| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:07.59 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:07.61 | Walfred Solorzano | Tonight's meeting of our special and regular city council meeting will be broadcast live on cable TV channel 27. It's also being broadcast on Zoom and on the city's website. |
| 00:00:21.33 | Steven Woodside | Thank you, Mr. City Clerk. Could you please call the roll? |
| 00:00:25.18 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Blaustein. Councilmember Hoffman |
| 00:00:29.09 | Steven Woodside | Here. |
| 00:00:30.07 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Kelman. |
| 00:00:31.25 | Joan Cox | Here. |
| 00:00:32.31 | Walfred Solorzano | Vice Mayor Cox. |
| 00:00:35.67 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 00:00:35.69 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:00:35.70 | Joan Cox | you |
| 00:00:35.82 | Walfred Solorzano | I'm sorry. |
| 00:00:35.91 | Joan Cox | I'm not sure. |
| 00:00:35.98 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. And Mary Sobieski. |
| 00:00:37.34 | Steven Woodside | I'm here. Today's only item in closed session is Conference of Real Property Negotiator. The property is 100 Humboldt Avenue, South City, Yacht Harbor. Is there any public comment on this item? |
| 00:00:47.37 | Walfred Solorzano | We do have the city attorney with his hand up. |
| 00:00:53.83 | Walfred Solorzano | I think I'm promoting him, I'm trying to promote him as a panelist, so. |
| 00:01:06.40 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:01:06.42 | Sergio Rudin | Thank you. |
| 00:01:06.43 | Walfred Solorzano | He's a pain in the stomach. |
| 00:01:07.03 | Sergio Rudin | I'm sorry. Yeah, I was just asking to be made a patent list. Thank you. Okay. |
| 00:01:11.38 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. So there's... |
| 00:01:11.97 | Steven Woodside | public comment okay public comment is closed and we will return to closed session and return at 7 p.m We return from closed session and are going to resume our meeting. We're going to begin. There are no announcements from closed session. We'll begin the meeting with a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. |
| 00:01:30.73 | Joan Cox | Thank you. to the flag of the United States of America. |
| 00:01:34.60 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:01:35.12 | Joan Cox | and two, we're looking forward. |
| 00:01:36.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:01:37.10 | Babette McDougall | one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. |
| 00:01:43.96 | Steven Woodside | Thank you very much. The first item of business will be a special presentation on a infrastructure project which has just been completed. The Edwards Avenue Repaving Project at a cost of $1.57 million. |
| 00:02:03.61 | Kevin McGowan | Good evening, Mayor, members of City Council. I'm Kevin McGowan, Public Works Director. I'd like to introduce Andrew Davidson, who is our senior engineer. He will give our presentation on this specific project. |
| 00:02:04.03 | Steven Woodside | What's been here? |
| 00:02:15.44 | Skylar | Thank you. |
| 00:02:20.21 | Andrew Davidson | Good evening, Mayor, Council members. I'd like to thank you, the City Manager and Director of Public Works, for the opportunity for this special presentation on the 2023 Pavement Improvement Project, Edwards Avenue. My name's Andrew Davidson. I'm senior engineer in your Department of Public Works. First, a little history. As part of the 2022 Street Resurfacing Project, the city resurfaced portions of Gerard, Johnson, and Platt. Edwards Ave was included in the initial list of roads to be resurfaced. However, because Edwards is very steep, includes concrete paving and sanitary sewer work, it was separated from the 2022 project. This was also done so that we could get the work on Gerard and Johnson and Platt completed. The work on those streets started in October of 2022 and was finished the following month. You can go back to slide two. Thank you. That's all right. So the Edwards project limits are generally between its intersection with Marion Ave to the west – uphill and Alexander Ave to the east downhill, and which you can see in yellow here. In general, when I speak of Edwards, I'm speaking about this portion of the street. Next slide, please. |
| 00:03:38.93 | Andrew Davidson | So on January 16th, 2024, the City Council authorized award of the construction contract to Majoran Gelati for the base bid plus three bid alternatives in the amount of $1,050,530, a contingency in the amount of $121,920 for a total authorization of $1,172,450. The City Council also approved a professional service agreement for inspection and construction management to CSW Stuberstroh in the amount of $107,550. Total construction authorization was $1,280,000. Next slide, please. |
| 00:04:25.71 | Andrew Davidson | So the date of the notice to proceed was February 22nd, 2024. Here you can see some of the existing pavement, which consisted of either a concrete surface or a thin layer of asphalt on the concrete road. The old asphalt was separating and crumbling away from the concrete, while the old concrete was highly cracked, separating, spalling, and had vertical displacements. In addition to the road replacement, the sanitary sewer and lower sewer laterals needed to be replaced. Next slide, please. So we'll start with the sewer. It was the first order of business. The sanitary sewer main was replaced by bursting, where the new plastic pipe was attached to a bursting head and pulled through the existing clay pipe. So to the left, you can see an excavation for a bursting pit from where the new sewer main was pulled into the existing clay pipe. The middle picture shows the bursting head being pulled through the old clay pipe. Attached to the bursting head and out of the picture is the new plastic sewer main. So you can see the bursting heads sort of the top of the picture and it's silver. It's amongst the rock there. It's a little hard, but it's there. To the right, staged on Edwards, is the new plastic sewer main prior to its installation. Next slide, please. |
| 00:05:50.47 | Andrew Davidson | On the left is a portion of the newer sewer main in place. The middle photo shows a concrete base of a new sanitary sewer maintenance hole. And to the right is a new sanitary sewer lateral connecting to the new sewer main. Next slide, please. So during the course of construction, the water district, the Emerson Municipal Water District determined that the existing water main and water services should be replaced. On May 7th, the city council approved a reimbursement agreement with MMWD to replace their facilities at their cost. The work started in early May and was completed in Minjun. This work was managed and inspected by the water district and constructed by the city's contractor, Majora Angelati. Next slide, please. After installation of the water main, we got to the business of the road replacement. So replacement of the road was in both asphalt and concrete. The project portion of Edwards is about 900 feet in length. The upper flatter 600 feet of Edwards was replaced with a new asphalt roadway, while the steeper and narrower downhill 300 feet was replaced with a new concrete roadway. Here we see work at Edwards intersection with Marion. The replacement here was both in asphalt and concrete, concrete in the steeper portion. This was actually a field revision done in order to minimize the amount of time that the intersection needed to be closed to traffic. By doing this, it was possible to keep a single lane open to traffic while the concrete was curing. Next slide, please. Here we're leaking eastward downhill, and you can see demolition of the old concrete road taking place. Next slide. |
| 00:07:45.43 | Andrew Davidson | So now we get to see some new stuff. On the left, new asphalt and concrete at the intersection of Marion and Edwards. And on the right, new asphalt being compacted along the upper portion of Edwards. You can see a roller approaching us. Next slide, please. |
| 00:08:04.95 | Andrew Davidson | All right, the concrete. This is the lower portion of Edwards, where the road was replaced in concrete. On the left, in the left picture, you can see the contractors placing form boards for the concrete. In the middle photo, you can see a freshly poured concrete pad in the foreground rebar waiting for installation of the concrete, and in the background new concrete being placed from a pumper truck that was actually located downhill on Alexander Avenue. The right photo shows the completed concrete paving on Edwards at Alexander. The work shown here is a repair of a portion of Alexander's asphalt pavement. So this slide gives me an opportunity to describe some of the issues associated with installation of the concrete portion of Edwards. The installation of the concrete road required that Edwards be fully closed between No. 32 Edwards and Alexander Avenue. The full closure was for 24 hours a day, starting the morning of June 24th through the end of day on July 3rd. This was a full closure with no vehicle access to and from driveways and no parking allowed in this portion of the street. Prior to this full closure, we had a field meeting between the Southern Marine Fire Protection District, Sausalito Police Department, contractor, construction manager, and city engineering staff in order to work out access issues in case of an emergency As a result of this meeting, the Southern Marin Fire Protection District requested that during the full closure and during business hours that flagger control be made available on the portion of Edwards between Sausalito Boulevard and Marion in case an emergency response was required on Edwards or uphill above the intersection with Marion. |
| 00:09:57.95 | Unknown | I'm not sure. |
| 00:09:59.65 | Andrew Davidson | Southern Marin also requested that additional no parking restrictions be placed in constricted portions of Edwards. between Sausalito Boulevard and Marion, further reducing available residential parking in the area. Next slide, please. Some financing. The original budget for the project was identified with the 2022 Street Resurfacing Project. and was presented to the city council in March of that year as $2.49 million. The authorization was for Edwards as well as Gerard, Johnson, and Platt. On January 16th of this year, the City Council allocated additional funds from the sewer enterprise to pay for the Edwards sewer work. And on May 7th of this year, the City Council authorized additional funding for the water district work, not all of which ended up being required. And the water district work, as you recall, is fully reimbursable to the city. So the total allocation for the work completed in 2022, plus the Edwards project was 3.5 million, which does include the it does include the MMWD portion. Next slide, please. |
| 00:11:17.95 | Andrew Davidson | The cost of the completed project the sorry the cost of the completed 2022 project was about 715 000 the cost of the completed edwards roadway and sewer project so that includes mmwd is about 980 000 i mean you could compare that with the bid of 1 million 50 530 dollars When adding in construction management and MMWD costs, we get a total cost of construction of that $1,579,900. with $490,000 of that being reimbursable from the Marine Municipal Water District. This will leave approximately $1.2 million available for that Marion Wall project without additional allocations, and which we anticipate being ready for construction next season. Next slide, please. So during the consent, you'll be asked to accept the project as complete and direct the city engineer to file a notice of completion. The project on Edwards was disruptive to the residents in the area. Edwards was frequently closed through traffic and no parking restrictions were often in place, forcing residents and businesses serving residents to find alternative places to park and means of access. Noise, vibration, and other disruptions associated with heavy construction were a constant condition for people living and working in the area. The residents and contractors' efforts to work together and adapt to these situations is commendable and help to move this complex project along as quickly as possible. And so I say thank you. |
| 00:13:04.30 | Steven Woodside | Thank you, Mr. Davidson. Uh, is there any public comment on this special presentation? Beth McDowell. James McDougall is first and then you, Mr. Albert. Ms. McDougal was first. |
| 00:13:19.00 | Joan Cox | I'm sorry, Mayor. As a point of order, this is a special presentation. This item is also on consent, which I think is the appropriate place to take public comment on. |
| 00:13:26.66 | Steven Woodside | Sorry, I got a note from Sergio Rudin that said I needed to take public comment. So I'm responding to his advice. Okay. So sorry about that. Maybe I should have mentioned that that's why I was taking public comment. |
| 00:13:36.19 | Paul Albert | Very brief comment. I moved to Sausalito in 1989 to a home on Edwards Zapp and learned shortly after that then council member Paul Albert lived on Edwards Zapp. So I thought, great, the street will get paved soon. A few years later, the late Glenn Miskell knocked on my door. He was running for city council, and I found out he lived on Edward Zav. And I enthusiastically supported his campaign, wrote him a check, and thought Edward Zav would get paid soon. 35 years later. I'm very pleased to see this work has been done. Thank you. |
| 00:14:19.91 | Steven Woodside | Thank you, sir. Ms. McDougall. |
| 00:14:26.07 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. I'm also very glad to see the work is finally getting done. And I just had a thought that I'd like to share for future, especially for steep inclines having lived in the Swiss Alps for a while. I wonder why we're not using cobblestones. Usually that's the only place we get traction throughout the year on steep terrain is on cobblestones. So I'd like to encourage, considering the expense that we're already looking at, why not look at cobblestones? We're just going to get started. return an awful lot of charm to the neighborhood. Thank you. |
| 00:15:04.16 | Steven Woodside | Any other public comment? All right. See no further public comment. Public comment is closed. We'll move on to action. |
| 00:15:09.04 | Chris Zapata | minutes from the previous mayor. Mayor, if I may, I wanted to close the presentation with a comment if I could quickly. So first of all, thank everybody for their patience. I wanted to make sure that people understood that one of the key funding sources of this $644,000 of it was Measure O money. And that was approved by the public after some work and concern about our infrastructure. Measure L followed it. So again, that's money that you approved working to do projects that you will promise like infrastructure and street projects. So $644,000 was allocated to this fund from that special measure. |
| 00:15:47.82 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:15:47.83 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. |
| 00:15:48.46 | Steven Woodside | Thank you, Mr. City Manager. So the next item is action minutes of the previous meetings, that's adopting the minutes for the July 30th, September 7th and September 9th City Council meetings. Thank you. Is there a motion to approve? Mr. Mayor, before we make a motion. Please hold. |
| 00:15:59.21 | Jill Hoffman | Mr. Mayor, before we make a motion. Thank you. I discussed the draft minutes with our city clerk, Mr. Slarzano. Sorry, I know I said that wrong. Sorry. Before the meeting. And he told me he had gone back through and summarized some of the direction that we gave and the language. And I would like to ask your indulgence so that I can just review the tape, the same tape that he looked at and review the action minutes. So I wasn't aware that it wasn't a verbatim of the Anyway. of the language that we agreed upon. So I'd like to review that tape as well. |
| 00:16:39.28 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 00:16:39.50 | Steven Woodside | Yes, Council Member Kellman had her hand up next. |
| 00:16:42.12 | Ian Sobieski | Can I just make a suggestion for our city clerk? There's some very good AI, like Otter AI, that we can record directly off of Zoom and will give us a verbatim transcript. So perhaps we can move in that direction to avoid this in the future. |
| 00:16:57.41 | Joan Cox | Okay. |
| 00:16:57.48 | Unknown | Right. |
| 00:16:57.75 | Joan Cox | Thank you. I'll just inform the council that the agenda setting committee is already working on that project. |
| 00:17:05.98 | Steven Woodside | So, is the action here that's being requested? |
| 00:17:06.08 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:17:06.10 | Walfred Solorzano | Yeah. |
| 00:17:06.35 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:17:06.40 | Walfred Solorzano | Yeah. Just for the record on the notes, it's not completely verbatim because there was a back and forth with the council on how it was going to be drafted, the language. And so that's why it's not verbatim that direction that was given from Council Member Hoffman because there was discussion in between. Okay, so. |
| 00:17:24.49 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you for that. I agree. And I mean, that is what... what you told me before. So I would make motion that we approve the draft minutes from September 7th and September 9th. |
| 00:17:36.02 | Steven Woodside | Stand by. No comments from the audience, please. |
| 00:17:39.41 | Joan Cox | If we're going to continue this item, may I ask that we continue it to a date certain? This is the second time that's been on our agenda. Thank you. |
| 00:17:46.41 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, let's do it at the next meeting. I'm fine with that. |
| 00:17:50.12 | Steven Woodside | Okay. So there's a motion to, uh, push the July 30th minutes to the next scheduled city council meeting, uh, and approve the September 7th and the September 9th city council minutes as written. Is there a second? |
| 00:18:05.30 | Sergio Rudin | Thank you. And Mayor, before you vote, you do need to take public comment on. |
| 00:18:08.97 | Steven Woodside | I know. I'm still waiting for a second. Thank you, Sadiq. Okay. Now we will take public comment on the minutes. Ms. McDougall. |
| 00:18:22.53 | Babette McDougall | Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So because this is an item that seems to be a thorn in the size of many... And the basic thorn is described as follows. We have no authentic transcript of our public meetings. This is actually a crime. you're breaking a federal law. So, I mean, the point is, why can't we have an authentic record of our meetings? Why are we having so much difficulty? I'm told that we've got. duplicating processes here that it's possible that if one thing fails, then another one can kick in. I don't understand why we can't have an authentic transcript of our public meetings. And before we continue and kick it down the road, Thank you. Just to think about it one more time, why don't we create some sort of action to bring some sort of measurable way of resolving these issues? I mean, instead of going forward constantly complaining about the lack of a public record, why don't we look toward resolutions? An AI concept is one idea. On the other hand, there's also a court reporter. So I'd really like to encourage you to get serious about the seriousness of having an authentic transcript of these meetings. If the city gets sued, it has nothing but the transcript to rely on, and this creative reinvention of a meeting, because you do or don't like what's being said, is just not acceptable. Thank you. |
| 00:19:43.27 | Walfred Solorzano | I'd like to note that there's recordings of all the meetings and... It's on right there for the public to view. Thank you. |
| 00:19:50.85 | Steven Woodside | I'm sorry, can you say that again, Mr. C. Clicker? I do not hear you. |
| 00:19:52.64 | Walfred Solorzano | All the meetings are recorded and you can hear everything that was said verbatim on there. |
| 00:19:58.54 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:19:58.56 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:19:58.58 | Steven Woodside | Okay. |
| 00:19:58.73 | Unknown | does sit |
| 00:20:00.35 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 00:20:00.37 | Unknown | the |
| 00:20:00.43 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:20:00.47 | Joan Cox | Mayor, I'd like the city attorney to respond to the accusation by a member of the public that we're breaking federal law by not having verbatim minutes. |
| 00:20:00.57 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 00:20:10.22 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, I'm not aware of any requirement to have verbatim minutes. Most public agencies will only have action minutes, and that is all that's legally required under the Brown Act. |
| 00:20:20.41 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:20:20.45 | Steven Woodside | Ma'am, you had your time. Please respect the order. Please respect the order of the meeting. Thank you. Please respect the order of the meeting. We'll now move on to the consent. Oh, did we, we need to act on the, act on the motion. So all in favor, say aye. |
| 00:20:39.57 | Joan Cox | Aye. |
| 00:20:40.21 | Steven Woodside | All opposed? Motion carries unanimously. The consent calendar is next. These are items that will be considered altogether and that anyone from the council may ask for an item to be removed from the consent calendar. The items are 3A Hispanic Heritage Month proclamation. 3B, Director of Communication Annual Report for 23-24. 3C, adopt a resolution declaring one police vehicle as surplus and authorizing the city manager. to dispose of said equipment at auction. 3D, adopt a resolution authorizing the city manager to execute the professional services contract. with park engineering for construction management and inspection services for the ferry improvement project in an amount not to exceed $175,122. adopt a resolution accepting The Marin County local road safety plan, chapter 17, related to the city of Sausalito. 3F adopt a resolution authorizing city staff to submit for RM3 safe routes to transit and bay trails funding to support the construction of the bridgeway improvement project Napa street to Johnson street for the Bridgeway improvement project in Spring Street to Napa Street and design funds for the Bridgeway bikeway roadway pedestrian improvements from Gate 6 Road to Harbor Drive 3G has adopted a resolution accepting the 2023 pavement improvement project, Edwards Avenue, at a cost of $1.5679 million, as complete and direct the city engineer to file a notice of completions. 3H is adopted resolution amending parking regulations to establish a no parking zone opposite the driveway and garage of 22 Atwood located along 301 North Street. 3I adoption of a resolution approving the exterior front yard modifications and landscaping in the public right of way of 9, 596 Sausalito Boulevard. adopt the resolution. authorizing the city manager to execute a professional services agreement with George Hill's, to provide claims administration and risk management service for one year in an amount not to exceed $196,000. 3K by minute order waived the business license tax penalties imposed on active ingredients incorporated in an amount of $7,146 and accept a two-year payment plan. David Sloan, Three L author as a city manager to execute side letter license agreement with us later yacht harbor for the use of 47 parking spaces in Bay street parking lot for public parking is there any public does anyone wish to mandor removing consent items. |
| 00:23:03.65 | Joan Cox | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:23:05.70 | Steven Woodside | by step. |
| 00:23:05.82 | Joan Cox | I just wanted to note we did publish an amended agenda that changed the title of 3F from Bridgeway Bikeway to Bridgeway Bikeway slash roadway slash pedestrian. improvements. And I also would like to |
| 00:23:18.43 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:23:18.44 | Shiva Paktao | Thank you. |
| 00:23:18.58 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:23:20.81 | Joan Cox | poll item 3H. We received over a dozen, over a dozen or two dozen public comments on that item. |
| 00:23:29.75 | Steven Woodside | Removing 3H by Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 00:23:32.72 | Jill Hoffman | Yes, thank you, Mayor. I would like to remove item 3L, which is the authorized city manager execute a side letter license agreement, especially Yon Harper. |
| 00:23:39.99 | Steven Woodside | Okay. be able to be removed. Anyone else? Okay. So the motion is to approve all the consent items with the exception of 3H and 3L. Is there any second? Oh, I'm sorry. There needs to be public comment. I apologize. So public comment on those items only, not the no parking zone and not the Madden, the South City at Harbor agreement. Public comment. |
| 00:24:07.92 | Walfred Solorzano | So Peter Van Meter? |
| 00:24:11.40 | Ted Barton | I appreciate it. |
| 00:24:13.58 | Walfred Solorzano | Okay. Anybody else? Babette? |
| 00:24:20.16 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:24:23.67 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. I'd just like to make two points of order. First of all, I personally did not employ the word verbatim. It was your colleagues on the dais. I used the word authentic. Are you going to make it? |
| 00:24:31.62 | Steven Woodside | Are you going to be Thank you. |
| 00:24:32.56 | Babette McDougall | Yes, sir, I am. But I want to make sure we follow the rules of order here. |
| 00:24:32.83 | Steven Woodside | Yes, sir. |
| 00:24:37.51 | Babette McDougall | Secondly, with regard to this alphabet soup consent to calendar, it's become a runaway fad with the existing agenda setting committee, I guess. It's not usually the way we handle our business in such sweeping order in Sausalito. And I'd like to encourage you to reconsider the alphabet soup approach. Thank you. |
| 00:24:56.93 | Steven Woodside | Thank you for your comment. |
| 00:24:59.17 | Walfred Solorzano | No, no further public comments. |
| 00:25:00.98 | Steven Woodside | comment and I'll make the motion to approve items, all the consent calendar items with the exception of 3H and 3L. |
| 00:25:08.00 | Joan Cox | SECOND. |
| 00:25:09.21 | Steven Woodside | All in favor, say aye. |
| 00:25:10.39 | Joan Cox | Aye. Opposed? |
| 00:25:11.73 | Steven Woodside | Okay. The consent calendar carries. How many people are here to comment on the the three we have about a dozen on the 3h on the parking on 3h the parking can you just raise your hand |
| 00:25:18.55 | Walfred Solorzano | We have about. |
| 00:25:26.38 | Steven Woodside | That's five, six, six. |
| 00:25:28.23 | Joan Cox | Yeah, ask that we take that before. Take that first, okay. Yeah. |
| 00:25:28.25 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. that first. We'll take both items, I guess, first and dispatch with them. So we'll hear 3H, then 3L, and then we'll move on with 5A and 5B. So first on the parking regulations to establish no parking zone opposite the driveway and garage on 22 Atwood. Does staff have a report on this or? Who will give it? You will give it, sir. Thank you very much. Could you introduce yourself for the record? |
| 00:25:58.62 | Adam Blair | I believe we have a slide deck as well. |
