with the plan set. Director McGowan has outlined, and let's get this done, and let's get some help to the people that really deserve it. and honor Dorothy's intentions. Thank you. |
| 04:47:52.52 | Steven Woodside | Any other public comment? None. All right, I'll bring you back to the Dinos, Councilmember Blaustein. |
| 04:47:57.03 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. So I just wanted an opportunity to speak to why this was pulled. And first of all, I appreciate very much the work that was done by our city manager and also by Councilmember Hoffman, Councilmember Kelman, and myself in negotiating with the county to receive the million dollars. And also I know there's a lot of legwork done with Senator McGuire's office to match that amount. And I in no way want to compromise the allocation of funds from the county to the city. The reason that I pulled this off is we are in a very rare situation where we were bequeathed a property to provide housing for our city workers and we already know that we're in a serious housing crisis. We have an unprecedented level of RENA numbers. We have not enough housing to go around. And we have people who are serving our community who very much deserve to live in our community. And Dorothy Gibson left us this amazing gift. And I agree with Vicki Nichols that probably she would have done the remodel by now. And I appreciate that that is a huge part of the plan. And I don't want to derail that. But I would also like to ask that we give direction to staff to consider or at least take a look at the possibility of a third and or fourth unit on the site whether that's an ADU or an addition I know that there are organizations I spoke today with Eli Beckman who's the mayor of Puerto Madera who started his own ADU firm like a buildU firm, and he said if he knew it was for workforce housing, he'd be maybe willing to give us a special deal. And I just would like to ask that, yes, we move forward, but that we at least have consideration for an additional unit on the property. And also that we have a conversation with neighbors about what the footprint's going to look like and what will go there as well, because we wouldn't be able to put forward the design without substantial review anyway. So I think just as part of that conversation, it's our duty in being bequeathed this property that we do everything we can to maximize its use given the housing situation that we're in. So that's why I pulled it off and I would welcome any discussion about how we might be able to at least entertain the idea of doing that, because I really want everyone who works for Sausalito that wants to live in Sausalito to be able to live here. . |
| 04:50:07.03 | Chris Zapata | you |
| 04:50:07.10 | Melissa Blaustein | I'll point out that |
| 04:50:07.98 | Chris Zapata | ADUs don't require neighborhood approval. It's ministerial review only. So, but obviously the rest of the building renovations may or may not require neighborhood approval. I think more importantly is reaching out to the heirs to ensure that whatever we propose to do would be suitable to them. |
| 04:50:34.13 | Melissa Blaustein | I think what I'm asking for is support for direction to staff to pursue or consider an addition of an ADU or an additional unit on the property while still approving the agreement made with the county. And I understand that that we would have to find funding for that. I believe that we could, I just don't want to give up on the full extent of use of this property because of, you know, timing or qualifications or otherwise. So that's all I'm asking for. If we can, if we can just add a line that says direction for staff to look into that, it would mean a lot. I'd, |
| 04:50:54.84 | Unknown | you know, |
| 04:51:03.83 | Chris Zapata | I'm supportive of that. I'm in support of that as well. |
| 04:51:06.26 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:51:07.17 | Steven Woodside | I agree. Searching the staff. OK. Does Senator Hoffman have a comment? |
| 04:51:09.79 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. |
| 04:51:09.82 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 04:51:10.09 | Cass Green | Thank you. |
| 04:51:10.11 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:51:10.16 | Cass Green | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:51:12.32 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, let me just give some context. So we, anyway, this is going to be quick. We received it as a bequest from Dorothy Gibson in 2019. You know, anyway, there were obviously challenges with 2020 with COVID and not moving forward with projects. But so I've been talking with Kevin about this since what, Kevin, 2021 for sure. And I was surprised when I got back from deployment in the fall of 2020 that it was still... there, but not really surprised because it was COVID, right? Okay. So I knew Dorothy. She was amazing. There is a deed restriction