| 00:26:14.50 | Adam Blair | Perfect. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council members and members of the public. It's a pleasure to present before you all this evening. I'm Adam Blair, Assistant Planner with the Community Development Department. And I, along with my esteemed colleague, Senior Engineer Andrew Davidson, are here to discuss a proposed amendment to parking regulations, proposing a no parking zone opposite the North Street driveway of 22 Atwood Avenue. And before we begin, I'd like to take a quick moment to just thank members of the public who reached out to us and provided public comment on this item leading up to the hearing. It's something we greatly appreciate. We value any input and feedback going into these hearings. So thank you. And with that, we'll move forward. Next slide. So project summary. On occasion, residents and members of the public forward their concerns related to parking and traffic safety to various departments, including public works and the police. These concerns range from restriping portions of city streets to making changes to existing no parking areas to address safety issues and improve access to driveways. An Internal Traffic Coordination Committee, often referred to as the TCC, is composed of police, public works, and sometimes the Southern Marin Fire Protection District. They meet approximately every quarter to review these requests, and if deemed appropriate and reasonable, bring items to the City Council for action. The proposed parking amendment for the removal of on-street parking at 22 Atwood Avenue was originally brought forth to Sausalito City Council along with two other addresses, 115 3rd Street and 101 Prospect Avenue. These proposed amendments were presented to Sausalito City Council on June 4th, 2024, during the regularly scheduled City Council hearing. The proposal was then referred by Sausalito City Council back to the Planning Commission for further discussion, which took place on July 24th, 2024, in the form of three study sessions, one for each address. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the removal of on-street parking at 115 3rd Street and 101 Prospect Avenue unanimously. And then for 22 Atwood Avenue, three planning commissioners recommended the removal of of on street parking at opposite the driveway on North Street at 22 Atwood with one planning commissioner abstaining and one recusing themself. Next slide, please. So for site location, 22 Atwood Avenue is located nearby the intersection of Atwood Avenue and North Street. It's identified by assessor parcel number 065-203-02. And it's located in the R-3 Multiple Family High Density Residential Zoning District per Sausalito Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. Next slide. Diving into the planning approvals for 22 Atwood Avenue, the property as we know it today really started coming into form in 2012. In 2012, the Community Development Department received a design review, variance tree removal permit, and encroachment agreement application, Project ID 12-124. This application was approved through Planning Commission Resolution number 2012-23. The design review permit portion, which was subject to heightened review findings, proposed modifications within the Atwood Avenue right of way, including construction of facade modifications, construction of a mechanical room, construction of retaining walls, stairs, paths, landscaping, and demolition of an existing parking deck. For proposed modifications within the North Street right of way, this included the proposed construction of a two car garage, as well as retaining walls, stairs and landscaping. The variance portion of the application requested the allowance of 432 square feet of building coverage for the proposed garage and mechanical room. It proposed the allowance of 817 square feet of additional impervious surface coverage. It also requested the allowance of 86 square feet of floor area for the proposed garage and mechanical room. And it proposed the allowance of a reduced three-foot side yard setback from the eastern property line for the proposed garage and a three-foot side yard setback from the western property line Next slide. Moving to 2013, another application was filed similar to the last one. It was a design review, variance, encroachment agreement, and tree removal permit application, project ID 13-196. This project was denied through Planning Commission Resolution number 2013-31. The design review permit portion of the application, which was also subject to heightened review, proposed modifications and additions totaling 347 square feet of new floor area, a new second floor covered deck, stairs, other hardscape improvements, removal of a parking deck and construction of a new walkway within the Atwood Avenue public right-of-way. The variants requested the allowance of additional building coverage, floor area, and impervious surfaces beyond that which is allowed in the R-3 zoning district. The tree removal permit requested the removal of three pitosporum trees, one Coast live oak tree, two Toyon trees and one cotton Easter. And the encroachment agreement portion of the application was to allow these improvements within the Atwood Avenue and North Street public right of way. Next slide. And then the residence was ultimately approved in 2014 through a design review, variance, tree removal permit, and encroachment agreement application, Project ID 14-006. It basically approved the residence as is, including the curved driveway. And a couple of the heightened review findings that were worth noting was Heighten Review Finding D, which says, quote, a new two-car garage will be provided on North Street, which has been designed to not impact existing on-street parking, and is set at an angle to facilitate ingress and egress, end quote. And then heightened review finding F also stated the following. The project allows for adequate guest parking along the street frontage within the Atwood Avenue right of way. End quote. In 2015, an administrative modification to an approved project was applied for To propose the relocation of the garage, it was proposed to be moved from a 5'4'' setback from the eastern property line to a 13'3'' setback from the eastern property line. So it shifted the garage over about 7'11". Notice of decision was issued on October 7th, 2015. And the main reason for the proposal was to help address a slope retention issue pertaining to the western side of the property between 22 Atwood Avenue and 18 Atwood Avenue. Moving the garage would essentially or essentially eliminated the need for a large retaining wall on that portion of the property. Okay. And the project was deemed, or I guess the relocated garage was deemed to have no impact on ingress and egress at North Street. And with that, I will pass the mic to my colleague, Andrew Davidson. Thank you. |
| 00:33:37.39 | Andrew Davidson | Thank you, Adam. Next slide, please. Thanks. So good evening, and I'm Andrew Davidson, Senior Engineer in the Department of Public Works, and I'm going to present some information related to the no parking request made by the property owner at 22 Adwood in order to improve ingress and egress for their driveway garage and garage, which are located on North Street. So as Adam touched on, on May 14th of this year, the internal... traffic coordination committee met as it does roughly quarterly to discuss eight items three of which were related to access to residential driveways and the request for installation of red curbs to resolve issues of ingress and egress to those driveways the traffic committee concurred with the requests and this evening you are reviewing the request made by the property owner at 22 atwood So the traffic committee is composed of staff from the police department, public works, sometimes community development, and sometimes the Southern Marin fire protection district. Going back, I was able to locate agendas dating back as far as 2005 for the traffic committee. At that time, members included the city manager, police and fire chiefs director of public works city engineer, Thank you. Parking Manager, Community Development Director, and Superintendent of Public Works. So taking a look at this slide, 22 Atwood, which you can see outlined in yellow, it's the garage and driveway for this address are located with ingress and egress on the south side of the house, located on North Street. Next slide, please. |
| 00:35:22.55 | Andrew Davidson | This view is along North Street looking towards the west as if we are driving from east to west. To the right is the driveway and garage for 22 Atwood, and on the left is the curb with approximately 33 feet of available space for parking along the 301 North Street frontage opposite the garage and driveway. The driveway flare for 301 North Street is painted red for approximately two feet. And the curb at the access to 301 North Street is also painted red. Those existing red zones are the limits of the open 33 feet. The width of the street is approximately 18 feet. The driveway and garage for 22 Atwood are on a skew, orientated to assist drivers approaching from the east. According to the property owner, they are unable to effectively ingress and egress the garage with a vehicle parked on that opposite curb. Next slide, please. So the property owner is requesting that the curb opposite their driveway be painted red to facilitate their ability to use their garage. The resident would prefer that both stalls be eliminated, but that eliminating one would be just adequate for ingress and egress into their garage. The property owner stated that because of the difficulty of ingress and egress to their garage, they are required to use two on-street parking spaces in the area. However, if they can use the two spaces in the garage by eliminating one space on North Street, there would be a net gain of one parking space to the neighborhoods. This would be accomplished by adding 13 feet of red curb and leaving a single 20-foot parking space along the frontage of 301 North Street. So the existing 33 feet of non red curb do not equate to two full parking spaces. However, This doesn't mean that two cars are unable to park here and still be out of the existing red. They just have to be short enough and parked well to do so. Next slide, please. |
| 00:37:36.02 | Andrew Davidson | This slide shows a turning study for ingress and egress for the driveway and garage. The study was prepared by parametrics who provide on-call traffic engineering services for the city. So on the left side of the exhibit, you see the model for ingress and on the right side, the model for egress. The turn lines are in blue, which are a little hard to see. and show the right and left edges of the vehicle and the center of the vehicle as it moves, excuse me. The turning study shows that a vehicle attempting to ingress and egress from the driveway has conflicts if a vehicle is parked at the eastern end of the non-red curb. you can see the blue lines intersecting with the parked car at the eastern end of the curb. Painting 13 additional feet of curb with red will allow a vehicle to enter and exit the 22 Atwood garage while facing the westbound direction and will leave a 20-foot parking space along the North Street curb. Thank you. Thank you. Next slide, please. So this slide provides some information regarding signage in the area of 22 Atwood, as well as the approximate number of parking spaces in the area. This information came from parking enforcement. The area is part of the area H permit that restricts parking to two hours unless a vehicle has the area H permit. You can see some of the sign locations in the area which are represented by the red squares. In the vicinity of 22 Atwood, Area H permit signs are located on North Street, Between Josephine and Third Street? on 2nd Street between Richardson and it's N to the North. on 3rd and 4th Streets between Richardson and North Street. Now anyone can park in the area for up to two hours. If someone has an area age permit, they may park up to 72 hours without moving. Beyond 72 hours, any car may receive a citation if it hasn't moved. In June, the council asked if businesses were using parking in the area to the detriment of the residents. In response, parking enforcement responded that businesses do use the area, mostly contractors, due to ongoing construction projects. However, employees of bridgeway businesses use the area very little. Parking enforcement performed a spot count of parked cars in the neighborhood between Wednesday, September 4th and Saturday, September 7th. This information is included in the staff report as attachment four. This very informal count showed that occupancy of the parking spaces ranged between a low of about 70 percent to a high of 100 percent, with a rough approximate overall average of 90 percent occupancy on the days and times that the observations were made. Next slide. Last slide. So, open for questions and comments. This image is a Google map street view. It shows two cars parked along that curb adjacent to 301 North Street and opposite the 22 Atwood garage and driveway. The white van is probably in that 13-foot zone that's being requested to be painted red. I don't know if those vehicles are... constrained within the existing red or if they're hanging over the red. But there you go. |
| 00:41:18.72 | Steven Woodside | Vice Mayor, I was first with some questions. I think Council Member Hoffman raised her hand after. Anyone else? |
| 00:41:24.25 | Joan Cox | Thank you. Thank you. I'll ask my questions. |
| 00:41:30.07 | Blake More | Sorry to interrupt, but I think I'm, I didn't realize that I'm within a thousand feet based on some of the parking associated with this. So I'm going to recuse myself since I am a renter, so I'm not necessarily required to, but since I sometimes park on Atwood, I don't have a bonus of caution. Tell me when to. Thank you. |
| 00:41:50.74 | Joan Cox | I'd like to ask my questions of the assistant planner if I might. |
| 00:41:53.98 | Unknown | Adam. |
| 00:41:54.47 | Adam Blair | Thank you. |
| 00:41:58.41 | Joan Cox | Adam, it's nice to meet you. Welcome. |
| 00:41:59.92 | Adam Blair | Likewise. Thank you. |
| 00:42:01.61 | Joan Cox | Yeah. You may or may not realize that I was the chair of the planning commission that considered this project on March 26, 2014. One of the things that we provided to the applicant at that time was an encroachment agreement. You read some of the heightened design review findings, but we also had a couple of key encroachment permit findings. And as you know, an encroachment permit has to be approved, not just it's recommended by the Planning Commission, it actually has to be approved by the City Council, right? Right. |
| 00:42:32.91 | Unknown | All right. |
| 00:42:32.98 | Adam Blair | Correct. |
| 00:42:33.13 | Joan Cox | So that's really a privilege that's rarely granted, right? |
| 00:42:33.18 | Unknown | to get. |
| 00:42:37.52 | Joan Cox | Okay, and so as part of the encroachment agreement, did we include finding B, The encroachment will not, sorry, finding, see. The encroachment is necessary to the reasonable use and enjoyment of the property and the extent of the encroachment is justifiable. Due to the size and location of the parcel as it relates to the Atwood Avenue and North Street public rights-of-way, the steep topography and the existing development of the site, an encroachment will be required to access the existing single-family residence and provide information. a two car garage below the structure. And so we actually already granted an encroachment agreement in order to allow the then property owners to build the garage, is that right? |
| 00:43:26.68 | Adam Blair | Correct. Thank you for clarifying that. . |
| 00:43:28.79 | Joan Cox | Yep. Okay. We also made finding D. The proposed encroachment will not adversely affect the public circulation nor create or constitute a hazard to public safety. And the reasoning proposed by staff for that was the encroachments as conditioned will not affect access and circulation on Atwood Avenue and North Street because the traveled ways will remain unchanged beyond its current conditions and the angled orientation of the garage allows for improved ingress and egress. Did we make that finding clear? back in 2014. |
| 00:44:03.58 | Adam Blair | Yes. |
| 00:44:04.46 | Joan Cox | And so we really recommended that the City Council approve this encroachment agreement in order to not affect the surrounding circulation. Is that not right? |
| 00:44:18.45 | Adam Blair | That is correct. The project was approved under the determination that there would be no impact to ingress and egress with the proposed garage on North Street. However, the property owner at 22 Atwood Avenue has expressed that while this determination was made in practice, it is quite difficult for them to get in and out of their garage. And so hence why the claim was filed with the TCC. |
| 00:44:45.01 | Joan Cox | And of course, the current applicant is not the applicant who appeared in front of the planning commission in 2014. Isn't that right? |
| 00:44:52.93 | Adam Blair | I believe ownership changed since then. |
| 00:44:55.47 | Joan Cox | And so you have no way of knowing what um, what promises the then applicant made when seeking the heightened design review findings, the numerous variances, and the encroachment agreement. |
| 00:45:12.15 | Adam Blair | Some of the reports touched on it, but the records were a little difficult to navigate through. So there was probably some dialogue missing. |
| 00:45:19.78 | Joan Cox | All right. Thank you so much. And thank you for your thorough report. Thank you. |
| 00:45:22.64 | Adam Blair | Thank you. |
| 00:45:23.13 | Steven Woodside | Councilmember Huffman. |
| 00:45:29.75 | Jill Hoffman | No, I don't have anything further. No, thank you. |
| 00:45:33.31 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:45:33.32 | Steven Woodside | I have a question about. You don't have any? Nope. Thank you. There was a letter from Ed Barton. Sorry, I didn't manage my chocolate intake appropriately. |
| 00:45:46.62 | Unknown | appropriately. |
| 00:45:48.26 | Steven Woodside | Uh, it cited seven changes to parking in the neighborhoods. Um, I don't know if you saw this letter, but it said that some of these red curbs. shown up. according to Alleged, allegedly, without authorization. Has there ever been an audit or inventory of the area to identify red curve and validate that every place that's painted red has been authorized and that there are no red curbs that are sort of... |
| 00:46:17.71 | Andrew Davidson | So throughout the city, we will find areas with red curbs that I cannot find |
| 00:46:18.41 | Steven Woodside | Bye. |
| 00:46:24.17 | Andrew Davidson | um, ordinances or direction to have made or created those red curbs. So I my, I can't answer that, honestly. because I don't know if those were created legitimately. For example, you'll find a lot of red curbs are a lot of red flares at driveways are painted and those we just do to help highlight the edges of driveways and make it easier for folks to stay out of the way. I mentioned that at 301 North Street, your access to their residence is painted, the curb is painted red, and that's per ordinance that paraphrasing says that if your access does not land on a sidewalk and it goes directly to a curb, that no one's allowed to park right in front of your access. So we paint those out. with some red squares. Um, Fair enough. |
| 00:47:15.15 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. My follow-up question is whether there's an effort at CDW in any way or the police department to attend to the thematic issue of a shortage of parking by making sure that there are |
| 00:47:15.69 | Andrew Davidson | It's just, |
| 00:47:31.25 | Steven Woodside | that there's an accountability for the renegade use of red paint by random people to, uh, Create no parking zones without authorization. Is there any plan to do any of that? |
| 00:47:41.96 | Andrew Davidson | Thank you. We haven't discussed it. |
| 00:47:44.07 | Steven Woodside | So in the work that you did here on this area, uh, when you were speaking to these neighbors and they were pointing out any of these items, uh, was it simply because it's not the task at hand that we set them aside or is there any plan to maybe follow up on this letter with Mr. Barton and maybe doing an audit of, uh, the, the spots he's mentioned, uh, to see if they could be free to with, |
| 00:48:07.55 | Andrew Davidson | direction. |
| 00:48:08.02 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:48:08.12 | Andrew Davidson | ask. |
| 00:48:08.44 | Steven Woodside | You could do that. Is that something you really need city council direction for? Is that a sort of administrative? I think it's administrative. |
| 00:48:13.82 | Andrew Davidson | I think it's administrative, right? |
| 00:48:15.49 | Steven Woodside | You know the theme of all the letters is that there isn't enough the pike parking is tight and And, uh, and you've gotten a lot of feedback in this meeting in the previous one with specific examples of where there might be modifications to create more parking, uh, in that area. So, uh, I think, well, you said you have administrative guidance, so maybe that's enough to pursue that line of inquiry. Any other questions? Weissmere. |
| 00:48:39.74 | Joan Cox | Just to follow on, one of the assertions by Mr. Barton was that 22 Atwood had redlined a section of the street in front of their house on Atwood. Were you aware of that, or is that a true statement from your perspective? I'm not aware of that. |
| 00:48:54.36 | Andrew Davidson | I'm sorry. |
| 00:48:54.37 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:48:54.46 | Unknown | I'm not aware of that. |
| 00:48:57.12 | Steven Woodside | Any other questions? All right, then we'll do public comment, please. Any public comment on this matter? |
| 00:49:02.73 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes, we'll start with Simone Waddell. |
| 00:49:09.97 | Walfred Solorzano | And then we're going to be followed by Jen Johnson. Yeah. |
| 00:49:15.99 | Unknown | Good evening. And I want first to welcome our new neighbor. I lived in Sausalito since 1967. I have parked on North Street for those years. And I do my grocery. I go to mind my business. I used to teach in the city. And now I still live there with my daughter and my granddaughter. And I have been witness of the painting of the curve on North Street. And I was home and I was also a witness of the sledgehammering of the curve in order to enlarge the entrance for the house at the I think it's 301 North Street and I have a sense of community, my husband was a local architect, he really cared about the social community, and I do too. And people, I feel, don't really respect the rules, existing rules. And I think it's easy to know the rules and to respect them. And it's just what I want to say, a sense of community and understanding the neighbors. Thank you. |
| 00:50:46.56 | Walfred Solorzano | Dan Johnson. |
| 00:50:50.12 | Unknown | Hi, I live at the... the far end of 2nd Street, There's many residences on the second street stairs that have no public parking. They have no streetscape at all. They're on the stairs. And there's multiple apartments and multi-unit buildings. residences on North Street. I believe someone, one of the neighbors counted up 20 to 28 cars that needs parking in the current 14 spaces that are available. I know that it may not be easy to scoot into the garage the way it's canted, but I think it's possible. I drove that tonight on the here. My own driveway is very narrow. The city wouldn't give me enough space to do anything but. I have to enter at a right angle or I can't make the curve. And there's been multiple times that I have to call the police probably two or three times a year in order to get them to have cars move that are parked in my driveway. So parking is tight and people need all the spaces they can get. And 22 Atwood has two spaces on Atwood that granted, are public but are accessible, And they have a two-car garage that can be accessed, maybe just not easily and at speed. So I really would beg you to say no to this request and to maintain all parking on North Street because all the neighbors absolutely need it. Thank you. |
| 00:52:31.49 | Walfred Solorzano | Next we have Niels Carlsen, followed by Ted Barton. |
| 00:52:42.64 | Unknown | No. |
| 00:52:45.28 | Niels Carlsen | Good evening. My name is Niels Carlsen. I live just around the corner on 3rd Street from North Street. And I saw the building when it was built years ago. I was very impressed of the garage was built in a little bit of a slant instead of parallel with the sidewalk. So I felt that is practical. Now you can get in and out easily with your car. Now I hear from the owner that one car goes in easily, But it is the second car that is a problem. So, by moving the parking on the cross street, To me, Doesn't help. And the problem that the owner has doesn't solve by doing this It just transferred his problem to the neighbor's problem. And to me, is not logic. And something that is not logic, I have difficulty to accept. Thank you. |
| 00:53:53.99 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:53:54.02 | Ted Barton | All right. |
| 00:53:54.43 | Niels Carlsen | Thank you. |
| 00:53:54.45 | Walfred Solorzano | Ted Barton, then followed by Carolyn Revelle. |
| 00:54:01.65 | Ted Barton | Thank you. have a little visual aid here to kind of express the history of increased red parking, red line zones in our area. that when we first got our house at 317 2nd street that wasn't red zone that wasn't red zone and that wasn't blue lined um and things just sort of seem to be coming in these are all official and they were done for for various reasons but They're gone. forever. And the issue with 301 that you talked about earlier, three owners ago, of Shirley Luffman. Jack hammered her of her driveway to make it wider. and then painted it red. We said something to the city. May notice. They came back. They put the curve back. It took me a long time. took the red paint away. They did it again. And so it stands, it's set as a precedent. And so the current owners, very nice people are benefiting from that. I don't blame them. I would too. There was also, Ms. Luffman added a little red part right there, right in the middle of a parking spot to put the trash cans out. That's a, that was just done. You know, it's a zone. So all these people utilize this. I'm getting close to my time here. I would suggest that Mr. Davidson, may have made it could have made a similar suggestion he's making to us. that maybe we could park here, you get two cars in If your cars are short enough, and parked well to do so. Why not? 22 Atwood. have cars that are short enough and Park will to do so. Thank you. |
| 00:56:00.43 | Walfred Solorzano | Caroline Revelle. Then we have Nora Waddell. |
| 00:56:06.26 | Carolyn Revell | Good evening. I hesitate to speak because I'm up here so often, but I live at 515 North Street, and I went through an elaborate process, the encroachment permit, to get the ability to create my own parking place. But I'm speaking on behalf of the neighbors here tonight with great sympathy for their problem. I was struck, Council Member Cox, by your reference to the earlier decision that, as I understood what you were saying, that approving this garage, the understanding was that it had no impact. There was no impact on the ingress and egress. So I ask you to consider the plight of the neighbors rather than the owner of a two-car garage. Thank you very much. |
| 00:56:49.98 | Walfred Solorzano | Nora Waddell, then followed by Raylene Gorham. |
| 00:56:55.97 | Nora Waddell | Hello. Thank you so much for hearing us. Sorry, all of this to do for a fairly minor item. It seems to me that if we had more public transportation, if we had infrastructure, if we had BART, if we didn't have so many individual cars, we would have less of this issue or public bikes, you know. But thank you for listening to us. I want to second what my mother was saying, that it is heartwarming to think of the city as defending the public good, and that there are always going to be individual interests that fight for their, you know, their position, but that the public good is not always defended. So I thank you for doing that. At 18 Atwood, the house that's just above, the owner was granted a small portion of red because her garage is parallel to the street. And so she does need that. The red zone that was parked in for, at 301 North across from 22 for the, for the owners to put their garbage cans that reduced that parking space. We used to be able to fit three cars in there. Then now it's two. I mean, there's a little bit of leeway there, perhaps. We've always parked on the street, and we have small cars, and we try to fit them in. So I know it can be challenging, but it is the charm of our city and of our neighborhood that we coexist and that we have small, highly dense areas. Thank you. |
| 00:58:59.85 | Walfred Solorzano | Really, Ingram? |
| 00:59:03.49 | Shiva Paktao | OK. I like to start. |
| 00:59:06.35 | Walfred Solorzano | Oh, I'm sorry. Lori, Lori Volt. you |
| 00:59:15.76 | Lori Volt | Hello. Hi. Thank you so much. I do want to express my sympathy and support. I also have a garage that I am so thankful that the city of Sausalito did put a red box in front of the entrance of the house across the street from me so that I can get in and out of my garage. So thank you so much for that. But I also wanted to comment on what was brought up earlier about rogue red markings on curbs. I can attest that there is one indeed. But I also wanted to comment on what was brought up earlier about rogue red markings on curbs. I can attest that there is one indeed on Central Avenue at 74 and 76 Central Avenue. The owner of that house went and painted the red curb red so that he could have a second parking pad. He also went and then put his own white marks on the street and added an additional parking space, which has caused problems because it's not a regulated sized parking space. And now people are encroaching on the red box that I went so hard at work to get so that I could get in and out of my garage. So I would like to ask Andy Davidson to do an audit of all of the red curb markings in Socelito to make sure they are technically legal and to remark some of the white marks on Central Avenue from the original white marks. Yeah. Thank you so much. |
| 01:00:37.72 | Walfred Solorzano | And we have Frederick Lewis. |
| 01:00:46.31 | Frederick Lewis | Good evening. I first wanted to say I have never used red paint in the front or rear of my house, and there is not any red paint on any of the curb in front of my house. I wanted to say... We have a very competent street engineer and unanimous planning commission who have all agreed it is impossible to access my garage when two vehicles are parked across the street. If I come around north through Josephine and I pull in and out five, six, seven times, I can get a single car in. It is impossible to get the second vehicle in. So as a result, I park two cars on the street. It is easier for me to park a block away and walk to my house than it is to get in and out of the garage with a single car. Of course, it's impossible for the second car. So there'll be a net gain of a single parking spot. There won't be a net loss of parking spaces. I spend $80,000 a year on property taxes and I can't even use my garage. Now, in terms of this encroachment, Yeah. it's, It's a mistake. The encroachment, I can assure you that whoever approved and went through this encroachment process never physically tried to park in and out of the garage. So now here we are in 2024. We can say... This encroachment arrangement was put in place 10 years ago, and it should be stay in place forever, or in 2024, we can correct a previous mistake. Because I can assure you, I'm not coming here for my health. I cannot park in that garage, and it's completely impossible. And there will be a net gain of parking spaces. I could also tell you that I did park out on the street the other day. There is no advantage to me to park on the street. The other night, there was a police officer's car there that four or five cars were hit in the street. So I would much rather park in the vehicle. And I can assure you, I was in the military for six years as a police officer and I can park, drive very well. So it's not an issue with the quality or training of parking. |
| 01:02:59.57 | Unknown | or training of partners. |
| 01:03:01.08 | Frederick Lewis | Thank you. |
| 01:03:01.09 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:03:01.11 | Frederick Lewis | Thank you. |
| 01:03:01.13 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 01:03:01.16 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:03:01.20 | Frederick Lewis | Thank you. |
| 01:03:02.97 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 01:03:03.12 | Unknown | So, |
| 01:03:03.15 | Walfred Solorzano | Exactly. Thank you. |
| 01:03:03.61 | Unknown | Thank you. Okay. |
| 01:03:08.81 | Walfred Solorzano | Can unmute |
| 01:03:15.98 | Skylar | Yes, hi. Can you hear me? |
| 01:03:17.31 | Steven Woodside | Yes, please go ahead. |
| 01:03:19.52 | Skylar | Well, yes, my name is Skylar. 3rd Street, just a few seconds of walking from the parking location. And I just wanted to state You know, I think my wife and I, like a lot of people in this neighborhood, we don't have our own garage. to park a car. So we really rely on the street parking. Um, And, you know, it just gotten tighter and tighter, I think. over the years. I think obviously if you were to red stripe this zone, that that parking situation would become even worse. And I do think, obviously, I don't live at that location, but it seems like it'd be possible to get a car in and out I don't know about having two cars, but, you know, I think, these So, just, you know, part of living in Sausalito is these kind of steep, narrow streets and you just have to kind of learn to deal with tight spaces and then tight driving situations um, And so, I would urge you to to vote against red red skype in this new spot. And The other thing I would say is In my blissful ignorance, I did not know that people were I'm kind of illegally reg typing. curbs. That's pretty shocking to me. I didn't even know that people would have the guts to even try something like that. So That'd be great if the city could also look into that and adjust that as well. |
| 01:04:53.35 | Unknown | Thank you for your honor, Mr. Cedric. |
| 01:04:55.10 | Walfred Solorzano | it's Jonathan Leon. So, |
| 01:04:59.98 | Steven Woodside | of a |
| 01:05:00.15 | Jonathan Leon | You know, |
| 01:05:00.37 | Walfred Solorzano | Bye. |
| 01:05:00.40 | Jonathan Leon | Thank you. |
| 01:05:00.47 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:05:00.50 | Walfred Solorzano | you |
| 01:05:00.77 | Steven Woodside | Welcome back. |
| 01:05:02.44 | Jonathan Leon | Hi, sorry to take up your time. Um, Good evening, council and some staff. And Andy, you did a great job with us. Um, This constitutes conveyance of a special privilege, if this is granted. And my heart goes out to the applicant. But basically, every house in Sausalito that's on a hillside has a tradeoff of some sort. You know, I can only get one car in my garage because the car lifts off the ground because of the steepness of the hill. So there is a compromise with every structure here. This would be a benefit to an individual and not at the cost of the general public and for parking permit holders I would as I put my letter to to the planning staff, there's an alternative of moving a fire hydrant and opening up that red space on North Street in front of the Second Street stairs. Again, that's not an adequate parking space, but we make do with what we can in Sausalito. that's an alternative it's an expensive alternative but it is an alternative Uh, And the city has these larger goals of affordable housing and multi-unit buildings. And those are not providers of multiple spaces of parking for the most part. And if you keep removing these spaces from the streets that grant people private privileges, it's gonna be hard to meet those goals. And it's gonna discourage multi-unit housing in general. |
| 01:06:33.57 | Jonathan Leon | So. |
| 01:06:34.09 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:06:36.79 | Walfred Solorzano | Sorry, I thought it was done. I muted him. Unmute yourself, please. |
| 01:06:39.61 | Steven Woodside | Sorry, Mr. Leon, we inadvertently muted you, perhaps. |
| 01:06:44.64 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 01:06:44.65 | Jonathan Leon | That was a wise move on your part, I have said. But, |
| 01:06:48.32 | Steven Woodside | But, Ooh. |
| 01:06:49.48 | Jonathan Leon | It is. |
| 01:06:49.97 | Steven Woodside | You have 30 more seconds, Mr. Luan. |
| 01:06:52.30 | Jonathan Leon | Thank you. to represent the community and defend the basic needs of the community. And off-street parking is a basic need of the community, especially in Old Town, where many structures, particularly in this neighborhood, have no off-street parking and rely on the on-street parking to meet the needs of their either owners or renters. Thanks for your time. Thank you, sir. |
| 01:07:14.45 | Walfred Solorzano | And now we have Eva. |
| 01:07:18.76 | Eva | Thanks. I just wanted to ask if the city has or if residents have noticed how much of the the squeeze on parking is exacerbated by the size of cars. um, Sorry, can you hear me? |
| 01:07:36.65 | Steven Woodside | We can hear you. Go ahead, please. |
| 01:07:38.42 | Eva | Okay, I'm just wondering if the city's looked into how much larger vehicles are, um, these days and, and how that's playing into, um, you know, these issues with parking You know, back in the 70s, when Sally Stanford was mayor and we were advocating for expansion of the bike lanes in the 1980s, we did not think that we would find ourselves in 2024 when you have these monster vehicles and overbuilt houses, overbuilt individual homes, you know, which where people feel like they have to have, you know, these very large SUVs. And it seems like it would be in the best interest of the city and it would be, you know, a I guess a more novel approach to really consider whether whether Sausalito needs to have some regulations on the size of cars. Now, obviously, that shouldn't apply to anyone who's handicapped and requires, say, a wheelchair. They might need a van for a wheelchair. But, you know, there's just a carrying capacity for the planet. And it's kind of obvious that things have become bloated And maybe it's time to try something new and look at how you could be a novel city and start laying down some sensible regulations about, You could create, you know, you could do it another way. You could create tax incentives for people who have small cars, because now we're seeing electric vehicles, you know, becoming. bloated to like the the |
| 01:09:23.72 | Walfred Solorzano | There's no further public comment. |
| 01:09:25.14 | Steven Woodside | we'll close public comment bring it back up here for discussion Ms. McDougall, please come up to the podium. |
| 01:09:33.67 | Nora Waddell | I wouldn't jump. |
| 01:09:37.76 | Babette McDougall | Sorry, Wilfred, I did want A to Z tonight. Thank you for allowing me to speak, Mr. Mayor. All right. So actually, I was really glad to hear Jonathan Leone's comments because it led into something that I actually wanted to call attention to as well, which has to do as this particular street, this particular neighborhood being a really good beta example of high density housing and how it's going to be a very difficult needle to thread. going forward. It's often been said that Sausalito is already maxed out. It's already built out. How can we possibly do more? Well, of course, we know that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission has an answer for that. And it involves these very large boxy apartment structures that give no consideration at all to views or view corridors and everything about the quality of life in Sausalito just goes down the tubes if these things are allowed to be built in our community. So I hope that as we go forward, just like all the other communities up and down the state of California, we're just going to have to put our backbone into this as we go forward. And I'd like you all to remember tonight. And these remarkable comments just on one section of our community, which in fact is emblematic of the community at large. So let us not lose sight of that. We are built out already and we are maxed out. And a final comment I'd like to make, actually, it's not a new idea. to consider the size of vehicles. If we were employing and using now our residential neighborhood code requirements, they actually do call out vehicle size. Suburbans had to be parked down in the... Ancillary police parking lot. They were too large for the neighborhood while those codes were enforced. Apparently, all the residential neighborhood codes have been rescinded. They've been declared illegal. So everything that used to govern sanity for parking no longer exists. It's kind of a up for grabs moment now. Thank you. |
| 01:11:40.59 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 01:11:40.61 | Steven Woodside | All right, no further public comment. Thank you. So any discussion from the dais, Vice Mayor? |
| 01:11:46.28 | Joan Cox | Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I sent staff a one page if you could display. So this is page six of exhibit three. C to the Planning Commission report. from March of 2014. This is a garage plant. So we very carefully look at plans and specifications for every project that we approve, particularly where an encroachment agreement and other special privileges are sought. You can see that there was a garage plan that showed access to the garage from opposite directions with staggered parking in the garage. And I will tell you that in 2014, we were very concerned about ensuring and creating off-street parking because we were in the process of adopting a housing element that allowed accessory dwelling units which do not require off street parking and so that was a priority to the planning commission and I assume to the council at that time and so Um, I I don't know whether the architect made a mistake, perhaps signage for the cars across the street that says small car only for the parking spots across the street could be a solution. But After having reviewed the careful record that the Planning Commission at the time met that the City Council relied upon in granting the requested encroachment agreement I would like to make a motion this evening to deny The request. to eliminate additional parking spots on Um, Atwood, I would like to ask city staff whether it's feasible to put signage and say, you know, small car only or something like that to give the owners of 22 Atwood more clearance as they access their garage. |
| 01:13:59.34 | Steven Woodside | I could second that motion. Maybe I would ask you whether you want to give a little bit of direction on something. there have been, |
| 01:14:05.11 | Joan Cox | I want to ask if it's feasible. I was concerned about the comment by Babette McDougall that, um, that perhaps we're not allowed to, um, Thank you. Yeah. So. Um, It's different from the vehicle code. |
| 01:14:21.92 | Steven Woodside | I suppose. |
| 01:14:22.34 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:14:24.60 | Steven Woodside | Just looking at that drawing there, I just note Mr. Barton identified this spot that someone painted red on across the street. It might be possible to ship those two. If that spot is illegal, it might be possible to ship those cars 15 feet to the west without removing any parking spots and give the homeowner a little bit more angle to get in without reducing any parking. But it all depends on whether those spots, the other red curbs are illegal or not. So denying this. |
| 01:14:25.97 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:14:30.47 | Joan Cox | Yeah. |
| 01:14:49.94 | Joan Cox | So I So then I would say, okay, and I want to hear from Janelle, I will say, let's give direction to the city engineer to review this plan. I'll forward it to him and ensure that the way that the street is striped is indeed in accordance with this plan that was approved initially. |
| 01:15:10.13 | Steven Woodside | and then invite the applicant if if there is a way to not reduce any parking but just by shifting the cars uh but not reduce the number of parking spots then maybe we could reconsider um a way to give him a little room to turn the corner but |
| 01:15:24.37 | Joan Cox | I like that idea. I really do want to thank you for second. And I really do want to. |
| 01:15:24.39 | Steven Woodside | I like that idea. |
| 01:15:29.82 | Joan Cox | identify a feasible solution. I think when we approved this project, we thought they had presented us with a feasible solution. I'm going to go. |
| 01:15:36.93 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you, Vice Mayor, for the history here. It's very helpful. I'm wondering, maybe for the city engineer, |
| 01:15:37.08 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:15:42.86 | Ian Sobieski | How true to reality is this diagram? And when I sort of eyeball it, it looks like potentially two cars could park in the driveway pad. So I'm trying to understand what the actual use case scenario opportunity here is. Andy, maybe you can speak to this. And then I'll also just comment, and I think this is where you're going, Mayor. We should do a thorough review of the red-painted areas and maybe have a whole refresh based on the city engineer's commentary here. |
| 01:16:15.70 | Steven Woodside | I can answer your question because I tried to park in the pad today with my big SUV and I couldn't do it. So it's certainly not like that drawing. |
| 01:16:18.98 | Ian Sobieski | Oh, great. |
| 01:16:22.93 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, for just one car you couldn't even? Okay, interesting. |
| 01:16:28.18 | Kevin McGowan | Thank you. As Andy takes a look at the sketch here, we'll have to get back to you on some of your questions and comments, specifically taking a look at, you know, what the diagram says and making sure that we can answer your questions in the future. As far as changing the vehicle sizes, I would need to also check with our legal department to find out if we can or cannot do that. |
| 01:16:51.75 | Joan Cox | I'm getting some behind the scenes feedback that perhaps we cannot, but I appreciate that we make the effort. I do want to try to accommodate the homeowner, but I also want to be respectful of the neighbors. Sounds good. |
| 01:17:03.78 | Ian Sobieski | I'm Kevin, while you're up there, Dr. McGon. Do you have any sense, and I have also seen people painting uh cribs red do you have any sense uh as to what it might take to do just a review of this whole area um to determine whether the areas that are painted red are appropriately so, and whether there's maybe some public safety measures that the city could evaluate on its own? |
| 01:17:28.96 | Kevin McGowan | We can look into that as you have directed us to look into. I've found my time here in Sausalito that on occasion we don't have records in certain times past, let's say, the 70s. So if something was painted red and it's an old house or an old neighborhood, we may not have record of whether the city council approved it. So we'll look into it and see what we have compared to what's out there. |
| 01:17:56.33 | Steven Woodside | Can I follow up on that, Council Member? Just in this case, not to make it any more difficult than literally in this room, you've got some institutional memory. So rather than trying to let the end it perfectly the enemy of the good here, at least you have the, you know, the names, emails and preliminary testimony on a variety of spots that could easily be evaluated. |
| 01:18:18.57 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. Mayor, if I can, I'd like to weigh in on this. We can do it, but we need to analyze when we'll do it and I think get back to you because it's always a question of capacity. And so Kevin and I can speak tomorrow about the timing of this and get a response back to the council on where we'll start and when we'll start. |
| 01:18:38.80 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:18:41.06 | Chris Zapata | So, |
| 01:18:41.98 | Steven Woodside | I think, Any other comments, Councilmember Hoffman, anything? |
| 01:18:47.63 | Jill Hoffman | think like yes thank you my comment was to follow on councilmember cox's and the diagram that she showed and whether or not that's still an accurate um depiction or not i'm not that i'm not clear on and so um i think if we're we're in agreement that that's no longer an accurate okay so then so if i could summarize and you guys can |
| 01:18:48.00 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. you |
| 01:19:09.79 | Jill Hoffman | confirm that we currently have a house on Atwood that has two parking, two car garage on North Street, and the owner's not able to access from the street the two parking spots while there's cars parked across the street. Is that an accurate description of what we're talking about? Okay. Thanks. |
| 01:19:35.88 | Steven Woodside | So there's a motion on the floor to deny the no parking space, but with direction to investigate renegade red curbs. And if it's possible to preserve two parking spots by shifting the cars, reconfiguring, then to proceed with that. But just generally to look for other renegade red spots in the area. Council Member McKellar. |
| 01:19:57.83 | Ian Sobieski | So I just want to inquire of Councilmember Hoffman. Are you inclined to support the motion or do you have other concerns? |
| 01:20:04.58 | Jill Hoffman | these are my concerns is that we have a street on north street um that doesn't allow parking on the right hand side so sometimes when we look at garages it's well you're you're losing parking spaces because you're creating a garage and you're actually giving an added benefit to the owner because now they've got a two-car garage plus another parking spot that they can block their own garage with that's not the case in this one in this instance this instance um um the owner the homeowner has a permitted two-car garage that admittedly and the facts seem to imply or the facts seem to support that he's not able to actually access his two-car garage from the street when there's parking spots uh that when there's parking across the street from his garage to me um one of the issues is that then it pushes as he's stated during a statement it pushes those cars back out onto the street and so we're losing two street car parking spots by not allowing him to the ingress he needs to access his garage. So that I think is a factual summary of what we're talking about. And so based on the comments that we've had here today and the presentations. So I... Are we still in discussion? Yeah. OK. |
| 01:21:26.71 | Steven Woodside | There's a motion on the floor that's been said. We're discussing that motion. Yes. |
| 01:21:28.09 | Jill Hoffman | Exactly. Yeah, so I think Council Member or Vice Mayor Cox is driving toward a solution, which is can we somehow shift around the red spaces along North Street so that we can allow... some access for the homeowner to access his garage and thus taking cars off the street and allow more street parking. So You know, I think that's a good idea and I'd like to explore that some more so if I mean do we have to have input from staff or do we have to have any further confirmation of that? |
| 01:22:02.20 | Joan Cox | I'm asking that we give direction to staff and handle this at the administrative level. The most recent amendment to the permit at 22 at what was done at the administrative level following the Planning Commission decision in 2014 so i'm asking that we deny the application and. give direction to staff to see if they can identify a solution that benefits the homeowner without that we're not going to be um, Disadvantaging the neighborhood. And we've heard, you know, numerous comments Thank you. |
| 01:22:36.81 | Steven Woodside | Or to put that direction in another way, the way I put it, which is if you can still park the same number of cars by painting a little bit of red across from the gentleman's home, but shifting the cars to the west, then we're giving them authorization to do that administratively. |
| 01:22:41.70 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:22:41.72 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:22:53.14 | Joan Cox | And then if they need something, I'm sorry, if they need, |
| 01:22:53.80 | Steven Woodside | something. if not the mayor. |
| 01:22:56.48 | Joan Cox | If they need a broader solution, then of course they would bring it back to the Planning Commissioner Black, back to us. But I'm trying. to give adequate direction. so that we can accommodate the homeowner Accommodate the concerns of the neighborhood and move forward. |
| 01:23:12.28 | Jill Hoffman | yeah i support that because we have to we have to figure out where do you get uh ingress for his garage so he can get his cars off the street right and um parking spots and maintain the same number of parking spots along north street so yeah that's a puzzle good luck i hope |
| 01:23:19.40 | Carolyn Revell | THE FAMILY. |
| 01:23:28.65 | Steven Woodside | I'm sorry, sir, we can't. And to preserve the order and fairness, you cannot make a... Unfortunately, you can't. So motion's been duly made, seconded, modified, and seconded. All in favor, say aye. Bye. |
| 01:23:40.78 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:23:41.86 | Steven Woodside | Opposed? Okay, motion carries unanimously, and then I'll move on. Item 3L, authorized. the city manager to execute a side letter license agreement with Salisbury Yacht Harbor for the use of 47 parking spaces in Bay Street, Parking lot for public parking. Do you want us to wait for you? Okay. While the council member Glouston gets settled. Um, who's going to be Mr. City Manager, do you need a moment? |
| 01:24:13.54 | Steven Woodside | Are you... |
| 01:24:14.03 | Chris Zapata | be presenting this item or uh i will encapsulate the item mayor for you and the council in the public if you'd let me uh yes well i |
| 01:24:15.86 | Steven Woodside | I would |
| 01:24:21.97 | Steven Woodside | you just wait half a moment for Council Member Kellman who said she would be quick. |
| 01:24:27.71 | Chris Zapata | Right in the middle of something. |
| 01:24:33.21 | Steven Woodside | We'll just wait for Council Member Coleman. |
| 01:24:33.25 | Chris Zapata | Well, |
| 01:24:36.93 | Steven Woodside | Yeah, after that, let's just do it after this one, Thank you. |
| 01:24:44.72 | Unknown | I can't. and go to the driveway door. |
| 01:24:50.46 | Unknown | you |
| 01:24:51.79 | Unknown | and she said something that's happened 10 years ago. You made a mistake ten years. |
| 01:24:57.72 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. |
| 01:24:57.83 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:24:58.15 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. |
| 01:24:58.63 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:24:58.73 | Chris Zapata | We're going to try. |
| 01:25:01.88 | Steven Woodside | All right, Mr. City Manager, I think we can go ahead and start. Councilor and Councilman, of course, is apprised of all this, so this is more for the public. So go right ahead. |
| 01:25:11.00 | Chris Zapata | Thank you, Your Honor and members of the council and the public. I will try to briefly describe this item from the agenda. So it's the consideration of adding parking to the city in partnership with the Sastano Yacht Harbor. The mechanism to accomplish this is a side letter that provides for 47 new spaces east of lot two to the city with shared revenue for these spaces at 50 percent. In consideration of these 47 lots, what you would see is the city would be obligated to enforce the parking for the entire lot. It is called the Susilo Yacht Harbor lot. The city would have to provide signage and relocate a pay station. And then I also want to point out that this is an agreement that lasted as little as 60 days or as long as the two parties want it to last. So it's intended to be more of a pilot than anything else to see if in fact it's going to work. It has to work for both parties, the city and the Yacht Harbor. And so this was brought forward. The council, the direct to city staff to go back and look at the language of it that was done with the city attorney. So what you have in front of us is the actual agreement that nobody has signed yet. |
| 01:26:26.11 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:26:26.21 | Chris Zapata | Thank you, Mr. City Manager. |
| 01:26:26.27 | Steven Woodside | you or stuff? Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 01:26:31.25 | Jill Hoffman | Yes, city manager. I'm sorry, but where in the agreement does it say it's operable for 60 days? |
| 01:26:38.86 | Chris Zapata | Amen. |
| 01:26:40.08 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:26:40.15 | Chris Zapata | Okay. There's a section that says there's 60 day notice and probably the city attorney is the best person to answer that. When we contemplated this thing, it was supposed to be a pilot program for a year that could be extended. The language analysis, it could be extended without action. But I believe there's a 60 day cutoff period that either party can implement. Sir, can you take a look at that? |
| 01:26:59.99 | Jill Hoffman | THE FAMILY. Yeah, the way I read it, it says 60 days prior to the end of the lease period. So in other words, it's a year unless we give 60 days notice prior to the end of the lease period. |
| 01:27:11.62 | Chris Zapata | I stand corrected. |
| 01:27:11.64 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. So, okay. So the next question I have is, what is the, it's not provided in the staff report. I didn't see it, I didn't see it attached Attached to the item on the agenda, what's the financial breakdown that we expect to receive from the 47 spots in parking lot, this new parking arrangement? |
| 01:27:38.77 | Chris Zapata | Thank you for the question. I'm going to ask our finance director to walk through that for you. |