on the property to be used for staff. And so the idea is that we're gonna try to marry those two. We actually have a staff member who will qualify for housing under the grant that we received. We can use that. So this is an income producing property. And the idea is that we also do the second unit that qualifies for the same grant, so we can use the same money for that. We actually authorized that In May of 2022, the city council voted 5-0 to move forward with two units on that lot using Dorothy Gibson's house. So I think we should move forward on that. I have no objection to exploring other things. I will tell you that I have talked to the executor about the concept. I've talked to her for years about this. And in 2022, she was happy that we had authorized money to move forward from our general fund. So this is great news that we're not using money from our general fund. But I think we do need to move forward with that. And I think that's the priority, right? I mean, I have no problem exploring other issues. But I think, to your point, it's ministerial for an ADU, but we also have to deal with the executor of the estate who actually lives is one of the contiguous properties. I did talk to the property owner behind as well, and she knew Dorothy and was good friends with Dorothy too. So those two are supportive of the concept that we have moving forward. I don't know. The addition of another unit, I think, would be I think we would have to talk to the neighbors and things like that because there would be issues of the narrow driveway and access and loss of all that stuff. And I'm understanding that ADU, you know, priorities too, but So anyway, I would suggest that we at least move forward to authorize the motion today to move forward to accept the funds to move it and move forward to construction as quickly |
| 04:53:52.75 | Melissa Blaustein | I think that's what I had suggested. So I'll make a motion to move forward with the staff report and authorize the city manager to execute the million dollar agreement with the county of Marin with the addition of direction to staff to consider and explore the option of a third unit or an ADU on the property as well. One second. |
| 04:54:14.77 | Steven Woodside | Motion's made and seconded, any discussion? All the question, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? |
| 04:54:18.96 | Melissa Blaustein | Bye. |
| 04:54:20.97 | Steven Woodside | Motion passes unanimously. Moving on. |
| 04:54:23.24 | Melissa Blaustein | on. |
| 04:54:23.80 | Steven Woodside | Yes, thank you, Kevin, and thank you |
| 04:54:24.07 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Good night, Kevin. Good morning. |
| 04:54:28.85 | Steven Woodside | And thank you, Ms. Dorothy Gibson. Communications, this is the time for the City Council to hear from citizens regarding matters not on this agenda, except in very limited situations. Well, we don't read all that. It'll be fine just to hear from anyone who has comments on anything not on the agenda. Anyone want to make a comment? Mrs. McDougal. |
| 04:54:57.74 | Babette McDougall | It's getting chilly in here. Got my jacket on. So I... I want to encourage you once again to think about restoring full democracy to the council chambers. It's a really huge missed opportunity. Tonight was another good example of some pretty substantial people who have a lot to offer if you simply will engage. And there are ways of doing it so that it doesn't loom and spin out of control or that you feel as though you have lost your ability to hold a tight gavel. It actually can work quite well. It's been known to last sometimes until one o'clock in the morning. I'm kidding. But the point is that by instilling in each individual citizen their rightful voice, you will be achieving something really quite important in this post-COVID era, something that was inadvertently lost, thanks to the mechanization that we now have at our disposal. So please, seriously consider bringing back democracy to the council chambers, full democracy. |
| 04:56:06.49 | Steven Woodside | Any comments online? City Click. |
| 04:56:25.39 | Sophia Collier | Hi, and good morning. |
| 04:56:25.51 | Unknown | I, |
| 04:56:28.54 | Sophia Collier | I'm Sophia Collier representing Save Our Sausalito. which is a citizens group in opposition to the luxury condo development at 605 Bridgeway. And, you know, when I attend council meetings, I'm always inspired. by how much people love Sausalito. and how much effort goes into trying to make good decisions and ensure its future. Our beautiful city really is an accumulation of all that effort from all of us and everyone before. So right now we're facing a project that truly threatens the city's heart and heritage. if we allow an 85 foot last tower to be built in the middle of our historic district It will be the end of the historic district and start a domino effect of ultra-luxury housing on the waterfront. We must not let this happen. This is our moment. And I want to call your attention to today's update to our urgent petition against the project. We are now up to 662 signatures from Sausalito residents and many more from others. I urge you to heed the petition And also to take time to read the comments, because those comments are truly the voice of Sausalito, and they have a lot of wisdom in them. Thank you very much. Thank you. |