| 01:27:49.96 | Chad Hess | Good evening, Mayor Council, members of the public. So today I'll summarize some of the financial components of this agreement that parking manager, Wayne Kwan and myself have put together. So based upon the the average lot revenue of lot one during the peak season, which we determined to be four thousand two hundred and fifty dollars or two hundred twenty five dollars during the peak months of May through September. We're estimating that those 47 spaces is expected to generate approximately $312,000, which would be split amongst both parties. Of this, we would split the net fees after credit card fees. The city's share of that is approximately $151,000 for the fiscal year. The estimated startup cost to implement this, we're looking at about $3,000 to move one of our existing pay stations. We would not buy a new one. We would move one of our underutilized stations, and then we would move it and reprogram it to accommodate the configuration of the new lot. We are also estimating about $2,000 in additional signage to direct wayfinding to that new additional lot. Um, There is also a $400 administrative fee paid monthly to the Sausalito Yacht Harbor, which is $4,800 a year. And then the city would also forego the 25% revenue share on existing parking, which currently is above $400 per month that the city receives from the Sausalito Yacht Harbor. |
| 01:29:27.26 | Jill Hoffman | So Mr. Hess, you just said you expect to receive $312,000? |
| 01:29:34.21 | Chad Hess | In total for the whole lot, but that would be split amongst both parties. |
| 01:29:39.61 | Jill Hoffman | I'm not clear on how you're getting that. So you're doing, we're getting 47 spots and you're estimating the parking lot one estimate, which is 4,025 per spot, right? |
| 01:29:50.51 | Chad Hess | Yes. |
| 01:29:51.54 | Jill Hoffman | So my math is 47 times 4,025, right? Okay. |
| 01:29:57.55 | Chad Hess | Okay. |
| 01:29:57.89 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. It looks like to me it's 189,000. |
| 01:29:59.95 | Chad Hess | Then we're then our math is wrong on this. This is something that Wayne helped me provide. I did not review this prior to the meeting because this was produced back in July. UM, So let me revisit that. |
| 01:30:12.52 | Jill Hoffman | OK, that looks me. And that's. |
| 01:30:15.12 | Ian Sobieski | again for everybody. |
| 01:30:15.94 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, so my math is 47 spots at 4,025 per spot is 189,175. We're all looking at our calculators, if we could all confirm that. I see. Okay. And so the city's revenue from that, then if you split that in half, right? So the city's revenue... |
| 01:30:29.56 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:30:37.90 | Jill Hoffman | divided by 2 equals yes 94,000 so the city's the city's expected revenue from that is 94,000 |
| 01:30:47.97 | Chad Hess | Okay. |
| 01:30:49.85 | Jill Hoffman | And then were of the remaining I think there's a remaining right now, a remaining 87 spots. that are not part of this deal that we are going to manage but we're giving up all revenue from those spots. we're negotiating away all revenue from those spots, if I got that right. |
| 01:31:07.06 | Chad Hess | So we would forego the 25% revenue share, which is generated about $4,800 to the city per year. |
| 01:31:15.36 | Jill Hoffman | her spot. |
| 01:31:16.04 | Chad Hess | No, total. |
| 01:31:17.49 | Jill Hoffman | Oh, total. And you're basing that on what? |
| 01:31:20.15 | Chad Hess | and the remittances that they have provided. |
| 01:31:22.57 | Jill Hoffman | And so admittedly, once we start managing this lot, you would agree that the revenue per spot should start going up. |
| 01:31:29.67 | Chad Hess | For which spots, the one that we lease or for his spots? |
| 01:31:30.87 | Jill Hoffman | So that we can do it. I would guess for all the spots. |
| 01:31:34.80 | Chad Hess | Well, we would only control the 47 spots. The other spots would be available for his tenants who lease yacht berths. |
| 01:31:42.61 | Jill Hoffman | And he would also be able to make revenue off those spots if they're empty and people pay for those spots. Right. |
| 01:31:49.65 | Chad Hess | Sure. They would have to lease them directly from Madden. |
| 01:31:53.19 | Jill Hoffman | Well, they wouldn't leave, yeah, for the day or however he wants to do it. |
| 01:31:55.88 | Chad Hess | Correct. |
| 01:31:56.40 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. And we're also creating new signage to direct people to this new lot, correct? |
| 01:32:02.22 | Chad Hess | We would be. |
| 01:32:02.81 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Intentionally. Have we ever done a, as I recall, The analysis that we were presented with earlier this year, which was interesting, was that most of the time In fact, almost all the time, the lots are not completely full. And that includes parking lot one. |
| 01:32:21.85 | Chad Hess | Yes, based upon our previous analysis, there are vacancies available in most of our lots throughout the year. |
| 01:32:27.62 | Jill Hoffman | And you would agree that since there are spots available then in parking lot two, three, and four, that directing people to lots two, three, and four would keep 100% of the revenue in our pockets? |
| 01:32:40.24 | Chad Hess | the city would keep 100% of the revenue from those lots, correct? |
| 01:32:46.16 | Jill Hoffman | So I'm not, and this $400 administrative fee, so the Maddens are currently not managing, apparently, because we're supposed to share and they're supposed to give us a breakdown, by their failure to effectively manage their own parking lot, They're going to receive an additional hundred, about ninety four thousand. Right. That's that's their half of the forty seven spots. They're going to receive approximately an additional hundred thousand dollars from the city of Sausalio's management of their lot. Correct. |
| 01:33:15.66 | Chad Hess | Sure. Yes. |
| 01:33:16.91 | Jill Hoffman | And then for some reason, we're also assessing ourselves a $400 per month fee. to the Maddens for some sort of administrative fee, |
| 01:33:24.98 | Chad Hess | Yes, I wasn't part of that negotiation, but that is correct. |
| 01:33:35.03 | Steven Woodside | Do you have any more questions? |
| 01:33:36.22 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, I do. And so, sorry. And so at this, the way that the current deal is, we're supposed to receive 25% of all parking in all the spots in Madden, whatever it is, correct? |
| 01:33:50.78 | Chad Hess | Correct. 25% of parking. |
| 01:33:53.16 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. So our Well. It's interesting because our our effectiveness in increasing the revenue in that lot, we're still losing, you know, we're still... losing 25% the increase right i'm saying this backwards but we're supposed to receive 25 anyway and we're only adding 20 another 25 because we only get 50 per spot now |
| 01:34:23.59 | Chad Hess | So we currently get 25%, but it is very, very underutilized. |
| 01:34:25.63 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 01:34:28.97 | Chad Hess | So we would then accept those 47 spots, we would get 50% of the revenue of those additional spots. |
| 01:34:41.99 | Jill Hoffman | And are we assuming that the 4,000 per spot is also applicable to parking lots two, three, and four? |
| 01:34:49.77 | Chad Hess | Those lots, when we did the analysis, have a lower per revenue stall. They are less utilized than parking lot one. I don't have those off the top of my head. |
| 01:34:59.36 | Jill Hoffman | So it's interesting that you would then assess the parking lot one revenue estimate to the Madden lot, which is an unproven lot. So I'm wondering on the on the finance estimate on that. |
| 01:35:07.83 | Chad Hess | Sure. That was a discussion that the parking manager and I had, and that was the value that we assigned. |
| 01:35:15.36 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. Okay, thank you, Honor, for the question. |
| 01:35:18.21 | Steven Woodside | Okay, does anyone ask Councilmember Blaustein? |
| 01:35:21.72 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:35:21.74 | Kit Hayes | use your memory. |
| 01:35:22.19 | Blake More | Like, So just to go over a couple of things, how much revenue do we receive annually from our parking citations as a city? |
| 01:35:31.15 | Chad Hess | I don't have that number off the top of my head. I believe it's around $350,000, somewhere in there for all parking citations. |
| 01:35:39.19 | Blake More | And to be clear, so can you suggest or look up how much the citations are from lot one, for example? |
| 01:35:45.07 | Chad Hess | We have that data. I don't have it available today. |
| 01:35:48.72 | Blake More | Okay, but you would anticipate a significant amount of revenue from ticketing fees, from the usage of this lot. |
| 01:35:55.20 | Chad Hess | Yes, potentially. |
| 01:35:56.52 | Blake More | And how much revenue do we get right now from ticketing fees and revenue in this lot? |
| 01:36:00.38 | Chad Hess | In the Mattenlot? Yes. No revenue. |
| 01:36:01.63 | Blake More | Yes. Okay, and how much revenue do we get in total from the Madden lot right now? |
| 01:36:06.07 | Chad Hess | for the parking about $4,800 per year. |
| 01:36:09.15 | Blake More | And do we know how much the Maddens charge for each spot or what's required? |
| 01:36:13.86 | Chad Hess | I do not know. |
| 01:36:14.52 | Blake More | that. |
| 01:36:14.74 | Chad Hess | Thank you. |
| 01:36:15.21 | Blake More | Okay. And how much revenue are we anticipated to get, assuming we move forward with this agreement? |
| 01:36:20.98 | Chad Hess | It depends on what number we use. If we use the 40- |
| 01:36:24.90 | Blake More | It's a good thing. Thank you. THE END OF of |
| 01:36:25.40 | Chad Hess | the 4,200 about 90, 94,000. |
| 01:36:25.46 | Blake More | The |
| 01:36:28.98 | Blake More | Okay, so that's, I'm not great at math, but it's close to 100,000, we're making close to 5,000. So it's quite, it's the number of times more than what we're making. It is an increase in potential revenue. |
| 01:36:37.57 | Chad Hess | It is an increase in potential revenue. |
| 01:36:39.50 | Blake More | Okay. And then when we say something goes wrong and we aren't making revenue, what are the terms of the lease in terms of... |
| 01:36:39.51 | Chad Hess | Thank you. |
| 01:36:46.67 | Blake More | getting out of it. |
| 01:36:47.68 | Chad Hess | So from my understanding, it's a one-year lease. It auto-renews at the end of that one term unless either party gives written notice within 60 days of the end of that term. |
| 01:36:57.38 | Blake More | So within 60 days, if we're not receiving enough revenue to make up for the $4,800, for example, |
| 01:37:02.66 | Chad Hess | Well, we would be committed for a year. So we would have a one-year agreement with them, and we could terminate at the end of that year. |
| 01:37:09.47 | Blake More | Okay, and we can facilitate a full audit at the end of that year to demonstrate that there is in fact revenues from increase from the plot |
| 01:37:15.98 | Chad Hess | Yes, yes, it is. It is part of the agreement that either party can audit. |
| 01:37:19.68 | Blake More | And your expectation in making this assessment of whether or not we should move forward with this agreement, you think there's a significant revenue positive gain from entering in this agreement? |
| 01:37:28.82 | Chad Hess | Yes, potentially with the upcoming construction in parking lot one and removing some of those spots. Yes, there is potential upside for this agreement. |
| 01:37:35.49 | Blake More | Yeah. |
| 01:37:38.03 | Kit Hayes | Thank you. |
| 01:37:38.05 | Joan Cox | Okay, thank you. |
| 01:37:39.77 | Kit Hayes | on. |
| 01:37:40.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:37:40.11 | Kit Hayes | Thank you. |
| 01:37:43.45 | Joan Cox | Thank you. Other than the revenue remitted by the Maddens, on a monthly basis. The city's not reaping any revenue from lot from their parking lot at the moment. Is that right? |
| 01:37:57.17 | Chad Hess | We received 25% of their parking lot revenue, about $4,800 per year. |
| 01:38:01.85 | Joan Cox | Okay. this side letter licensing agreement lets the city set the rates for the 47 parking spots, correct? |
| 01:38:13.84 | Chad Hess | That is correct. |
| 01:38:14.92 | Joan Cox | And it makes provision for the same dynamic rates that are established in lots one through four, meaning that we are able to charge higher parking rates when demand is higher. |
| 01:38:26.10 | Chad Hess | That is correct. |
| 01:38:27.48 | Joan Cox | Right now, the city does get revenue for Jazz by the Bay. The park and rec charges parking on Fridays during the summer, right? |
| 01:38:36.54 | Chad Hess | That is my understanding, yes. |
| 01:38:38.75 | Joan Cox | And that's separate from the Madden lease. |
| 01:38:41.20 | Chad Hess | Yeah, the city receives that and it is receded 100% by the city. |
| 01:38:41.22 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:38:46.55 | Joan Cox | Um, And so The city now gets to manage 47 parking spots not currently available to the city to manage, pursuant to this agreement. |
| 01:38:56.10 | Chad Hess | That would be correct. Yes. |
| 01:38:58.90 | Joan Cox | Okay, thank you. |
| 01:39:00.91 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. Hi, Director Hess. Thank you very much. Great questions from my colleagues. I think it's worth saying for the general public, how many spots total are in the Madden lot? |
| 01:39:12.13 | Chad Hess | 100 and I don't know the top of my head, I think. Chris knows. 200. |
| 01:39:18.73 | Ian Sobieski | THE FEDERAL. |
| 01:39:18.91 | Chad Hess | So Wayne, are you on the line still? Wayne, no. |
| 01:39:21.43 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. that's not going to be. |
| 01:39:22.61 | Chris Zapata | 200, Chad. |
| 01:39:23.18 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 01:39:23.50 | Chad Hess | THE FAMILY. |
| 01:39:23.89 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, so 200. Of the 200, how many of those do we take in concept, a 25% share on. |
| 01:39:33.81 | Chad Hess | In concept, it would be all of those spots that we should be receiving a 25% share of those revenues. |
| 01:39:40.09 | Ian Sobieski | Okay. |
| 01:39:40.51 | Chad Hess | We also get 25% of the yacht berths. And my understanding is if somebody rents a berth, they get a parking tag included with that. |
| 01:39:49.42 | Ian Sobieski | And so the deal is to move from 25% off of 200 spots |
| 01:39:57.05 | Chad Hess | Okay. |
| 01:39:57.37 | Ian Sobieski | to 50% off of 4,700. |
| 01:40:00.46 | Chad Hess | So he is not, my understanding is they are not actively marketing those spots to |
| 01:40:05.84 | Ian Sobieski | But in numbers. |
| 01:40:06.59 | Chad Hess | As it stands. In numbers. Yes. |
| 01:40:07.02 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:40:07.18 | Ian Sobieski | In numbers. |
| 01:40:07.97 | Joan Cox | That's the deal, right? And can I just say it's not off of 200 because |
| 01:40:08.29 | Ian Sobieski | Yes. |
| 01:40:13.20 | Joan Cox | He uses those for births. |
| 01:40:14.67 | Ian Sobieski | Oh, that's why I was asking, Chad, I just want, however the director articulates, and that's what I'm just trying to, |
| 01:40:19.31 | Chad Hess | Yeah. So, so he's not actively selling each of those spots. He is giving away the parking as part of a yacht birth rental. |
| 01:40:26.94 | Ian Sobieski | Do we get 25% of the ones where he gives away as part of the yacht? |
| 01:40:29.23 | Chad Hess | Bye. We get 25% of the yacht berth rental. So if somebody parks their boat there or rents a spot, we get 25% of that revenue, which inherently is receiving money for that included parking tag. |
| 01:40:40.25 | Ian Sobieski | Okay. So this is, my colleagues know, this was one of my concerns, was that we don't really have a handle on the number of spots by which we are supposed to be implementing a 25% revenue that's not associated with a birth. But, That's okay. That's, we'll get to that in competition. So, um, And, Under this 25% deal right now, is the city allowed to enforce So you said the remittances have been minor But Is part of that that the city hasn't been enforcing? |
| 01:41:11.02 | Chad Hess | So when you say enforcing, are you saying like forcing... |
| 01:41:14.81 | Ian Sobieski | There's no parking attendant. |
| 01:41:16.41 | Chad Hess | There's no parking attendant there. That is not our responsibility. |
| 01:41:18.15 | Ian Sobieski | I know. And under the lease, that would be our responsibility. |
| 01:41:22.02 | Chad Hess | Under this side letter, yes, we would enforce that lot and the city would retain 100% of those citations for the entire lot. |
| 01:41:31.23 | Ian Sobieski | And we would determine how many of the 47 spots are filled because we're installing a machine. |
| 01:41:36.97 | Chad Hess | We would install a parking machine, yeah. |
| 01:41:38.69 | Ian Sobieski | And so then we had this number that Caspar Haben put together, not put together, but gave us the math, around 94,587. And From that, we pay for the machines. |
| 01:41:51.80 | Chad Hess | Yes. |
| 01:41:52.68 | Ian Sobieski | which is about how much. |
| 01:41:53.59 | Chad Hess | So we already own this machine. So we own the machine. The annual maintenance on a machine is... 1790 per year, which covers the maintenance and any support that the city needs for that machine. |
| 01:42:09.55 | Ian Sobieski | So a thousand a year, another 4,800 for the management. So now we're at like 6K. And then you said there's some signage that's going to go in. |
| 01:42:16.12 | Chad Hess | So the first year of the signage is estimated to be $2,000 to install new wayfinding signage. And then $3,000 to move an existing machine and reprogram it for those additional spots. |
| 01:42:27.69 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, so the real net revenue number is somewhere in the high 80,000, right? |
| 01:42:31.32 | Chad Hess | The first year will be a little lower because of those initial startup costs. |
| 01:42:33.80 | Ian Sobieski | THE FAMILY. And As part of that cost, are you also looking at the time of the individual who's going to be assessing that? This is added work. We're not currently looking at that lot. |
| 01:42:45.43 | Chad Hess | So enforcing the parking. Yep. Yep. So the current plan is they would not add additional parking attendance. They would just have that be included as part of their lot or their patrol. So they wouldn't be an additional individual on city payroll to enforce that it would be utilizing existing resources. |
| 01:42:47.12 | Ian Sobieski | Yep. |
| 01:43:02.31 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, and we have these existing resources |
| 01:43:04.09 | Chad Hess | That is my understanding based upon my discussions with chief of police and our parking manager. |
| 01:43:09.90 | Ian Sobieski | Okay. And I think two of my colleagues said this in different ways. I just want to say it in a way that makes sense to me, which is that it's a one-year lease. We can terminate it 60 days before the end of the one year. |
| 01:43:19.52 | Chad Hess | That is correct. |
| 01:43:20.35 | Ian Sobieski | Inferminated in 60 days. It's a winner lease. |
| 01:43:22.64 | Chad Hess | We are committed to a one-year agreement and we can terminate by giving notice within 60 days of the end of the lease. |
| 01:43:29.95 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, great. Thank you. I appreciate that. |
| 01:43:31.31 | Chad Hess | You're very welcome. |
| 01:43:33.96 | Steven Woodside | Is anyone else want to turn on questions? If not, then we'll end with you, Councilmember Hoffman. You done? Go on. I'm recognizing you. |
| 01:43:40.75 | Jill Hoffman | No, I have. Oh, thanks. So I'm looking at, I'm perplexed by this, that we're only getting $400 currently monthly from Sausley Yacht Harbor. |
| 01:43:50.99 | Chad Hess | For parking, we do receive more than that in total. |
| 01:43:52.36 | Jill Hoffman | We can get, we can get, we can get, In total because we're also getting 25% of each birth? Yes, that is correct. That is correct. Okay, thanks. So we only get additional $400 a month in parking? In parking, okay. |
| 01:43:58.11 | Chad Hess | Yes, that is correct. |
| 01:44:04.91 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. And we don't have... OK, sorry. Thank you for clarifying that. How much do we get? from the slips. Do you have any idea what our |
| 01:44:21.67 | Chad Hess | If you don't have it off the top of my head, I can look it up on my computer. |
| 01:44:25.06 | Jill Hoffman | It looks to me like there's 700 slips in the Yacht Harbor and the minimum is $245 a month. |
| 01:44:30.46 | Chad Hess | I don't know off the top of my head, but they provide monthly reporting. And I can certainly look it up. |
| 01:44:36.43 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, I'd be interested to know if we're getting something close to at least $60,000 a month from Saucel Yacht Harbor as part of that 25%. |
| 01:44:42.43 | Chad Hess | So, There is an agreement where they advance some dollars to repair the bulkhead back in 2011, I believe, way before my time. And that is a reduction of their annual rents. So they track that. We track that every time they remit rents. So that is reducing some of their revenue, the current year revenue, because of that agreement that took place, I believe it was in 2011. Yeah. |
| 01:45:09.97 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, so do we, we don't have a number for annual rent that we get from, or not annual, sorry, monthly rent that we get from South City Yacht Harbor. |
| 01:45:16.95 | Chad Hess | I have it. I don't know. I don't memorize it off the top of my head, but I can certainly look that up for you. |
| 01:45:22.16 | Jill Hoffman | I'd be interested in knowing that, yes. |
| 01:45:33.27 | Jill Hoffman | Would you, I mean, based on the previous report that there's capacity in other parking lots, including parking lot two, three, and four, at any given time, regardless if it's high season or not high season. Would you agree that there's at least 47 spots in either parking lot two, three, and four? |
| 01:45:52.02 | Chad Hess | I haven't looked that closely at the data. I can certainly go back and ask that question of the data, but I don't have a number of how many are available. I can attest that there are available spots. |
| 01:46:02.38 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. And even available spots apparently in parking lot one. |
| 01:46:05.64 | Chad Hess | There are. Yeah. Yes. Based upon the data, I have access to all transactions for the last two fiscal years, and we can look at the data per stall and see how many transactions are in each of those stalls on a per day basis. And there are stalls that do not get rented during any given day. |
| 01:46:19.30 | Jill Hoffman | They're all- |
| 01:46:22.97 | Jill Hoffman | And as the total loss from the ferry landing plan from parking lot one and Tracy Way is how many spots? |
| 01:46:31.13 | Chad Hess | I don't know. Not off the top of my head. 30, 31, 37, somewhere in there. It has changed on me. |
| 01:46:36.84 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 01:46:38.64 | Steven Woodside | Right, shall we? Thank you. |
| 01:46:40.03 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 01:46:40.04 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. Thank you. |
| 01:46:40.38 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Thank you very much. We'll close questions now. Moving on to public comment. |
| 01:46:40.50 | Jill Hoffman | Right. |
| 01:46:44.72 | Steven Woodside | Is there a public comment on this matter? |
| 01:46:47.57 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes, there is. We'll start with Peter Van Meter. |
| 01:46:57.85 | Peter Van Meter | Good evening. I'm thrilled that this agreement is going to be moving ahead tonight because it adds additional parking capacity to downtown downtown. and made our whole Great Landing project be an actual enhancement to parking, as well as all the amenities that come from having that plaza being completed. It's also important to note here that the Madden lot has never had daily paid parking. So you can't compare revenues from a few little leases they may have given for a few parking spaces in a year. That's why you're only talking $400 a month because they've never had daily paid parking before. And this is now adding that capacity. So those 47 spaces are enhancing the amount of parking we have downtown and you'll be getting money that you do not get today. So it's a plus deal for everybody concerned. So please, complete this little final ingredient in the entire downtown Rejuvenation Project. by adding this parking to this agreement. Thank you so much. |
| 01:48:01.97 | Walfred Solorzano | We have Hank Baker, then followed by Adrian Brenton. |
| 01:48:10.60 | Hank Baker | Hank Baker, downtown resident, downtown business owner. I park in this lot every night, every day. Um, In a given Sunday, there are people driving around going from lot one to lot two to lot three. They can't find a parking place. And yet there's anywhere from 70 to 100 vacant spaces right now in the Madden lot. The Maddens are doing the city a favor and we are making money from it. And they're making money from it. on unused real estate. even if we make a dollar more, in what we're making right now. The city is ahead of the game. And one thing that the city we haven't discussed tonight is the benefit to the downtown merchants. The downtown merchants are screaming for parking. I'm in the middle of all this with the downtown parking committee, and we're working on a whole bunch of other different things. This is additive parking that we don't have right now. And just one other thing to keep in mind as we talk about this parking, this is a way of idea. McKinsey group, large international consulting company. suggests that by 2035 and 10 years, 30 to 40% of the cars on the road are autonomous vehicles that don't need a parking place. Today, tomorrow. A couple of years from now, we need parking. But as we look at long-term plans, You're not going to need the parking that you have. So let's address the parking need today. and we'll figure out what to do with those extra parking lots five, 10 years from now. Thank you. |
| 01:49:50.97 | Adrian Brinton | Adrian Brinton, resident, thank you for taking my comment. I do feel like we're losing a little bit of the big picture here. It's very important to look at the revenue of parking. It's obviously very important to the city, as everyone here knows. But as Hank mentioned, we're adding parking to downtown, which is extremely difficult to do. We're taking a badly underutilized parking lot, and we're utilizing it. We're getting the revenue from the tickets and we're getting more parking for the merchants, which they supported the ferry landing partly because we're making a huge effort to optimize our parking. And if we talk about optimizing our parking revenue, looking at, you know, $400 here and $1,000 there is not going to move the needle. We can do things with parking technology. We can do automated license plate reader enforcement. We can get better technology for people paying, and we can greatly increase our parking revenue. The other thing that really increases parking revenue is off-peak parking demand. And we need things that drive off-peak demand if we're serious about having more parking revenue. Things like the SCA bringing people downtown, that drives parking revenue. So I'd love to see us look at that. If we have this parking and we do a great event in Gabrielson Park, you know what? We can fill that lot. But if we fill it on a Sunday, we're not going to really make much extra revenue because all the lots are full. So I think if we keep an eye on The bigger picture, let's get the empty plane filled when it's not full. That'll get us more money. Let's increase the parking for the merchants. Thank you very much. |
| 01:51:31.61 | Walfred Solorzano | Bye-bye. |
| 01:51:39.64 | Babette McDougall | That man's tall. Thank you very much, Mr. City Clerk. So I'd like to actually pick up on Adrian's point about the big picture, because we're supposed to be looking at this policy of how we attack the negotiation of all city properties, the portfolio of city-owned properties, which is the backstop we have to remember is always the residents who are on the hook. When anything ever goes south and more money is needed, we are the ones who are taxed to make up the difference. I'm just wondering why wouldn't this agreement, even though the Maddens have been in Sausalito for a very long time, and I realize it's a multi-generational relationship, and so it has its own purpose. unique qualities that in some ways need to be honored and then in other ways clearly need to be revisited. And I just, is there any thought at all? to any of this being negotiated with the context of this new policy that's in the making? I just wonder if there's any connecting of the dots here. Is there any comment on that or anything that anyone could share on that? It would sure help to clarify the situation a little better. Thank you. |
| 01:52:58.55 | Walfred Solorzano | On Zoom, we have Jonathan Leon. |
| 01:53:03.66 | Jonathan Leon | All right. This is why I don't go to city council meetings. If you recall things from many years ago, and I should have hung up after the last item. Um, I would just encourage you to negotiate this very carefully. and the legalese behind it, there's a lot of dispute of who owns the underlying land here. in lots 234 and the Spinnaker, as well as the Madden parking facility. The city does not have clear title to this land and neither do the madness. It's unclear. and that agreement you're citing in 2014 Wasn't a perfect agreement, didn't contain any resolution to that effect of who actually owns what. So just make sure whatever you negotiate here that's documented in a way that doesn't convey any sense of who owns what. Also, If you break down these numbers and Jill, thanks for doing some quick math there. You got to take into account how much time you're going to spend. administering this. with the city parking patrol and cover that cost. and not just allocate straight out that we eat that and the Maddens don't. And the Maddens are good people, I don't mean to to catch any inspiration. Also, the marina is required to have a lot of spaces. It's a ton of boats. Make sure you don't lose what's required. for this marina to be on a weekend That's when people use their boats. It's a parking lot the rest of the week. with all Mariners, They go out on the weekends. So make sure the required spaces, or these four to seven don't encroach into that, required spaces for the spinnaker and for I'm sure this was done. I'm just adding built suspenders here. Um, And you want to make sure Usually multi-use of spaces, if you require, remember your planning commission days, that's a special situation and you have to meet your other requirements in order to do that. So but anyway, good luck. |
| 01:55:07.34 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you so much. Next speaker is Sandra Bushmaker. |
| 01:55:12.98 | Sandra Bushmaker | Good evening. |
| 01:55:19.39 | Steven Woodside | We can't hear you, Ms. Bushmack. Do you want to unmute yourself? |
| 01:55:22.93 | Sandra Bushmaker | Good evening, everybody. |
| 01:55:24.38 | Steven Woodside | You know, go ahead. |
| 01:55:25.18 | Sandra Bushmaker | I thought I heard staff say that we get 25, the city gets 25% of the slip rent |
| 01:55:25.19 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:55:33.40 | Sandra Bushmaker | Now, I don't know of any rents less than $500 and there are 700 slips in that place. So that should be 25% of slip rent coming to the city under the lease. That's my question. Or is it 25% of that parking lot's revenue? There's a big, huge difference in those numbers. And if it's 25% of slip rent, We are giving away a huge amount of money. if that is in abeyance, with this new agreement. So I'm very confused on that. And I would like to have some clarification on what the harbor is paying to us currently. Is it slip rent, 25% of slip rent? or 25% of parking lot fees. And I did notice that there was The Maddens have posted an electronic ability with a QR code to pay rent. They obviously have something going on there. I happen to be a tenant in the lot in the harbor. And I don't know of anybody's rent. slip rent that is quite as low as what was mentioned during the questioning. I suspect they're all quite a bit higher. Thank you. |
| 01:56:54.34 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 01:56:54.36 | Ian Sobieski | I'm not sure. |
| 01:56:54.44 | Walfred Solorzano | Bye. |
| 01:56:54.48 | Steven Woodside | No further public speakers. We will close public comment. Any discussion here in the dais? Mary, I'd like to... |
| 01:56:58.87 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah, Mary, I'd like to lead off. Director Hess, can you maybe just clarify that? Because I know you answered my question about the slip fees and the parking fees, but I think it's worth just putting it back on the record. |
| 01:57:28.23 | Chad Hess | All right, so under the existing agreement with Sausalito Yacht Harbor, the city is entitled to 5% of parking revenues that they generate. They also are entitled to 25% of their yacht berths that are sold to the general public, and then they get 5% of all other revenues. That is reported to the city on a monthly basis, but there also is the reduction based upon the 2011 agreement where they... They basically prepaid rents in order for the city to reconstruct the bulkhead that protects that harbor. Based upon the last three months, the city has received $7,000 per month from Sausalud Yacht Harbor in terms of their rent. Again, that is being reduced by that prepayment of rent that took place in 2011. Okay. |
| 01:58:19.21 | Ian Sobieski | and we're not giving up the 25% |
| 01:58:20.98 | Chad Hess | We're not giving up 25% of the births. It's just the parking. And again, they are not really actively selling parking. |
| 01:58:23.95 | Ian Sobieski | I'm sorry. |
| 01:58:28.09 | Ian Sobieski | Great. Thank you. That's helpful. You're very welcome. |
| 01:58:29.33 | Chad Hess | You're very welcome. |
| 01:58:30.89 | Ian Sobieski | Uh... This is a really longstanding lease with some concerns that this council inherited. So by way of background, this has several amendments to it. And much of this is on state lands and governed by the State Lands Commission, including the bulkhead. And so if you went through and reviewed the history and found yourself confused, you would not be alone. And so it's been a long stor, history. But the Maddens have been partners and neighbors in South Florida for a long time. And so I appreciate members of this council who wanted to evaluate this opportunity. I present the background because in no way do I think that they're doing the city a favor. I think the city is finally getting a grasp on managing property that it owns. Now, notwithstanding former Mayor Leone's comments about who owns what, and I don't know exactly the underlying area, this is one of the properties listed on City of Sausalito's owned properties, right? And so we lease it out. This is us finally doing something to create efficiencies and more management and doing it in a way that very much benefits an underlying leaseholder who already has a very interesting leasehold, if you will. So where I actually find some concern in the conversation, and I thought this way, and I expressed it during the ferry conversations, is we talk about the big picture and but we never talk about the proximity to the water. This area is very likely to flood. It is very likely to come underwater. And we just keep talking about parking and plazas, and we don't talk about resilience and sustainability and sea level rise and what we're going to do about that. And so I'm just going to take the opportunity, since people use the phrase big picture, that's my big picture for this area, and I think it's going to require a lot of heavy lifting in the long run. Now, in the short term, I am primarily concerned with risk management. And that's because, as you know, we did have some insurance issues. It's been a big burden to our budget. And so we are undertaking a significant risk reduction path as a council. We're looking to hire a risk manager. And so one of the things that I brought up and we went through was what are the termination provisions for this? Is there a liability provision? And there is not. Both agree to hold each other harmless. You heard us articulate it's a year lease that can be ended within 60 days of that one year lease. But what we don't have, and what I've asked my colleagues hopefully to include, is an actual understanding of what is there. How many birth spots? How many spots where we were taking 25%, whether or not it was enforced? How many total spots in the area? And so one of the things that I am going to request and I've requested is that there be an audit of that location. So as part of our risk management and part of our better management of our actual property, we understand what it is we're leasing. We understand what we're not leasing. I also think that this is a project that's going to require significant re-understanding in six months when we look at our budget again, because we really don't know the value of the spots in this lot. We can't say it's the same as lot two or lot one. Reasonable minds can differ how we come to the spot value, but nonetheless, we just don't know. And it's been underreported and under enforced. So my lens for this is is the city better managing its properties and mitigating our risk to a large extent. So those are the things that I'll push for if my colleagues want to move this forward. |
| 02:01:54.80 | Steven Woodside | Who wants to go next? That's what happened. |
| 02:02:00.31 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you, Mayor. I think it's, you know, I'm skeptical of this plan. I'm skeptical of, you know, the added $400 a month to be paid to the Madden since we're accepting all of the administrative costs were accepting all of the management costs for the lot we may or may not get something from you know policing the yacht and writing citations who knows but i don't see that the benefit to us equals what we would receive if we had these or drove use of our currently existing lots so if you figure that we're going to get 100 of any parking in our current lot without the added overhead of the administrative costs of expanding into a new lot. We're driving use and we're driving people to use a new lot for which we receive 50% revenue as opposed to a lot next to it, which we receive 100% of the revenue. To me, that makes no sense. unless you can show that there actually is no capacity, which admittedly there is capacity. All of our revenue and all of our metrics indicate that there is capacity at the other lots. So I'm perplexed as to why we would drive new customers to a new lot when Chad Hess and our parking enforcement officer has confirmed that we have excess parking in our current lots two, three, and four. So this discussion discussion started i think when we were talking about the loss of revenue um for these spots um from the reconfiguration of parking lot uh one to accommodate some of the design aspects of the new ferry landing plaza which was at about if you'd say four thousand per spot um you know, it's about $200,000. So the loss in revenue to the city at a time when we are in a fiscal deficit is approximately $100,000 straight off the top. And then you're also increasing administrative costs, you're increasing Basically, you're building a revenue model for the Maddens that they could cancel next year and manage it themselves. And no one has talked about that today. So I'm generally... you know, not in favor of this plan unless we can show that there really isn't any capacity. and lots two, three, and four that we will receive maximum capacity. One of the other issues that we talked about was moving the bus parking off Humboldt and changing those parking lot those parking spaces into perpendicular City owned spots for which we would receive 100% revenue. I haven't seen anything on that. And so I'm perplexed as to why we would go forward with this lot when we could get about 20 more spots off of Humboldt all again 100% revenue to the city. |
| 02:04:49.63 | Steven Woodside | Vice Mayor. |
| 02:04:50.66 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:04:50.68 | Joan Cox | Thank you. I think my answer to the concerns raised by Council Member Hoffman has to do with our downtown merchants. And so we heard from Gene Hiller that he lacks, that Lot 1 lacks, Lot 1 and street parking lack, adequate parking for the downtown merchants. the Madden Lot, Having recently had to use a cane for a year while I was waiting for hip and knee surgery, I can tell you, that I used the Madden lot, used lot one, used handicap parking when I had business downtown and that lot four and lot three were really infeasible when I was physically challenged. And so I think that lot having additional, having 47 spots available in the Madden lot will really accommodate some of the complaints that we've heard from our downtown merchants all along that Bridgeway border. And so I believe that we are spreading the web of revenue for the, for the city by increasing the availability of convenient parking spots by entering into this lease. So, and as mentioned, no one is right now managing any of the lots, any of the spots in the Madden lot. None of those are right now available for public parking unless... Arrangements are made directly with the Maddens. Now we're opening up 47 spots for public parking. And so we're gonna go from projected revenues of $4,800 per year from parking to, 94,000, 90,000 net perhaps of revenue. And that doesn't include... citations, I think that's just parking spots revenue and citations is on top of that. So I'm prepared to make a motion that we authorize the city manager to execute a side letter slash license agreement with Sausalito Yacht Harbor for use of 47 parking spaces in Bay Street parking lot for public parking. |
| 02:07:10.40 | Steven Woodside | second. |
| 02:07:13.15 | Unknown | Thank you. Wait. Thank you. this |
| 02:07:15.34 | Blake More | The shared mic thing tonight is throwing me off a little bit. I apologize. One of our mics is broken up here if you haven't caught on to that question. Uh, I find it interesting that there's objection to the idea of increasing parking when we've heard so much concern about there being enough parking downtown. I think this is a great opportunity not only to solve the problem that we've heard from a number of merchants, as Vice Mayor Cox pointed out, regarding access to available parking, but also to create new revenue opportunities for our downtown. So the fact that we're going to not only have more parking lots, but also be making revenue, parking spots, be making additional revenue from those parking spots, really is encouraging in terms of addressing our needs for the downtown, especially now that we have the Center for the Arts downtown, the Business Improvement District, and hopefully much more economic activity. So we'll continue to need more and more of these spots. So while I agree, we should be auditing it to make sure that the deal makes sense in the long term and that we're receiving as much revenue as expected and as we should be for the costs that are made to us. Because of course, if it's not net positive, then it's not a good deal. Based on the projections from our finance department and the long and hard work that's been done by the folks who are working with the Maddens to negotiate this agreement. I think it makes sense for us to move forward at this stage. And I look forward to hopefully seeing $94,000 of additional revenue in the city's coffers. |
| 02:08:41.37 | Jill Hoffman | Mayor, I have another question based on the comments. |
| 02:08:45.12 | Steven Woodside | The vice mayor had her hand up, then I saw... |
| 02:08:46.93 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:08:47.03 | Joan Cox | Sorry. |
| 02:08:47.50 | Steven Woodside | Come and then I saw you. So we got three in a row in that order, if you don't mind. |
| 02:08:47.58 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 02:08:48.07 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:08:48.09 | Joan Cox | So far, Mayor, I forgot to include as part of my motion direction to staff that they return to us six months, perhaps as part of the mid-year budgeting process, with an audit that addresses some of the questions raised by Councilmember Kelman about how many spots are they devoting towards marinas, how many spots do remain available for other revenue generating potential? And what revenues are we realizing on the 47 spots under this agreement? |
| 02:09:26.24 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you, Vice Mayor, for being a mind reader. I also do want to amplify, in addition, Councilmember Hoffman's really... really excellent point, which is, for not a max capacity, which is the argument that was made for losing the spots during the ferry conversation, Um, Are we pushing? people to park in an area where we get less than 100%. That's a really interesting point. And in the end of one year, the Maddens could decide they like it so much, they want to take 100% of it, and we don't do it at all. And maybe that takes away from our other parking spots. So, Vice Mayor, if you're open to sort of expanding the breadth of that audit, I think it should try to do a comparison to see for any different place if there is additional parking in the Yacht Harbor area. And does that impact a lot too? Because now I'm hearing both things, right? I'm hearing we have so much, we can lose them. And I'm hearing, no, we don't have enough, so let's replace them. And yes, when area that I requested a long time ago. So I would love to include that because I think it's a really interesting point and we haven't really run that to ground. |
| 02:10:38.13 | Joan Cox | So it's not part of my motion, which I have the motion that was in the packet. It's direction to staff that I'm hoping we will align upon. Okay, great. |
| 02:10:47.48 | Steven Woodside | I think the direction of staff, of course, would have to be after there's enough data to say anything about. So it seems like it should be your six months should be at least after |
| 02:10:55.77 | Joan Cox | six months and or part of the mid-year budget, which is |
| 02:10:58.47 | Steven Woodside | I mean if there is no parking data, it should be after the thing has been operational, right? |
| 02:11:00.41 | Joan Cox | Yeah. |
| 02:11:03.85 | Joan Cox | Agree. |
| 02:11:03.92 | Steven Woodside | I'm sorry. Thank you. So six months after parking operations begin or something like that. |
| 02:11:09.32 | Joan Cox | fine with that. |
| 02:11:12.29 | Sergio Rudin | Mayor, Council. |
| 02:11:13.74 | Steven Woodside | Yes, the city attorney. |
| 02:11:13.75 | Sergio Rudin | Yes. There is a motion on the floor, if I may suggest the current agreement, because it's been brought back a second time. The draft in the packet says that it'll have an effective day in July. I would suggest that the motion approve an agreement with an effective date for the end of September or some later date that the council selects. |
| 02:11:33.31 | Steven Woodside | with that modification with, |
| 02:11:34.73 | Joan Cox | I'm sorry. |
| 02:11:34.78 | Steven Woodside | I'm sorry. |
| 02:11:34.83 | Joan Cox | Do I accept that modification as the seconder? |
| 02:11:37.92 | Steven Woodside | I do. Now, Councilmember Hoffman, please your public. |
| 02:11:39.86 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 02:11:39.88 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you so much. Yeah, based on comments that were made by Vice Mayor Cox and Councilmember Blasting, |
| 02:11:45.26 | Steven Woodside | Bye. |
| 02:11:47.54 | Jill Hoffman | You know, it's not, you know, if you're talking about parking and convenient parking spots, parking lot two is actually closer to Gene Hiller. parking lot three, is actually closer to certain other things that you would wanna do in along Bridgeway. So I don't agree that the Madden lot is more convenient. It's more convenient probably to Duffy Park, or sorry, to Gabrielson Park, but that's about it. And so, and I also take issue with, you know, Councilmember Blau or Blauestein's comments that I'm against creating new parking uh what I'm against is losing revenue from parking because we are in a deficit budget And I look very closely at every, you know, every... every suggestion that we not take losses in revenue seriously up here at the council. So we just voted for a fair landing. We're going to lose approximately, however you want to slice it, $200,000 to $300,000 on parking. And now we're coming up with a plan to drive revenue towards a 50% loss when we have metrics that show that we don't have actual need of and that we actually have excess in our lots. And I can't figure out why we would do that. including accepting additional administrative costs, all of the administrative costs for that, and also paying the Maddens an additional $400 a month. I mean, the deal points in this just really don't make sense. And finally, we haven't had any... any information from staff or anybody about how many permits for parking are required for those 700 slips and Saso Yacht Harbor. I think that's probably a fundamental question that we need to have. If they only have 200 spots in their lot, that would seem to me to indicate that taking away another 47 spots and leaving them only 98 spots, they would be below their threshold of what's required for their permit holders. The other question is, are the permit holders going to be able to park in our 47 spots, and will they be required to pay a monthly fee? So, I don't, I, there are questions in this, you know, in the way that this was presented with no financial analysis at all in the staff report, and that we had to pull it off consent and have the financial, you know, conversation here after it's, you know, after we've already conversations about whether or not we're going to move forward on this, the fundamental question, to me is What is the financial hit to the city on this? And does it make sense for us to go forward? make that hurdle the first hurdle we get over then we're doing something wrong up here on the council so i'm going to vote no on this regrettably |
| 02:14:38.40 | Steven Woodside | Any other comments? If not, then we shall take a vote. All in favor say aye. |
| 02:14:46.19 | Joan Cox | I, |
| 02:14:47.75 | Steven Woodside | opposed? |
| 02:14:48.42 | Joan Cox | No. |
| 02:14:48.73 | Steven Woodside | all right uh motion carries four to one uh we will now move on to the next item uh this is item 5a discussion and direction and possible adoption of draft policy related to city leasing practices |
| 02:15:05.09 | Chris Zapata | Thank you, Mayor, members of the council, members of the public. Can you pull up my slideshow please? Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:15:19.39 | Chris Zapata | Just to kind of begin with the comment, Sausalito has significant property holdings that are very important to the city in terms of how they generate revenue. And in these property holdings, go to the second slide, Chad. There, please, there are 37 leases that are active right now. And in those 37 active leases, it's like a Rubik's Cube. You have leases that are nonprofits. You have leases that are for-profit, you have government leases, and then you have different dates for those leases, when they started, how they started, what councils approved them, how long they last. And so they're all available to the public now. We created a database of all the leases that the city has. So if the public's interested in a particular lease or all of them, they're welcome to peruse them. And again, they are a mixture of different things that different city councils have executed agreements on, much like the prior discussion. And so all of a sudden, you know, you have what I call a Rubik's Cube of uses. There are some uses that are good for the community in terms of history. There are leases that are good for the community in terms of education. There are leases that the community has that are part and parcel to cultural. There are leases that are educational and artistic. So all those leases are in the city's portfolio. And in those leases, there's a generation of about $2.364 million is what we project this year. And that's important because we use that money for city services. We use it to pay debt. We use it to provide improvements to city facilities. So in talking about the matrix of leases, there's an attachment in the packet that shows, you know, the different breakdown of the leases. And most of the leases are for nonprofits and for profits. We have two leases that are to government entities. Next slide, please. |
| 02:17:39.09 | Chris Zapata | So bringing that forward to the city council this past February on the 20th, the council suggested that we need a policy on how leases are accepted, reviewed, adopted, and what they would consider. And so the council's direction of staff was to prepare a draft policy for city council consideration, which is what you have in your packet tonight. At that meeting, there was also a discussion about how we manage our properties. And, you know, we are in the midst of trying to give the council some options. We got permission to go out and look at property management. We did that. We got one proposal, which isn't enough for us to bring back to the council. So we'll bring that back, which was also part of the February 20th meeting. So at six months, we are here. This is it. So we want to talk about some of the things that we heard and see if the clay that we've built, and as the council decides to layer it based on their thoughts and the public's thought, becomes a policy. And this is not intended to be a finished policy, given the complexity of this Rubik's Cube of leases. But I did hear some things at the last meeting on the 20th, and I want to kind of go through them. One of the things I heard was one size for every lease doesn't fit all. You can't have all leases and collect market on all of them, or you can't have a community-based lease with impact that's not monetary and just not a mix that we have that you have had and that you probably will have in the future. So being said that that imbalance between creating revenue or creating community benefit sometimes doesn't meet in the middle. Let's talk about these individually. One of the things we heard is that we should maximize city revenue from for-profit leaseholders, that we should look to make the dollars that the property merits based on a for-profit use. When there are community benefits and certain nonprofits that provide or end leases with the city, there needs to be consideration to that. It's not all about Thank you. community benefits and certain nonprofits that provide or end leases with the city, there needs to be consideration to that. It's not all about the dollars. It can be a balancing act between what you want to charge and what you believe the impact outside of dollars is to the community. So that's why one size doesn't fit all. So balancing those seemingly contradictory goals of maximizing revenue and, you know, creating community benefit. Sometimes it doesn't work that way. So this lease is intended to give you a starting point to see if that's the approach you want to take. If it isn't true fact that you want to have a scenario where your policy is that we're not going to make every lease, make maximum revenue. When we have a community benefit, we want to factor in some impact to the community that these other types of leases bring forward. The other thing that's really important and foremost is that the policy talks about risk management and how we make sure that the city is in burden with all the risk when these leases are signed. There was consideration and thought given to not stagnant revenue streams. The city has entered in some agreements where the revenue is fixed. I don't think that's an approach that you want to take. So each of these leases should have some type of consideration of an escalator. They shouldn't be, you know, flat rates for years. So that's a consideration that I heard at that meeting. And then also, you know, the database was a start, but more transparency to the public was raised as a really important thing to have considered in a potential policy. And also that the people that are involved in agreeing to the leases start to have some kind of plan, that there'll be some type of approach to, you know, how the future is going to look in terms of the lease construction, you know, if there's a business plan, if there's a facilities plan, there's a service plan, all those things are part and parcel to what this policy speaks to. So, um, in the draft policy there's also it's attached there's also you know some things that we believe that the leaseholder should be required to do these include that they need to not discriminate with their services and facilities, that they need to adhere to federal state laws that are part and parcel to things like the American with Disabilities Act, If there are non-profit, then proof of that should be required. They obviously have to maintain an active business license. We expect them to pay promptly and accurately their rent. In some cases, they assume responsibility for utility expenses and repair maintenance of the property. They obviously have to comply and conform with all city land use, planning and zoning laws. They should not undertake activities that negatively impact the quality of life of neighbors in the community. We have them in writing to submit to maintenance inspections by the city. And if there are conditions that are not right, that they should report them in a timely matter to the city or its person that manages the property. They can't sublease without prior approval by the city council or in the agreement. A lot of leases have older and you know, the idea that we would. enter a loose agreement and require the group to say you're accepting this as is, unless otherwise you know negotiated. that there be responsibility for all taxes and fees, that there be any alteration and improvement of the facility, that type of work needs to be submitted and approved by the city, and that they maintain adequate insurance and they provide a security deposit. Those are some of the things that we believe should be part of the lease, the landlord responsibility. And the city on its end will, you know, honor the lease terms. We'll provide the terms, format, and document. We will ensure, you know, that we give everybody a full and accurate description of their property in the lease. And then what we'd like to do is make sure that there is, you know, a review process for tenants in good standing. If they decide they want to make a request to the city council to adjust the lease, you know, we have a process in place for that as well. So that's the nuts and bolts of this Rubik's Cube of draft policy. Again, you know, my thought is, is you would not approve a policy tonight. We would take more input from you and see if we're on the right track. If we are, then we can bring something back fairly quickly. If we're not, you know, it's a work in progress. |