| 04:57:47.89 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:57:47.90 | Sophia Collier | I mean. |
| 04:57:48.24 | Unknown | THANK YOU. Mayor, may I suggest that the city manager reach out to Sophia in coordination with the city attorney? on that topic? Yes, absolutely. Thank you. |
| 04:57:56.78 | Steven Woodside | Absolutely. Thank you. I think that's a great direction. I call you as an artist and resident in town and neighbor of mine. Any other public comments? Daniel Chagor. Daniel Chagor. |
| 04:58:05.35 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:58:05.42 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:58:18.58 | Steven Woodside | Mr. Chagor, can you unmute yourself? |
| 04:58:24.61 | Barbara Brown | Hello. Can you hear us? |
| 04:58:27.07 | Steven Woodside | Yes, we can hear you, but we cannot see you. Hello? We can hear you. Hello, hello. |
| 04:58:31.65 | Dan Chagru | Level up. |
| 04:58:33.86 | Steven Woodside | We can hear you go right ahead. Is there anyone else waiting to make public comment? That's it. We'll give them another second or two to get their audio together. So, |
| 04:58:46.76 | Barbara Brown | Can you hear us? |
| 04:58:47.68 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Yes, we can. Oh, you can. Okay. |
| 04:58:49.70 | Barbara Brown | Okay, so this is Barbara Brown. For some reason, my Zoom, probably the late hour, wasn't working. So my husband is Dan Chagru and he's here. And we're both very seriously concerned about the project. the Bridgeway condo development. And as an architect, I've worked on numerous historic buildings in town and was honored to have designed the addition of the Sausalio Women's Club, the only building in town on the National Register. I agree with historic architect Jerry Holand whom our city so wisely hired. Ms. Holland says that the proposal is, I quote, not in performance with the Secretary of Interior's standards, the design is out of scale, with the existing waterfront streetscape. and it overwhelms and damages the area of Sausalito." End quote. We believe that this site could support mixed-use housing but only if designed with appropriate massing scale and height befitting our historic district. Thank you so much for your attention on this critical matter. And this now, this is my husband now, Dan. |
| 05:00:08.46 | Dan Chagru | Oh, hello. Hi, my name's Dan Chagru. I live at the corner of Princess and Boakley with my wife Barbara. We were shocked like so many others to learn about this potential condominium development in the news media only a few weeks ago. So we tried to figure out how this happened. We examined city documents and discovered a great deal of conversation and scrutiny in Appendix A of the housing element regarding a number of potential sites in town. What we didn't find was much conversation about this particular site at 605 through 613 Bridgeway. We feel overlooked. We feel as though this building site did not receive the scrutiny and due diligence that every other site seems to have received. with its lack of adequate parking, and domineering size, this project would have a dramatic negative impact on the historic district and surrounding neighborhood where we live. |
| 05:01:02.34 | Unknown | is that. |
| 05:01:06.19 | Dan Chagru | Also, please keep in mind that despite its overwhelming size, this project is designed to produce only a very few affordable units. Thank you. |
| 05:01:16.99 | Steven Woodside | Any other public comment? |
| 05:01:19.26 | Walfred Solorzano | No further comments. |
| 05:01:21.59 | Steven Woodside | So. So we're closing public comment for that item. We're moving on to city council member reports. Does anyone have anything to say? |
| 05:01:28.97 | Unknown | Only offer up that Bay Wave sea level rise, Marin County identified a grant SB1 is a non-competitive grant. All I have to do is apply for it. The minimum amount we could receive is $200,000. The most we could receive is 1.2. |
| 05:01:43.28 | Steven Woodside | Are we replying for it? |
| 05:01:46.42 | Unknown | Of course, yes. |
| 05:01:47.45 | Steven Woodside | Thanks. |
| 05:01:47.82 | Unknown | MMM. |
| 05:01:47.97 | Steven Woodside | You can pick it up. |
| 05:01:48.00 | Unknown | You could pick it up. Definitely. |
| 05:01:51.16 | Steven Woodside | Any other reports? Thank you. All right, do we need to take public comment on reports? I forgot. No. |
| 05:01:57.30 | Chris Zapata | Okay. City manager report. Very quick, Mayor and Council members of the public, and thank you for bearing with me. The February 10th meeting report has been issued by the consultant. I'll make that a matter of public record so that the public sees what she reported as a result of that meeting. I want to say that we are still working on our insurance. We have reached out to providers, four pools and one private provider. We have the workings of an agreement with a private provider, not a pool. And one last attempt at one pool, and then we'll get back to you on where we think we would end up in terms of our coverage so we would have something in effect by July 1st of this coming year. |
| 05:02:03.39 | Steven Woodside | The February... |
| 05:02:40.52 | Chris Zapata | Also want to let you know that we are hiring interns in our offices. We hired one to help Chad Hess and one to help me. And the first thing that intern will do is do a stare and property audit, as well as look at our website and look at the reconstruction and freshening up of that so that we don't have issues that we pointed out this evening. Thank you. |
| 05:03:00.78 | Steven Woodside | Thank you, City Manager. And then future Jenna Iams. Anyone on the dives wish to add any? Seeing none, we have to take public... Council Member Hoffman. |
| 05:03:17.78 | Jill Hoffman | It goes to the issue tonight with the public comment, the written public comment. And I'm surprised to hear that there's no requirement for us to attach written public comment to the agenda. But I think we used to do it a different way that was much easier for people to see and review and, frankly, easier for me to see and review before when I was getting ready for a meeting. I think it's still the way that the Planning Commission does it, which is, you kind of contempor, and I mean not immediately, but contemporaneously add public comment to the agenda. and then you put the name of the person under the piece of public comment. So anyway, I don't know. Maybe I need to talk to just a few minutes about that. It may not be a... |
| 05:03:59.51 | Steven Woodside | to see me. It may not be a... Thank you. |
| 05:04:01.62 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 05:04:01.87 | Steven Woodside | Yep. |
| 05:04:02.11 | Jill Hoffman | Maybe that's not a standalone item. Sorry. |
| 05:04:03.66 | Steven Woodside | Sorry. Yeah, thank you. |
| 05:04:05.53 | Walfred Solorzano | I can shed some light on that. |
| 05:04:07.02 | Jill Hoffman | We can't have a discussion now. |
| 05:04:07.05 | Chris Zapata | Actually, we can't have a discussion now, Walpert. It's not on our agenda. We're just identifying future agenda items. |
| 05:04:10.44 | Jill Hoffman | but it's not. Thank you. |
| 05:04:11.47 | Steven Woodside | Yeah, yeah, yeah. |
| 05:04:12.35 | Unknown | to the next day. |
| 05:04:12.52 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 05:04:13.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:04:13.84 | Steven Woodside | that. All right. |
| 05:04:14.81 | Chris Zapata | Yeah. |
| 05:04:14.87 | Steven Woodside | Are there any other future agenda items? |
| 05:04:16.77 | Unknown | Mayor, I'd only like to offer up that when Amy's report from Strategic Planning Session comes to us, there were six items that we collectively either unanimously or at least a quorum with staff agreed were our priorities and I'd like to see them woven into the agenda in a balanced fashion. I know our agenda has been really, really heavy the last couple of meetings. So if we could try to make sure those get fit in, I know you guys are your best. |
| 05:04:37.61 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 05:04:41.43 | Steven Woodside | Absolutely. That was the direction. I don't know, you want to add to that? Yeah, that was the direction to staff. you So, you know. So public comment on items A, A, B and C. Any public comment on what? We just went over. Oh my gosh. Then closing public comment. |
| 05:05:03.13 | Walfred Solorzano | Hold on, Senator Bushmaker's on there. |
| 05:05:09.41 | Steven Woodside | We cannot hear you, Ms. Bushmaker. Would you kind of- |
| 05:05:10.94 | Sandra Bushmaker | Real quick, I'm really glad to see that you're asking for public comment after these reports rather than before the reports, as it as has been your practice, so that we know what to comment on. That's it. Thank you. |
| 05:05:23.68 | Steven Woodside | I actually listened to you, Ms. Bushmaker. Made sense. |
| 05:05:29.12 | Sandra Bushmaker | Well, I appreciate that. |
| 05:05:30.97 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 05:05:31.06 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 05:05:31.11 | Steven Woodside | So that's where it will now live. Thank you. |
| 05:05:33.81 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 05:05:34.70 | Steven Woodside | I adjourn the meeting at a quarter past 12 on Wednesday, March the 6th. Good night to everyone. Thank you for your perseverance. |
| 05:05:50.35 | Unknown | All right. you |