| 02:24:51.11 | Steven Woodside | Thank you, city manager. |
| 02:24:51.99 | Chris Zapata | Are there any questions, Vice Mayor? |
| 02:24:54.74 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 02:25:01.17 | Joan Cox | City Manager, I thank you for the tables that you attached to this draft policy as well. Very informational. Several of the tables reflect that we have 14 nonprofit leases currently. um, One distinction that was not called out either in the draft policy or in the tables is the type of lease and under the lease who is responsible for capital improvements. And so I know that we have very few leases, um, in which they are triple net, in which the tenant is responsible for capital improvements. of the various municipalities I represent. They have policies such as you proposed that that they have to get permission for for making any changes. to the property from the city, but I would be interested to know of our nonprofit leases, how many are triple net? The tenant is responsible for any repairs required by the building. For example, I think you told us earlier this year that the city had performed major repairs to the Gene Hiller building. Is that right? |
| 02:26:24.02 | Chris Zapata | That's correct. |
| 02:26:24.35 | Joan Cox | Thank you. And so that lease obviously is not a triple net. Under that lease, the city is responsible for capital repairs or improvements. Yep, and that's why. |
| 02:26:32.80 | Chris Zapata | Yep, and that's why it's a Rubik's Cube. Some are, or most of them are that way. I can think of one off the top of my head that's a triple net lease, and that's the lease you're going to discuss as the next item with SCA. |
| 02:26:42.92 | Joan Cox | Okay. And so I would like, and so would you be open to adding Um, To this policy. something about who's responsible for capital improvements, typically. Another question I had is enforcement. So I'm aware of some of our tenants who are behind on their rent. Did you have something in mind for enforcement of, you know, when, how late do we let them get before we default them? |
| 02:27:15.73 | Chris Zapata | Yeah. And that's my, that bullet about a tenant in good standing. If a tenant's in good standing and they fall behind, you know, what is good standing? We need to define that. If they are not in good standing by habitually being late for payments or underpaying or other things, we'd want to note that. And then that could be a factor in a renewal or an extension. |
| 02:27:37.52 | Joan Cox | And that brings me to my next question, which has to do with financial wherewithal. And so do you envision a process for evaluating an agency's financial wherewithal, either as part of the initial negotiation process and or part of the renewal process. |
| 02:27:56.21 | Chris Zapata | Yeah. Should be both. Should be both. |
| 02:27:59.77 | Joan Cox | And then part and parcel with that is audit rights. And so do you envision us asking or reserving to ourselves the ability to ask for documentation of Rents collected, subleases, and other information necessary to the city's evaluation of each tenant's financial wherewithal. |
| 02:28:26.05 | Chris Zapata | That would be advisable. |
| 02:28:27.94 | Joan Cox | And then I really appreciated what you said about not one size fits all. You have over 30 years of experience as a city manager. What do you envision in terms of an appropriate policy to distinguish between for-profit, non-profit, and or community benefit, non-community benefit. |
| 02:28:55.06 | Chris Zapata | Let's see. Let me see if I can understand that. Let me put you on the spot. I don't think 30 years of experience does me any good in Sausalito. |
| 02:28:56.95 | Joan Cox | Let me put you on the spot. |
| 02:29:08.49 | Chris Zapata | And that's that's city manager experience, not government experience. So I really believe that that's why it's a Rubik's cube, because if one size doesn't fit all, if you're not going to be governed by we're getting top dollar on all of our properties, then what is the approach that you believe makes sense to this community at this time? And what you've done as a matter of past practices, you've valued education. You valued history. you valued literacy, you valued art. culture. And some of your leases reflect that. If you want to continue to do that, I think you need to make that as a statement in a lease policy. And then that can be brought forward as, you know, factor in what it is that's ultimately negotiated. Because some people that I was told that are not for profit make profit. So you have to factor in, you know, their financial wherewithal as well. At the same time, you know, I've heard that, you know, there is really a, um, a opportunity with the city to really impact the community in ways that aren't all dollars, you know, what I call return on involvement, whether it's a property on the water properties that you have at city hall, uh, properties that you use to educate. Um know, all those things are, you know, why I couldn't give you a good lease and say, you know, you guys should just make this about money. Everything should be market rate, no matter who it is, a not-for-profit or for-profit, it just should be market. You obviously have never done that. And I know a lot of cities that haven't done that. And some of the leases, and one of the leases this was pulled from was the city of San Diego as a model. You know, there's some conversation about community impact and community benefit. And that should be defined as a desire of the council so that when we do look at future leases to bring them forward, if that's not there, then it's pretty simple to say it's money. If there is a community impact, then that's a challenge to measure, but you want to consider it. So I give you a long answer to tell you I don't have an answer to your questions. |
| 02:31:16.81 | Joan Cox | I will note on, and again, thank you for this lease revenue chart. It shows that the highest monthly revenue we receive is from a non-profit, Lycée Francais, which also happens to be educational. |
| 02:31:30.71 | Unknown | in. |
| 02:31:30.73 | Joan Cox | Thank you. Thank you. And that's $64,000 a month. The for-profit total monthly revenue is $74,000 a month on our leases. And so I really, I am really wondering Thank you. how to reconcile our competing. interests in encouraging um, City serving businesses, while maintaining financial feasibility. So thank you for these tools. Thank you. |
| 02:32:15.50 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:32:18.37 | Joan Cox | is |
| 02:32:18.70 | Jonathan Leon | Thank you. |
| 02:32:21.34 | Blake More | Just on that point, one of the things that I recall we had wanted to give direction on, and I appreciate the tables as well, and I think it's quite telling that we actually receive more revenue from not-for-profit organizations than for-profit organizations. So we might want to look deeper, but I was pretty shocked to see that we have 37 active leases and we make $2.364 million from those 37 leases. I would love to find 37 things I could rent in Sausalito in that total. That would be, I mean, I just given the cost of my unit that I rent to live in, it's kind of shocking to me. So I'm, I know one of the things that we gave direction on, initially was finding out where we want to offer market rate or how we define market rate and what that looks like. So have we talked with Cushman Wakefield about what a type of determination or property assessment would be? It doesn't mean we're necessarily going to charge that much, but I'd just like to understand, because some of these leases are very old and much before our time, but can we work that in, a market assessment for all of the properties that we own? Because I still have yet to see that. |
| 02:33:32.04 | Chris Zapata | Yeah, that could be a component of a process on a go-forward basis, that every lease that we bring forward be looked at for market value by some esteemed group, whether it's Cushman Wakefield or someone else. But you haven't done that. You haven't done that, and that's why you have a Rubik's Cube. So you did it with Lice Francais, you did it with the New Village School, and we did that with the help of Cushman Wakefield. And so I think that's a good practice to implement across the board. |
| 02:34:04.31 | Blake More | And I'm wondering also when we consider nonprofits, if we might break them into categories like directly community serving, because some of the nonprofits are very much for Sausalito residents that you see on the list, you know, um, And some of them are like, for instance, an educational institution, which while beneficial to us, given the amount of rent we receive and also lovely to have an educational institution in our community, does that does that warrant the same rent? And how do we make those decisions? Because again, as you mentioned, it's a it's a Rubik's Cube. And I was wondering in your experience as a city manager, if you had seen any other communities that might have had some sort of system for that type of programming for community serving nonprofits that would have a different rent type, that kind of thing. |
| 02:34:46.83 | Chris Zapata | No, every city usually has properties that they lease and the leases of the moment. When that moment hits and the information comes to that particular city council administration, they make a decision based on that time and place. And so what you inherit in every city that I've been in, I've been in eight of them, is a mishmash of leases where some make all the sense in the world, others make no sense. I'll give you an example. In San Leandro, they leased a parking lot for half a million dollars a year. They paid for a parking lot for half a million dollars a year. And when I asked the city manager why they did that, he said, because we out that parking lot, we couldn't have a movie theater and we needed a movie theater in our community. It was a priority for our city. So we bit the bullet and we made a deal that maybe wasn't advisable, but that's why it happened. That's a common occurrence in cities where people make deals. One was referenced earlier in the other item about the Yacht Harbor Agreement. You know, why did the city, you know, set up this rebate program with the Salisado Yacht Harbor for bulkhead repairs? I wasn't here when that happened, but the city did that for a reason. I don't know if there was a financial pinch or if there was some other factors that I'm aware of, but you inherit all of that stuff. So trying to start on a go forward basis, that's why I thought it was important to put the start dates of the lease, because you may have, you know, two or three opportunities every year or every three years or every five years to redo leases. It won't happen every year, all 37 of them, because they're all on different schedules. |
| 02:36:23.93 | Blake More | I didn't see a specific recommendation in the policy to have an elevator on all of the leases annually. Is that something that you would recommend? Absolutely. Escalator? Sorry. Something that goes... |
| 02:36:31.63 | Chris Zapata | Absolutely. Yeah. |
| 02:36:35.29 | Blake More | Thank you. |
| 02:36:35.32 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. |
| 02:36:35.34 | Blake More | Thank you. |
| 02:36:35.36 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:36:35.44 | Blake More | Thank you. |
| 02:36:35.47 | Chris Zapata | you |
| 02:36:35.73 | Blake More | Yeah, absolutely. |
| 02:36:35.84 | Chris Zapata | Yeah, absolutely. |
| 02:36:36.50 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:36:36.55 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 02:36:36.91 | Blake More | OK. |
| 02:36:37.19 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 02:36:40.76 | Ian Sobieski | comment before we or do you want to do more Okay. |
| 02:36:44.98 | Steven Woodside | Yes. Uh, so with any more questions, did you want to finish questions before public? I have a bunch of comments, but I was waiting. Comments, but not questions. Any other questions for city manager? before we then we'll move to public comment when we come back and then we'll take discussion. |
| 02:36:59.32 | Jill Hoffman | I have one. |
| 02:36:59.81 | Steven Woodside | Question. |
| 02:37:00.21 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, I had one follow-up question, or actually a question based on what was presented in the staff report and the attachments. And thank you for the attachment three, which is a full property listing with a breakdown. But my, you know, and I can see us going through this and looking at what appears to be a disparity in some of the... nonprofit leases. And first of all, let me just say that I know several people that go to school at both the Lyce and the New Village School. So I believe that those schools are actually residents serving in a benefit to our town and I'm also delighted to see that their rents are close to market. Good on us on that one. Um, So my question, though, is, is there a breakdown in the idiosyncrasies of which each of these leases that we have and i mean if we're talking about some sort of policy difference between non-profit and profit. understanding that even non-profits hope to one day make enough profit so they can pay their staff and pay you know pay their directors in actual salary. but which is certainly true with new village and the lyce I'm wondering, do we have any sort of breakdown of, you know, what these what these people are renting? Right. So, I mean, there's a couple on here that are you see the name of the entity, but you don't really understand what they're renting. So the rents look quite low, but they're really only, you know. RENTING A POSTAGE STAMP OVER WHICH THEY GO TO GET TO THEIR BUSINESS OR know they have they own their own building but they don't have you know it's supposed yeah it's a very small lot and it's not really rentable to anybody else is there any sort of a breakdown of |
| 02:38:42.19 | Chris Zapata | Yeah, not official. I thought the last go around, we provided maps of all the city owned properties so you could see the square footages of the properties involved, but we can resuscitate that and show you exactly as another table on this listing of properties along with the rent and the end date and the type of lease. So yeah, that's doable. |
| 02:39:02.17 | Jill Hoffman | might be a good thing when we talk about if we do a market you know market rate analysis for um for our leases um okay thank you i think that's all i have |
| 02:39:14.01 | Steven Woodside | So, two minute break, three minute bio break. Five. So come back at 10 o'clock. We're using 10 o'clock sharp. |
| 02:39:17.73 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:39:24.53 | Steven Woodside | Can we please have it quiet here? Thank you. Can we please stop the chatter in the room? Thank you. Okay, now we're gonna move to public comment on this item. Any public comments? |
| 02:39:38.18 | Walfred Solorzano | Okay. |
| 02:39:38.58 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:39:38.60 | Walfred Solorzano | PROBABLY. |
| 02:39:38.67 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:39:39.16 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes, we'll start off with Peter Van Meter and then Babette McDougal. |
| 02:39:50.62 | Peter Van Meter | Thank you. I'll preface my remarks by reminding you that I am a commercial real estate professional for over 20 years. I think these was a good start. I'm giving you the information about the city property. And the city manager did finally mention at the end that you, in fact, do have the square footage of occupancy of buildings. And perhaps I suppose you have the acreage of land that is under a ground lease. And so you can actually include that information so you have an effect what be a complete rent roll as a whether it's a gross or net lease like Councilmember Cox brought up. You'd have the space square footage, the land area, acreage and so on. And then you compare that in the future with fair market rents. for those particular facilities that those particular terms and conditions. I did notice in the list of leases that 18 leases have expired. And that's like half of the leases that you have. Obviously the whole question about managing these properties becomes essential. You need something. There appears to be something kind of, uh, wrong there. But the one part of the policy that I was a little bit disappointed in, and of course has been touched on in the presentation, how difficult it is, but kind of the methodology you would use for comparing fair market rent for a profit versus rent rates and community benefit for a nonprofit. In other words, what thought process will you go through in order to kind of make that evaluation? How will you judge... the community benefit of the nonprofit to a profit-for-profit entity. And I think that kind of guidelines is what I was really looking for in this policy. The other terms that are outlined in the policy that were given in your presentation, I think from a real estate professional point of view, those make sense, but I would actually try to have come to you in one form, what I would call a commercial rent role. that shows the tenant name. shows their space, what their rent is in a per square foot basis. |
| 02:41:56.17 | Walfred Solorzano | Thanks, Babette Muntugo. |
| 02:42:09.19 | Babette McDougall | It's hard to believe everybody's taller than me. Gosh. So thank you very much for acknowledging me. First of all, I'd like to just say that I'm pleased to see this initial draft. It's far more empirical and far more driven by a thought of ethics than I expected it, based on our early conversations. So I was pleased to see this very by the book data. I want to just say one thing. I thought it was a very fascinating insight. I thought the city manager's presentation was fantastic. particularly interesting. I'll call it generally the Rubik's Cube discussion because it does point to some qualitative choices that have to be made. And that's where I think it can get really sticky for any negotiation, the qualitative choices, especially if people don't agree on what equals quality. So in one of the minutes items on this punch list of considerations on the policy. has to do with that there is a, and I didn't bring it with me, but I remember writing. So that it doesn't deflect from the quality of life for the residents. I thought that was a good thing to consider. What I was surprised that we didn't see was that whomever We're going to rent a city owned or city run. in the case of, say, the men's, downtown I think there has to be also a very good reflection on the city itself and the values of the city and what we stand for. And so if we're renting to an entity that ends up embarrassing us, either because they're consistently in the red and they become the laughing stock and make us the laughing stock. And we don't take seriously our own fiduciary responsibility toward this city. And I think we've got a problem. So whatever we think of, we need to make sure that it reflects as well on the city as it does the residents who live in the city. Thank you. |
| 02:44:10.48 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Next speaker, Stephen Woodside. |
| 02:44:20.21 | Stephen Wetzel | Mayor Sobieski and may it please the council. I really appreciated in February your desire to open this up so that we could take a comprehensive look. That is we the public that you and the city manager and I compliment the city manager for covering a lot of the bases that I think you're interested in and we are interested in. I think in the interest of transparency, you ought to very much look at the process by which you enter into these lease negotiations, particularly with nonprofits and not for profits. And the reason I say that, is that your standard procedure, which is correct under the Brown Act, is that you would list a location of property, you would go into negotiations, and you'd thrash it out there in closed session. That's the way you're going to negotiate. But leading up to it, if the prospective tenant was to present to the city manager a proposal that indicated the interest, particularly for a nonprofit or not for profit, what their mission is, what their tax status is, their tax exempt, what are their audited financials look like, how much can they afford, all of that. And then for them to tell you what they think the benefit is to the community in quantifiable terms, if possible. I think if if they were given that opportunity, then when you went into closed session with the advice of the city manager, you could start evaluating that for yourself based on what you see from their presentation. I think that would help a lot in both. transparency and otherwise making the whole process more equitable going forward. In the scintillating hour that you talked about the Madden property, I redrafted a proposal, if I can call it up right now, |
| 02:46:16.94 | Unknown | You only have four. |
| 02:46:17.58 | Steven Woodside | I'm gonna- |
| 02:46:17.58 | Stephen Wetzel | I'm going to press send as soon as I can call it up, and hopefully you'll take into consideration. Thank you. |
| 02:46:17.93 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 02:46:17.95 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 02:46:17.97 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:46:23.09 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Thank you. Susan Kendall, followed by Hank Baker. |
| 02:46:37.32 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:46:37.34 | Susan Kendall | Thank you. |
| 02:46:37.47 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:46:37.59 | Susan Kendall | Thank you. I'm Susan Kendall. I live in Hurricane Gulch. I've been in Sausalito about 12 years, but raised my whole life across the water in Sausalito and happily moved to Sausalito, in Strawberry, happily moved. I just want to speak up for one of the nonprofits where the Sausalito Cruising Club, most of you know us. We may not have been the best tenants in the past, but there's been substantial change. We've gone from about 500 members to over 1,200 members now. I did a quick analysis today. 40 to 50% of them are actually Sausalito residents, which is way up from the 33% we used to be. That probably makes us maybe the largest organization, one of the largest membership organizations in Sausalito. And what's really important as you begin to define What kind of nonprofits do you want? Cruising Club is really a community of people who have chosen to get together become friends. And in fact, We sponsor pretty much every one of the Sausalito public events and have won the 4th of July parade three years in a row for best float. So thinking about you know, what our community is and it's the arts and it is the tourists and everything. But our clubs and our membership organizations where people come together and spend their time together are equally important We've been here 70 years and I guess you've been our landlords for almost 70 years and would like to keep it going and are doing substantial renovations to the barge because I don't think you have anything to do with maintaining our giant old barge. We do it all ourselves and fundraise for that. So just wanted to speak up for it. Thanks. |
| 02:48:24.83 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:48:24.85 | Walfred Solorzano | And. |
| 02:48:24.90 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:48:24.97 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 02:48:26.45 | Hank Baker | Four quick things. One, the things that the city manager brought up are standard elements in almost any commercial lease. There are many, many private industries, private companies that are leasing commercial buildings all the time. And there are things that are done in those leases all the time. You don't need to develop a new lease. We've been thrashing around about this question now for a while. Just like you don't take the cheapest attorney, here you get the most qualified. You don't hire the least expensive controller, you get the one that's the most qualified. There are wonderful brokers here in town that know this city really, really well. Yeah, they're going to charge a little bit more money. They're probably going to get you more money, but they're going to come to you with a completely digested proposal that you can take a look at rather than you guys have a lot of other things to do other than become commercial brokers. hire the commercial brokers, pay them what they're worth, and you're going to get the value. And a number of the companies I work for, this is regarding nonprofits, basically the basic lease is the market rate for the nonprofit. And the discussion at the city council level is what type of donation is the city going to give them that will reduce that lease down to something less. And so all of a sudden the thing that you're looking at is not casting about subjectively with what are you going to charge all these different folks, but you're going to say, okay, the city is going to donate $5,000 to this group because we think it's a great idea. We're going to give $2,000 to this group. And it's very, very clear about what you're doing. The final thing is that you have a bunch of excess properties that we're not talking about, at least that are just sitting around doing nothing. put together a proposal for those approve them for what you want and go out to the marketplace and sell them. Get rid of them. |
| 02:50:29.50 | Walfred Solorzano | Lorna Newlin. |
| 02:50:38.18 | Lorna Newlin | Hello, my name is Lorna Newland. Hello, City Council, City Manager. I saw you all last week during the sister city delegation. I am a 30-year resident, homeowner in Sausalito, 22 years of a small business owner, and it might sound like a nonprofit. It's not easy to have an art business in town, but I have survived for 22 years, even through the COVID years. The last 19 years, I have rented at the old MLK school, the bus barn. And I will say in my first 15 years there, I probably had 12 different property managers. Since COVID, we, and some of them were, interim from HR or park and rec or a contractor who had an accident. And we really haven't had a property manager for four years. I was, came tonight because I was going to speak about the SCA, which I still can, but I wanted to talk about, this is about our rents and they're all in there. And I will say there's some inaccuracies in there. I'm seeing people or entities that are listed as nonprofits, and I don't believe they are, I know City Council had questions about Why are the nonprofits, you know, you're not looking right now at square footage. Some of us who are artists have like a postage stamp versus the Lise, which is a very huge entity. And one of the things I'm very worried about as a renter, and I would love I could go on with more, and I'd love to talk to city staff about inaccuracies in there. But I learned on Nextdoor, not from the city, that there's perhaps 181 unit building that's going to be right on top of the basketball. And I, The working waterfront is putting a kibosh on the marine ship, but we have a working... I've been there 19 years. There are tenants there who've been there over 30. And I've taught adults, I've taught children, and I have donated to every nonprofit in town. |
| 02:52:40.71 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. You missed it. Anyone else? No further public speakers. All right, we'll close to comment. Any discussion here from the Diocese? Councilmember Kelwin. |
| 02:52:49.15 | Ian Sobieski | Great. Thank you. I was a big fan of this coming, so thank you for putting on the agenda. Some suggestions, City Manager for the grid. And Lorna just mentioned this. I think the grid needs to be updated to show total square footage of city-owned land overall, and then the revenue per square footage so we understand... the postage stamp may be paying way more than another larger property. And so, yes, the lease A brings in a lot of money, but it is a very, very large lease. So let's make sure we understand it. I also think that this policy needs an element of risk management review. And that's everything from our own policy for maintenance and reviewing the lease terms and reviewing whether or not we're actually collecting the rent. So I think this needs to undergo that aspect as well. And so then on the topic of city responsibility, I think the city needs to have regular audits. This was mentioned, a leasing agent for best practices and consistent lease termination terms. So we can't see a lease that's a 50-year lease and then one that's a one-year lease, unless there's some reasonable assessment as to why it is along those lines. So that someone knows, yeah, I can rent from the city of Sausalito and this is normally what I'm going to get. It's going to be a five-year term. It's going to be, on average, this square footage. What is wholly missing, though, from this exercise and what I think this group needs to have a strategic session on is the methodology. What are the objective standards for review and decision making? So a for-profit, that seems a little bit easier. Does it align with our value? Sure. That was a comment made. But also a regular review cadence for rent income. Are our for-profit lessees paying their rent? Are they paying it on time? And if they're not paying it on time, what is the outcome? On the non-profit, I think there needs to be some work to figure out how it aligns with a previously stated goal or purpose made by resolution by the council. So it's very easy for us to walk in here and say, we in art, we believe in history, we believe in education. You know, MLK actually has in the ordinance 1128 that it could only be used for certain uses. That was a resolution that was made, put in writing, it was codified. We don't have that on other properties. And so therefore, we engage in some, you know, off-the-cuff dais assessment of what the community needs, and I think we need some rigor around that. And if therefore, we engage in some off the cuff dais assessment of what the community needs. And I think we need some rigor around that. And if we do figure out what that is, and whether it's art history and education or other things, I think it has to have a very open RFP to say, |
| 02:55:07.72 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:55:29.31 | Ian Sobieski | We believe that property should be an art or that should be history. And now we're going to do a recall, an RFP, for historical entities to take that on or for education to take that on. We have to have some guidance around that. I think it is important that the nonprofit have an ability to perform. I did a quick search. There's over 300 nonprofits registered in Sausalito. What if every nonprofit said, come and give me a subsidy? We don't have a policy for figuring out how to handle that. And then I think a regular review of the benefit to the community. We have some leases with nonprofits where there's some revenue share. But if the revenue, the activity that leads to the revenue is not yet being executed despite multiple years in the lease, then the city isn't getting the rev share. And so that lease, I think, needs to be evaluated accordingly. So it's a much, I think, longer conversation. But I would say that's what's missing here is a methodology and some objective standards for review. |
| 02:56:32.47 | Steven Woodside | Please. |
| 02:56:34.38 | Joan Cox | Thank you again, city manager. Thank you for this great start. I, as I intimated from some of my questions, have some additional feedback that I'd like to see come back to us. Um, In terms of the charts, I agree with Peter Van Meter, we need to understand per square foot basis. I think we also need to understand geographic location. because rents for the downtown are, you know, market rate rents are obviously higher for the downtown than for the Marin ship by way of example. I think another parameter we need to understand is cost to city. So we received a lot of public comment about the fact that, you know, one of our, facilities being leased to a nonprofit the city is still paying a mortgage on that property. We know that the Gene Hiller building required significant repairs in recent years. There have been other you know, the Madden facility required repairs to the bulkhead. And so I'd like to understand the cost to the city. We've undertaken a survey of existing facilities to understand their long-term deferred maintenance requirements. that's a cost of doing business. So we recently negotiated a lease with New Village School. We are required to undertake certain repairs in order to maintain the longevity of that lease. And so there's a certain cost to the city of doing business with respect to certain leases that I think should factor into. the equation. Um, And then I agree with some of the other comments. We need to understand the mission of potential lessees, the tax status, audited financials, We really do need to make a decision about who's responsible for capital improvements. I don't think it's fair to require that some people Agencies are responsible to maintain the city's buildings and others are not. I would lean in favor of the city's. being responsible for capital improvements. If there are tenant improvements to customize the use of the building, then perhaps that's a tenant responsibility. I think our policy needs to include stronger provisions regarding enforcement and audit rights. And then I've asked the city clerk to add to this agenda item, the late mail that we just received from Steven Woodside, which is some nonprofit lease guidelines. So I'd like, you to consider some of these provisions as you put together an updated policy these are community benefit lease guidelines and it really does um consider the um Community benefit that certain organizations provide that otherwise may not exist, and for which the city would in turn offer below market support, and so I think that's a really. useful way to kind of make more objective as council member Kelman referenced this evaluation of potential lessees who provide a community benefit. So those are my initial thoughts on this. Thank you. |
| 03:00:11.89 | Steven Woodside | Any other comments? Councilmember Blofstein. |
| 03:00:16.69 | Blake More | Thank you, Mayor. Great comments from my colleagues, and I would agree with all of the points that were made by Councilmember Kelman and Councilmember Cox in terms of how we look at this. And thank you, City Manager, for starting a discussion of what our policy is going to be with regards to our leases. I think it's challenging when we have 37 different leases within our portfolio in different locations all over town. So the direction requested by Councilman versus Cox and Kelman about what should go in the table with regards to location and current lease is very important. The only thing I would request that we add that I did in here is that we do do a market assessment of all of our properties, in particular whenever we're negotiating a new lease. So if a new location becomes available, we need to make sure that we do have an understanding of what fair market rate is and then a process that we go through to evaluate what rent are we going to offer dependent upon who the lessee is and what does that look like. And actually, I think we're probably overdue for doing a general. We've all asked for this from the dais before, and I don't know if this will be part of this conversation, this specific policy or not. But we have all asked for an appraisal of our existing um real estate portfolio as well because i don't think that we know the fair market cost for all of the total real estate so i would like to see that considered too and i think this is a good beginnings of figuring out what the best practices for our city leased um and i'd also like to suggest perhaps we used to have an OMIC committee to discuss in particular the city leases and rents that was disbanded a few years ago, but perhaps that might be something we need to take up again just to make sure that someone from the council is actively monitoring the status of these leases. |
| 03:02:01.67 | Jill Hoffman | Well, I think I'm trying to look at, I don't, were you saying that, were you suggesting, I'm sorry, Vice Mayor Cox, were you suggesting that we incorporate Mr. Woodside's email and his guidelines because his, you know, his own email says it's a very rough draft. |
| 03:02:19.03 | Joan Cox | So I'm just that the city manager take them into consideration as he provides us with an updated draft as a possible approach for considering how to evaluate community benefit and the appropriate BMR below market rent. |
| 03:02:19.66 | Jill Hoffman | I'm just saying. |
| 03:02:36.33 | Joan Cox | consideration that the city might undertake. Okay. |
| 03:02:40.38 | Jill Hoffman | Oh, thank you for clarifying that. Yeah. So I'm just a little bit. just because I've had a chance to look at this and no one else has either before this meeting. With with regarding Mr. Woodside email. I have no objection to taking any public comment that's made at a city council meeting into consideration. Um, but I don't want it perceived that that we're directing the city manager to follow some directive by a member of the public who emails us an email during the meeting. So just with that, um, caveat, that's kind of, that's the way I heard it. So anyway, thank you for that clarification. Um, okay. So, um, my other, uh, question was with regard to, uh, you know, policy considerations going forward for, um, city owned properties with regard to profit versus nonprofit. And I think, um, I think we've had a really good discussion and I think maybe a first discussion that we've actually had where this is articulated and discussed amongst the council about whether or not we want to treat nonprofits differently than for profits and how do we define a nonprofit? So there, Part of that consideration discussion is there's different kinds of nonprofits. very well run businesses and they pay their directors very well and they're not really in the what we're kind of, I think, leaning toward the nonprofit category. So I want us to pay attention to that, too, as part of our discussion with regard to how we evaluate our leases. And, of course, we look at what our current, in any given time, what our current financial situation is as a whole across the city before we start reducing expected rents from fair market to something below fair market for something other than you know, for something other than a financial analysis, depending upon where we are as a city. So I, i don't know i'm not saying it probably very well right now but when we're talking about policy discussions we're talking about rent negotiations i think that has to be part of our part of our discussion as well. I think with regard to the OMIC committee, I think the thought was that we disbanded that because it just created another administrative layer, and we were trying to offload some of those aspects that the OMIC committee was taking on when really it should be addressed by a professional, like a commercial real estate. And that's why we are trying to move more toward as Mr. Baker pointed out, you know, people are more skilled in these things and have a more basic knowledge as opposed to council members trying to get up to speed and understand, you know, the complexities of commercial leases, which principally most of these things are most, all these things are so, um, Right. I think the way that we do it now, which is the whole council's apprised. We have a professional look at it. The whole council's apprised. We go to closed session. We talk about negotiations in closed session and take our advice from our commercial experts as consideration during those closed session discussions and negotiations, which I think is the appropriate way to approach the lease negotiations for city-owned properties. |
| 03:06:10.66 | Steven Woodside | THE END OF No other comments? I'll close this item and we'll move on to item 5B, consideration of staff recommendation to amend the Sausalito Center for the Arts existing lease from $11,095 per month to $8,058 per month with an annual CPI escalator effective December 1st, 2024. Mr. City Manager. |
| 03:06:29.08 | Chris Zapata | Yeah. I'll be quick late and I want to hurry through this, but, um, uh, just a little background, you know, this building was purchased by the city in 2020. The city obviously sought input from the community on what it should be used and sought proposals for the property itself. In those proposals, the selection of the Saucyos Center for the Arts was agreed upon by the city council, and an agreement was executed with the Saucyos Center for the Arts on August 19, 2022. That agreement was negotiated by a contract professional with city council guidance. And so that particular agreement really had some eyes on it that involved, you know, not city staff and not the only committee. It was actually done by Mike Wagner concert with the city council and city management and finance department. In that agreement, there were various milestones and responsibilities that SCA had. One of the things that it called for was at the end of 18 months that there would be rent up to beginning at $4,029, beginning the first day and year of the lease or month of the lease. And then at 18 months, it would ramp up to $11,096 and change. In January, the City Council, under request for future agenda items, was asked to put this on the agenda. It was put on the agenda the following February, and the City Council heard a request from SEA to freeze the amount, not increase the amount of the lease to $11,096.25. At that time, as they did this time, they provided a host or slew of information on community and economic impact as a result of programs and activities and events. And this year's information is linked to the staff report, which is included in the packet. At that meeting, the City Council granted a six-month extension and direct staff to bring this back for review at the end of that six-month period. That six-month period is upon us. So as part of that process, there were discussions held between myself and the SCA leadership, talking about what it is that made sense to staff. And again, that's part and parcel to this process is staff reviews, makes recommendations, and then city council acts on them or doesn't. So the one thing that the city council did by deferring the lease for six months was save SCA $42,403.50. That was a savings to the nonprofit. At the same time, by deferring that revenue, it cost the city $42,403.50 because we anticipated the lease going up to $11,000 after 18 months. So one of the things that drives the thinking and my thought process on this is the idea that we borrowed money to acquire the building. We have a debt service we make on the building. That's about an average of $157,000 a month for the next year. $157,000 a year, not a month, for the next 10 years. And so, you know, that is something that drives the thought process in my mind. In addition when the city negotiated the purchase they obtained a $24,000 a year payment from Bank of America for keeping the automated teller machine there. So that's part of this whole revenue analysis in my mind and so one of the things that though I believe is as I said in February of 2020, is the rent should not stay at $4,000, but it should not go up to $11,000. I think there are some offsetting factors that, to me, let me arrive at a number. But before I get to that recommendation, which the mayor read in his presentation, I'm going to ask Chad to come up. I've received requests from the council to take a look at staff to analyze what is a counterproposal from the SEA board, which was received yesterday and addressed to the full council. And the public may not be aware of it, but it proposes a flat rate of $6,000 for the next 10 years, in addition to keeping most of the other lease language intact. So, Chad, can you do some history on the finances of that, as well as your analysis of that particular offer by the SA board? |
| 03:11:23.65 | Chad Hess | Alfred, I'm going to join or if you want to advance the slides, that would be fine too. The PDF is in the folder. So what we are bringing forward tonight, and I believe we're attached to the agenda as a late attachment, was the analysis that we did back in February 20th of 2024. At that time, we looked at the comparison of the debt service payments to the – that's not – That's not the slide. |
| 03:11:54.11 | Steven Woodside | I'm going to join Chad so you can control your slides. |
| 03:11:54.45 | Chad Hess | of the Yeah, let me try to do that. It's a PDF that's in that peak folder. |
| 03:12:04.14 | Steven Woodside | I just joined you, or at least try to while Mr. City Clerk is sorting it, and whoever's first wins. |
| 03:12:11.95 | Jill Hoffman | Sorry, can I ask just a clarification? Is that currently, whatever it is you're looking at, is that attached to the agenda? |
| 03:12:20.08 | Unknown | should be. |
| 03:12:21.16 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. Anybody know what attachment it is? I have draft policies one, oh wait, wait, sorry. So I have SCA letter with web links. I have the Sussoli Center for the Arts lease. I have the presentation number three, but I think that's the city managers. |
| 03:12:40.01 | Chad Hess | offer, did that get attached? the item that I sent you this evening? I am in the Zoom, if you can promote me to a panelist. |
| 03:12:48.96 | Steven Woodside | Can you just make Mr. Hess a panelist, Mr. City Clerk? |
| 03:12:56.50 | Steven Woodside | and we'll take it from there. |
| 03:13:06.88 | Chris Zapata | Well, that's getting set up. One of the things that I didn't reference, but I want to reference, is the idea that SCA conducted a survey, over 500 people, so that they could get some data to provide to the city council as part of the link that is attached to the staff report from them. It indicates where they believe there's some economic impact on parking, some economic impact on sales tax. And so the economic impact was part of this proposal in terms of considering a new lease amount. So the one thing that was not part because it was late was this proposal for a flat $6,000 a month. So we're trying to figure out some analysis on that so there could be some real-time discussion on it. Chad, I asked Chad to put that together so that we could present it tonight as well. |
| 03:14:03.55 | Chad Hess | All right, so this is the presentation that we brought forward February 20th of 2024, where we talked about the definitions, debt service, carrying costs, opportunity costs, etc. Mute my computer here. Okay. If I go forward to this slide here, this was the slide that was presented February 20th. The green bars represent the principal. The blue represents the interest combined. That would be the total debt service on the building. |
| 03:14:33.43 | Hank Baker | THE END OF |
| 03:14:34.24 | Chad Hess | The orange line represents the cumulative rents between SEA at their $4,000 per month, plus the $2,000 that we are receiving from Bank of America for their ATM lease. On this slide, you can see that the rents cover the interest component of that loan, plus some of the principal. It does not cover all of the debt service payments. This is the slide that I added and unfortunately let me make that table a little bigger so people can see it. My apologies. |
| 03:15:10.84 | Chad Hess | On this chart here, it's basically the same table as before, but I've added some additional scenarios. The purple line would represent rents at the full rate, the $11,095. And you can see here that that would cover the entire debt service payment, principal and interest, if that was to go into effect. Again, you can see the yellow line, which represents the $4,000 rents, $4,029 as a fixed amount for the remainder of that debt service. And then also I did evaluate on that blue line the rents proposed by city manager of $8,058.50. That does include a CPI increase based upon the stated CPI. I used a 3% as a representation, and you can see that there the rents are increasing over the life of that term. I did not bring in the $6,000 line, but I think we can all visualize that that would be between the orange line and the purple line. If it's 6,000 flat, it would be a flat line similar to the orange line, but slightly above. So again, under the $6,000 scenario, it does not cover the entire debt service payment. It does cover all of the interest expense on that parcel or that property, as well as city manager's recommendation. It would, again, cover all of the interest and a good portion of the principal expense of that note. So the rest of the slide is it should be being attached to the agenda is is identical to what we had in the past. It presented February 20th. So. I'll open that up for questions. |
| 03:16:54.93 | Ian Sobieski | Chad, the city manager made a comment about lost revenue. So I think the way the city manager framed it was SCA saved 42,000 we lost 42 000 |
| 03:17:09.69 | Chad Hess | Yep. We forego, we forego or baited that revenue, if you will. |
| 03:17:14.43 | Ian Sobieski | What time frame was that? |
| 03:17:16.19 | Chad Hess | So that was the six months that we did not increase their rent to the full $11,000. So it would have been in effect from, I believe, March's rent was when the escalation was scheduled to go. through through current. |
| 03:17:28.95 | Ian Sobieski | and how they're asking for a flat six K for how long? |
| 03:17:33.50 | Chad Hess | for the remainder of their lease, is my understanding. |
| 03:17:35.76 | Ian Sobieski | Well, |
| 03:17:36.41 | Chad Hess | I think it was a five year lease that we originally signed with them. |
| 03:17:40.19 | Chris Zapata | 15. Say that again. It's a 15-year lead. |
| 03:17:43.81 | Chad Hess | 15 year lease. |
| 03:17:44.69 | Ian Sobieski | And did you happen to do any modeling on what |
| 03:17:49.26 | Chad Hess | Yeah. |
| 03:17:49.38 | Ian Sobieski | What $84,000 lost or foregone per year over 10 years, not invested at an average, let's say, treasury bond rate of 5%, what loss that would result in or what foregone profit that would result in for the city? |
| 03:18:05.75 | Chad Hess | I have not done that. I don't have that available at this point. |
| 03:18:08.84 | Ian Sobieski | OK. And then, Were you going to go through the... the counter offer in any sort of detail. I'll just, because we talked about parking a little bit. Do you want to say anything about the parking river |
| 03:18:25.58 | Chad Hess | So the parking revenue that they, in their letter that they sent in, they are claiming that they are increasing parking revenue, sales tax revenue, TOTs, etc. I did have some opportunity to look at their parking and their sales tax assumptions. Those are the two larger items that they are bringing forward. Looking at our parking revenues for fiscal year 23 to 24, there was an increase of about a half a million dollars in total parking revenue over that period of time from 23 to 24. I don't believe that SCA is responsible for all of that increase but I would attribute some of their increase to it. I believe in their analysis they were claiming about 49,000 of revenue was generated through their guests parking in the city's parking lots. I feel that is a reasonable assumption based upon the number of participants or users that they are bringing to our community. |
| 03:19:23.16 | Ian Sobieski | So this property was purchased in July 2020, but in 2019, the parking revenue was exactly the same, plus or minus 20K, from what... |
| 03:19:31.90 | Chad Hess | Yes. |
| 03:19:35.14 | Ian Sobieski | we saw this past year, how would you account for that number in 2019? |
| 03:19:37.47 | Chad Hess | Yeah. So, you know, 2019 was right before COVID. We did take a dip in parking revenues, a substantial dip in 2021, and it has been recovering ever since. So there is some COVID bounce back. I agree. |
| 03:19:52.86 | Ian Sobieski | Arguably, this appears to be the same as what we had before COVID. |
| 03:19:55.94 | Chad Hess | Well, I think it would be hard-pressed to argue that SEA is not driving an increase in parking revenue. They are bringing people to town, and I would imagine that they are parking in our parking lots. |
| 03:20:05.18 | Ian Sobieski | Okay. I'm just looking at... |
| 03:20:07.83 | Chad Hess | Thank you. Yes. So you are correct. 2029 revenues, 2019 revenues were comparable to 2024 revenues. |
| 03:20:09.83 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah. just. And 2018 was only $100,000 less. |
| 03:20:15.71 | Chad Hess | Thank you. |
| 03:20:18.79 | Chad Hess | Uh, yeah, I believe that's what I said. Yeah. |
| 03:20:19.25 | Ian Sobieski | I'm just looking at what you said. So I'm just looking at data. I don't see any hint of correlation. Okay, thank you for that. |
| 03:20:22.81 | Chad Hess | Yep, fair. |
| 03:20:26.64 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Okay. Go right ahead. I'm sorry. |
| 03:20:32.01 | Joan Cox | I had a question for the city manager. So for those of... |
| 03:20:32.04 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 03:20:38.15 | Joan Cox | you who are in the audience and are looking at the city council agenda with numerous public comments the letter that came in from the sca isn't under sca it's actually under kit hayes so just for reference anybody who wants to see the proposal that the council received yesterday from the SCA is under public comment under Kit Hayes. And it's my understanding from... Correspondence and conversation with the SCA that um the 8 000 proposed by the city manager is infeasible and financially for the sca and so and we obviously received numerous comments asking us to ensure that the sca continues and so my question is for the city manager city manager Assuming you raise the rent to 8000 as you recommend and the SCA is unable to make that payment and goes out of business. What is the cost to the city? How long would it take for the city to. find a new tenant, what, is the market like out there for new tenants? What's the financial cost to the city of bearing this 157,000 per year carrying cost? Yeah. |
| 03:22:03.88 | Chris Zapata | Good question, Vice Mayor. Thank you. The real question would be who could fill the space if the SCA was not there? My recollection is we received proposals from different groups, and the proposals were varied in their approach, but there was definitely interest. My first thing would be to go back to that group and see if there's still an appetite to come to Sausalito or use that building. in terms of what the market is, my next step would be... group and see if there's still an appetite to come to Sausalito or use that building. In terms of, you know, what the market is, my next step would be to go out and hire somebody to go out and push the property to see who is out there. So how long that would take, I'm not sure, one month, two months, three months. |
| 03:22:48.26 | Joan Cox | It seems to me as though the RFP, and I was not on the council in 2020, that's why I'm asking you these questions. Seems to me that the RFP process was longer than two or three months in 2020. And I also seem to recall that the second most favored proposer had a lengthy ramp up period for their proposal. Do you recall any of the specifics of that? |
| 03:23:09.81 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. Vaguely, but I think you're correct that the selection was made is because SCA could come in and fill the building and pay rent immediately and the other group needed some time to build up to what they thought they could do. I don't know, maybe it was Councilmember Hoffman and I don't know who else was on that committee that evaluated those with the council. |
| 03:23:28.86 | Jill Hoffman | It was Mayor Sobieski. |
| 03:23:30.46 | Chris Zapata | And who else, Mayor, who was with you on that committee? |
| 03:23:33.70 | Joan Cox | And then in reviewing some of the correspondence I saw, an overview that the initial I'm not sure. lease draft with the SCA proposed a rent of 4,000 a month. And then Somehow during the negotiations, that changed, and the rent went from $4,000 to $11,000 after 18 months. Do you recall... the process and why such an extraordinary change in the rent from the initial draft lease between the city and the SCA? Yeah. |
| 03:24:11.28 | Chris Zapata | So that's accurate. There was conversation that's documented that was a $4,000 a month rent increase. The council at the last minute said that's not going to pass. That's not going to meet muster. So we're willing to lease you the facility with this 18-month ramp up, keeping it at $4,000. And the SCA board signed the lease. So that $11,000 amount was slated for 18 months to give them the time to get up to that amount. There were different projects contemplated that were thought that it potentially generating revenue that could help service that amount. Unfortunately, you know, one of them was a rooftop facility, didn't pan out. And so here we are with a signed agreement that says $11,000 a month is what's due. We've deferred that for six months. And now the question is, you know, on a go forward basis, are you going to continue to defer that or are you going to continue to or adhere to the terms of the lease that was signed? My approach was $11,000 was the number that the council agreed to, $8,000 of money from SCA, $2,000 from the teller lease was $10,000, and then the parking revenue and sales tax revenue, I could account for $1,000. They're easy. So that's how I came up with the $8,000 numbers backing out from from the 11,000 numbers that the council adopted in 2020, 2021, when that lease was signed. |
| 03:25:42.59 | Joan Cox | So is it fair to say that when the SCA agreed to an $11,000 a month lease rate, they were expecting to share that with a co-tenant, to share that obligation with a co-tenant? |
| 03:25:53.04 | Chris Zapata | That was part of the discussion. |
| 03:25:56.26 | Joan Cox | And in evaluating a rooftop facility, did you encounter some engineering and architectural challenges? |
| 03:26:06.62 | Chris Zapata | That wasn't my work. That was the work of the SCA folks. I heard bits and pieces that that was going to be a challenge, but the specifics of it, you'd have to ask them. |
| 03:26:20.48 | Joan Cox | Do you recall having a conversation with Larry Mendel about having to invest $10 million in order to create that rooftop facility? |
| 03:26:30.79 | Chris Zapata | I had a conversation with him regarding a project in San Jose that soured his appetite on moving forward with the project in Sausalito. That's the conversation I had with Mr. Mendel and his son. |
| 03:26:44.14 | Joan Cox | And so is it fair to say that circumstances have significantly changed since the lease was initially negotiated with SCA? Thank you. |
| 03:26:52.99 | Chris Zapata | the lease has not changed. |
| 03:26:56.10 | Joan Cox | I'm clear on that, but the underlying circumstances. |
| 03:26:57.65 | Chris Zapata | Underlying circumstances. And so, yeah, there are obviously the use of the rooftop fell through, and so you have a challenge, and that's what's been voiced very loudly and clearly by the folks at SCA as well as people in the community as to why you should not do that. On the other hand, you have people saying a lease is a lease is a lease was signed, but ultimately the decision has to be made by you all and you know my approach was to try to create some type of splitting of the issues you know revenue at 8,000 relief of 3,000 over the life of the lease I thought would have been something that was workable but again it's your call. Yeah. |
| 03:27:41.63 | Joan Cox | Thank you, city manager. |
| 03:27:43.48 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. |
| 03:27:43.64 | Steven Woodside | you |
| 03:27:43.69 | Chris Zapata | Right. |
| 03:27:43.75 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 03:27:43.77 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. |
| 03:27:43.79 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 03:27:43.84 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. |
| 03:27:43.97 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 03:27:44.70 | Joan Cox | Thank you. Yeah. |
| 03:27:44.97 | Jonathan Leon | Thank you. |
| 03:27:45.19 | Steven Woodside | That's remember Hoffman? |
| 03:27:46.25 | Chad Hess | Yeah, can I just clarify real quick? The initial term of the lease is 60 months, five years, and there is a one option for an additional 60 months under the initial lease. So a 10 year total. |
| 03:27:56.24 | Kevin McGowan | and it's a great thing. |
| 03:27:56.29 | Jill Hoffman | I'm sorry. |
| 03:27:56.60 | Kevin McGowan | Thank you. |
| 03:27:56.61 | Steven Woodside | I'm not sure. |
| 03:27:56.78 | Chad Hess | Thank you. |
| 03:27:56.83 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 03:27:56.85 | Chad Hess | Thank you. |
| 03:27:59.58 | Jill Hoffman | So, City Manager, I have a fundamental question. I'm not really clear why we're negotiating this lease in open session as opposed to closed session, which is our normal practice. is our normal practice on all of our other leases. So Why is it that we're here today talking about this in open session and, and, evaluating counter offers that we got yesterday. |
| 03:28:23.80 | Chris Zapata | Yeah, I'm happy to address that. And, you know, I'll go back to this. When this was brought before the council and asked to be brought before the council, there was no closed session discussion about it in February. It was brought into the council as an agenda item on the open session. So to come into a council meeting and have this in closed session, to me, would be bad optics. You know, what are you doing in a closed door on something this important to the community so you know given what you did in February I just replicated that for this month or this this time you know you can do that right now you can say we don't want to have a discussion any longer and just call the discussion and ask us to go into closed session next meeting. That's your option. You can do that. So if I misread the lay of the land by looking at what you did for the first part of this lease at the first discussion and trying to make sure that there wasn't a scuttle about the city trying to make a deal behind closed doors in a closed session and coming out and telling the community what it is they were going to do, that's what I try to avoid. And that's why you have it in open session right now. |
| 03:29:25.59 | Jill Hoffman | But thank you. |
| 03:29:25.90 | Chris Zapata | Okay. |
| 03:29:26.35 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, thank you for that. I think we probably need to discuss that during our discussion. I certainly don't want to go down this road with any other large leases that we have that serve populations in Sausalito, such as the school leases that we just did or such as the cruising club that we just talked about or some of the other clubs and things that we lease to. So I'm curious about how this got on open session for negotiation and consideration we don't have the benefit of our commercial um our commercial real estate agent to advise us on this my next question leads straight into then what is the fair market value for the center for the arts Just on the open market, do we have a fair market value assessment for it? |
| 03:30:11.51 | Chris Zapata | So we have a number that was provided by Cushman Wakefield of $3.21 a square foot. That's my recollection. |
| 03:30:19.34 | Jill Hoffman | And what is it, what are they paying now under the 11, the lease amount of 11,000? How does that break down per square foot? |
| 03:30:31.59 | Chris Zapata | They got a calculator. Thank you. |
| 03:30:33.03 | Carolyn Revell | Thank you. |
| 03:30:33.04 | Chris Zapata | TODAY. |
| 03:30:33.25 | Jill Hoffman | The Wells Fargo building. Yeah, I mean, these are reasonable questions, I think, that we need to know and the public needs to know. |
| 03:30:33.35 | Chris Zapata | Will's Fargo building. |
| 03:30:38.33 | Chad Hess | So it's 5,725 square feet. |
| 03:30:48.03 | Ian Sobieski | Director House? 5,000? Thank you. |
| 03:30:58.44 | Ian Sobieski | Director Hess, do you happen to know how much the Wells Fargo building sold for? |
| 03:31:05.31 | Steven Woodside | I do not know. I appreciate the question. I'm just trying to let Council Member Hoffman have the floor for questions until she's done, just to try to keep some order. So I don't have to say, |
| 03:31:13.73 | Jill Hoffman | So I don't know if anybody finished the math on that? |
| 03:31:16.30 | Steven Woodside | 18,000. |
| 03:31:18.37 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, so that's 18,377. Okay, close up. I'll give you the 25 cents. So, okay, so we have a calculated fair market value up here today on the dais. Who knows if it's correct or not, but I'll go with it. It's 18,000. 377 per month. So that's a fair market rent. So the eleven thousand square, the eleven thousand dollar a month rent that we negotiated with the lease. was to cover the debt service. on the loan and the principal, the whole debt service On the loan. And that was a hotly negotiated number amongst this council, whoever was sitting on it at the time. to provide a break to the Center for the Arts. And that was the floor. not to go below. And so I'm concerned now that we're talking about going below. |
| 03:32:13.92 | Steven Woodside | about going below. Just to get the hour, can we try to focus on a tight question and then we'll have discussion afterwards? I think those are very fair points. I just want to try to move along with focused questions so we can move on. |
| 03:32:21.38 | Jill Hoffman | So let me just, okay. |
| 03:32:23.96 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 03:32:23.98 | Jill Hoffman | Sure. So, Thank you. So are you aware that we arrived at the 11,000, either one of you, the city manager or Chad, the $11,095.25, we arrived at that because that was to cover the debt service on the loan, Inc. In addition to that, we plussed up to the ATM lease. |
| 03:32:49.70 | Chad Hess | Right. |
| 03:32:49.97 | Jill Hoffman | And so those two things together help us hit the minimum debt service on the loans. |
| 03:32:54.46 | Chad Hess | Thank you. |
| 03:32:54.47 | Andrew Davidson | Thank you. |
| 03:32:54.49 | Chad Hess | That is correct. |
| 03:32:54.78 | Jill Hoffman | So every month that we don't make the minimum debt service on the loan, which is the $11,000, |
| 03:32:54.96 | Andrew Davidson | SO, I THINK IT'S A |
| 03:33:00.53 | Jill Hoffman | $95.25. that money's coming out of our general fund. |
| 03:33:06.45 | Chad Hess | The general fund is loaning the Bank of America fund these dollars until that loan is paid back and then the revenues subsequent that loan would pay back the general fund. We're keeping track of the loan, the interfund loan. |
| 03:33:18.39 | Jill Hoffman | And the original lease was always 11,000 a month, but they received a rent reduction for the first 18 months. |
| 03:33:28.51 | Chad Hess | That's my understanding. Yes. |
| 03:33:36.29 | Jill Hoffman | So, Currently. I did it for actually annually. So the difference between... $11,029.30. $11,029.23. and 4,029 23. is a loss of about $7,000 a month that we're paying. |
| 03:33:59.36 | Chad Hess | that we're forgoing, yes. |
| 03:34:00.57 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. And then, um, So I just did an annual calculation For a year, that's $84,792 per year. And for two years, which now it's been two years, it's $169,584. OK. He's saying yes. He's confirming my math, which we all like to confirm. And so if we go down to $6,000 a month per rent, it's $5,029 per month. |
| 03:34:36.58 | Chad Hess | Let me confirm your... |
| 03:34:37.29 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, I'm just looking for the analysis so that if we're gonna talk about reducing the rent, we understand to know monthly and annually what that's gonna cost the city. regardless of other numbers that we've talked about today. |
| 03:34:54.29 | Chad Hess | Yeah, we're at $60,000 from an annual perspective. |
| 03:34:57.58 | Jill Hoffman | And if we go down, if we go to 8,000, it's 36,348. 3,092 a month and 36,348. |
| 03:35:11.35 | Chad Hess | Yes, 37,140. |
| 03:35:14.38 | Jill Hoffman | So this is a question for, I think, for the city manager. So let's say we thought about something along the lines of, oh, let me ask you this, sorry. Let me just say this first. I understand that when it became clear that the Center for the Arts was not going to be able to cover their negotiated lease, that you sat down and talked with them and offered them other spaces in Sausalito. Is that correct? |
| 03:35:36.69 | Chris Zapata | Say that again. |
| 03:35:37.84 | Jill Hoffman | that when it became clear that the Center for the Arts was not going to be able to meet their $11,000 and whatever it is a month rent, that you sat down with them and offered them other spaces in Sausalito. Is that correct? |
| 03:35:49.84 | Chris Zapata | You have that twisted. |
| 03:35:51.61 | Jill Hoffman | Oh, we'll untwist it for you. Let me untwist it for you. |
| 03:35:51.63 | Chris Zapata | We'll untwist it for you. Let me untwist it for you. Happy for you to untwist. Let me untwist it for you. I had that conversation with the Chamber of Commerce, not the Substitial Center for the Arts. |
| 03:35:59.69 | Jill Hoffman | Oh, pardon me. So you talked to the Chamber of Commerce about other spaces in town that they could occupy. not the Center for the Arts. |
| 03:36:07.56 | Chris Zapata | Yes. |
| 03:36:08.62 | Jill Hoffman | Did you talk to anybody at the Center for the Arts about other spaces that might be available to them? Did not. Okay, pardon me for that. |
| 03:36:12.62 | Chris Zapata | did not. |
| 03:36:17.12 | Jill Hoffman | Are there other spaces in Sausalito that might be available to the Center for the Arts that wouldn't have the same rent implications that the current location does? |
| 03:36:28.58 | Chris Zapata | I'm not going to make a comment on the fly, but I can research and review and see if there is. |
| 03:36:33.34 | Jill Hoffman | Well, that's kind of the... Thank you. That's kind of the problem with us doing this in a public forum outside of closed sessions. |
| 03:36:38.91 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. |
| 03:36:38.93 | Steven Woodside | outside of the house. |
| 03:36:42.08 | Jill Hoffman | Isn't it? |
| 03:36:43.47 | Steven Woodside | I mean, come on. Exploratory questions to get back so we can move along to discussions. |
| 03:36:44.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:36:44.04 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:36:44.09 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. |
| 03:36:44.11 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:36:47.77 | Jill Hoffman | It's just an objection. We're not for trial. It feels a little like a trial. Okay, let me rephrase that. |
| 03:36:50.00 | Steven Woodside | It feels a little like a trap. |
| 03:36:54.98 | Jill Hoffman | There are other spaces in Sausalito that Center for the Arts could occupy at a lower rent, correct? City-owned properties. |
| 03:37:03.09 | Chris Zapata | City owned property, not off top of my head. |
| 03:37:07.67 | Jill Hoffman | OK, well, if you had a chance to research it, do you think you'd come up with something |
| 03:37:11.31 | Chris Zapata | Yes. |
| 03:37:19.41 | Steven Woodside | Okay, thanks. That's all I have right now. Thank you. Councilmember Blastie. |
| 03:37:22.57 | Blake More | I have a question. I just want to clarify something. We didn't acquire the Bank of America building for a fair market rate, did we? |
| 03:37:29.00 | Chad Hess | Uh, I can't opine on that. I know we bought it for just, just shy of 2 million. |
| 03:37:34.87 | Blake More | Okay, and what did the Wells Fargo building sell for? Thank you. |
| 03:37:36.98 | Chad Hess | I don't know. I know, but |
| 03:37:39.05 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 03:37:39.09 | Chad Hess | Thank you. |
| 03:37:39.17 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 03:37:39.26 | Chad Hess | Thank you. |
| 03:37:39.44 | Blake More | No, no, I'd love to, if you know, I mean, if he doesn't know. |
| 03:37:39.46 | Steven Woodside | So, It's actually the. Well, in this one indulgence, sorry to interrupt, but I'm on the spot. The Bank of America building in downtown Mill Valley sold for $3.5 million. Same size building. $3.5 million in |
| 03:38:00.87 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, it's Mill Valley, and when was it last year? |
| 03:38:04.70 | Blake More | Okay, and I wasn't on the council at the time when the acquisition was made. My understanding was due to the ATM lease, we got a rather good deal on that building. I would like to have an idea of what that understanding of the other buildings are downtown for sale for a million dollars for that amount of real estate seems like quite a good deal. Um, so I was just trying to clarify if we knew that that was below market, because I had thought that that was why they agreed to sell it only to the city, correct? |
| 03:38:32.55 | Chad Hess | That was before my time. Yeah, I don't know the specifics on that. |
| 03:38:36.83 | Blake More | Okay. And then I wanted to, you sent them, and I think this was supposed to be attached to the staff report somewhere, but this afternoon at 417 you sent us all an email just looking at some of the revenue sources with regards to SCA and how much revenue they're generating for the city. And we talked about the parking revenue already, but I just wanted to go over the sales tax revenue piece, which is in the letter as well. Yes. The FDA says 79% of survey respondents stated, yes, I have eaten at any South Korea restaurant prior to or after an FDA visit. They told me one third of the unique visits |
| 03:38:42.98 | Unknown | new. |
| 03:38:59.75 | Kevin McGowan | Yes. |
| 03:39:11.44 | Blake More | If only one-third of the unique visits to SCA resulted in meals at local restaurants that would not otherwise have occurred with the Modest Advantage tab, that would create $12,000 a year in sales tax revenue. And then they go on, 68% of the respondents stated they had visited a store art gallery in Sausalito before or after an SCA visit. If only a quarter of the unique visits resulted in non-restaurant purchases, around $60, it would generate an extra $5,400 a year in tax revenue. So then your assessment is, the old stack revenues are down citywide in fiscal year 2025. Would they be lower if SCA was not bringing people to town? It's possible I do think they are reasonable given their conservative assumptions. So you're saying that these assumptions are all conservative. |
| 03:39:50.97 | Chad Hess | I believe that they are conservative. And also on the sales tax, they included a 1% factor for the Bradley Burns, but did not include the Measure L. 1% as well. So I think they are being excessively conservative in that assumption. |
| 03:40:06.52 | Blake More | Okay, and without having the numbers in front of you, then what would you say your assumption is for the sales tax revenue that could potentially be generated? |
| 03:40:13.92 | Chad Hess | I mean, using using their factors, I don't have I don't have a crystal ball on that, but I know that they are being conservative because they're only counting the Bradley Burns and not the measure L. |
| 03:40:23.11 | Blake More | Okay. Thanks. I just wanted to, and also if we could add City Clerk, the note, this one-way communication from Chad to the agenda and to the staff report so that we have that information, because I think it's relevant for the discussion. |
| 03:40:38.60 | Joan Cox | Yes, I wanted to follow up on a prior discussion I was having with the city manager about the negotiations with SCA. So when following the RFP selection of the SCA, Didn't the SCA first enter into a license agreement with the city prior to entering into the lease? |
| 03:41:00.59 | Chris Zapata | I'm not sure. Maybe our city attorney knows, but I don't have any recollection of that. |
| 03:41:06.78 | Joan Cox | My understanding of the history is that The SCA had already been occupying the building for three months under this license agreement before the lease negotiations moved the rent from $4,000 a month for 10 years to $11,000 a month. So essentially the SCA had already been occupying the facility for three months pursuant to a license agreement pending final negotiations of the lease. |
| 03:41:43.47 | Ian Sobieski | That's correct. Councilman McCartney. Okay. |
| 03:41:45.29 | Joan Cox | Okay, and so Councilmember Kelman remembers. And so. For the first seven months of negotiations, SCA's rent was set at $4,000 a month for 10 years, and it was only after they had been occupying the facility for three months that the city first proposed $4,000. that the SCA shoulder the entirety of the 11,000 a month. |
| 03:42:09.98 | Ian Sobieski | I don't think that's quite correct. I mean, this was an ongoing conversation. There was never just a, today is Monday and you're in the license and day on Tuesday and they're having this conversation. This is a very, I think, long, thoughtful conversation with members of this council to see what was available, see what was possible, look at an RFI. There's a lot of dialogue that we did. I appreciate that. Thank you. |
| 03:42:31.83 | Steven Woodside | That in discussion, that sounds like a discussion. I have any other questions? I'll ask the last question. |
| 03:42:35.50 | Ian Sobieski | I do actually thank you mayor um Either city manager or CEO director Phipps. I thought I saw Some information that the SCA was asking about a zoning change you want to comment on that? |
| 03:42:48.79 | Chris Zapata | I can ask Brandon to come up, but the thought there is if there's going to be some revenue generation through a sublease, then the current land use designation of public institution is pretty restrictive. So the thought would be to create some flexibility for different types of tenants to come in based on what the council wants to do. Brandon, can you speak to that process and what that is and what it looks like and why it's included in our staff report? |
| 03:43:25.01 | Brandon Phipps | Happy to city manager. And good evening, council, mayor, vice mayor, staff, members of the community. Happy to be here. So city manager is correct. He came to me with, I think, a charge to do some research in connection with what uses are currently allowed at the Bank of America building based on existing zoning. The building is located within a public institutional zoning district, which I will note is a fairly restrictive zoning district relative to some of the other districts we have, especially as related to revenue-generating uses, like restaurants, for example. The PI district, public institutional district, does not allow for restaurants to locate within one of those zones. This is further detailed on Table 10.20-1 in our code, land uses allowed in open space and public districts. So considering the limited range of uses currently allowed within that zoning district, In addition to the desire from the SCA to potentially partner and expand the range of uses within that building and potentially via, you know, an accessory use, we looked into some strategies that we can employ that would realize that. So we've identified, based on, you know, this charge, four primary strategies that we could employ to expand those uses and to create greater partnership opportunities for the SCA. One is, and I'm going to go from... highest level of robustness and activity to probably the most simple. One is a full-blown general plan and zoning code amendment. to change the zoning of the B of A site from the public institutional district to an alternative zoning district like commercial waterfront or central commercial, the district that it's adjacent to. This would, of course, take a little bit of time and would require multiple hearings in addition to a potential environmental analysis. The second strategy that we noted and highlighted was an amendment to not change the district itself, but to change the allowed uses within the public institutional zoning district. So to expand those allowed uses, quite literally an edit to table 10.20-1 in our municipal code and any follow-on edits. This may require environmental analysis. This may also have unintended consequences, such as opening up any other public institutionally zoned parcel to those expanded range of land uses, excuse me. So want to call that out as a potential that we identified was... you know, treating Any. ancillary accessory tenant in the bfa building as a temporary use which can be approved via an MUP within our zoning just uh with the within our municipal code by the zoning administrator The code reads temporary uses may be approved in any zoning district for up to one year, subject to an approved MUP, and those temporary uses can be extended for up to one additional year. That, I think, is much more simple than the first two paths that I outlined, but would require a constant renewal if the term continued to exceed one year, continued to exceed two years. So a little bit impermanent. The final path is a zoning ordinance amendment to amend the accessory uses and structures section of our code, which would, for example, allow an accessory use to locate in a public space. That specific section of code is 10.44.020. And one way that we could do this is through, there's some language in that section that reads, accessory uses are permitted when located on the same parcel as the principal use, recreation, refreshment, and service buildings in public parks. I note we might approach this via an amendment to that language to change parks to public facilities. So those are four strategies that we've noted. Thank you, Derek. |
| 03:48:00.32 | Steven Woodside | So, |
| 03:48:03.99 | Steven Woodside | Anything else? Okay, I'll ask the last two questions before we go to public comment. Just one is, Director Hess, if the, if the, If the... If the rent is increased to cover the principal payment and the interest from the tenant, then just in the plain English language, the tenant is buying the building over the life of the lease, and when they exit the lease, they're turning it over to the city. So that basically means that the city of Sausage did not buy the Bank of America building, rather, the tenant did and then surrendered it to the city at the end of its lease. |
| 03:48:37.40 | Chad Hess | Yes, essentially. |
| 03:48:39.03 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. And then the fair market rent that the fair market value that was quoted, that I presume was for some sort of commercial use, not for the restrictive public institutional use unmodified as the, okay, I'm seeing an audit head. Yes. Okay. thank you very much let's open public comment for our very patient audience uh sorry for the late hour uh please if you have public comment come to the podium when the city manager or city uh clerk calls your name |
| 03:49:07.86 | Walfred Solorzano | We'll start with Peter Van Meter, Babette McDougal, and then Tom Anderson. |
| 03:49:18.15 | Peter Van Meter | Thank you. This is a complex issue that can actually be reduced to something really simple. When this lease was negotiated, there were circumstances regarding the affordability that had to do with a business plan for a combined operation of the SCA and a commercial restaurant. Those circumstances have changed. The economic viability has then become less secure than had been with that prior plan. So your decision here is simply, do you want to have a public benefit and decide? I think that Hank Baker kind of, I'll just summarize this earlier. earlier by saying Look at what fair market rent is. as a PI zoning. and say, what is going to be the contribution to the public benefit of the citizens of Sausalito. by in effect reducing that fair market rent. So that's, as I commented earlier, you don't really have a procedure for making that kind of determination. So you're going to have to make that determination on the fly here. Maybe soon. But, You're going to have to make that determination. What do you see as a public benefit of this? because circumstances have changed. And now you have to make that decision. Thank you. Bye-bye. |
| 03:50:41.38 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 03:50:44.64 | Babette McDougall | Thank you, Mr. City Clerk. . You know, I go to the Center for the Arts frequently. I invite people to come over and we rendezvous there. Then we hit someplace for lunch usually. So I don't want you to think that I don't enjoy the idea that we have some viable thing happening in that facility. I don't even know if they have a tax ID. Are they a viable non- Do we have a 501c3 designation? Why is it on your website under donate? I didn't find it. I just went on the website again, and I don't see it under donate. So I don't know if these are questions that I'm not the only one asking these questions. How viable is this? This is an untested brand new startup foundation. No experience. Somebody on the EDAC community had a great idea. There was no RFP process. There was a request for ideas, and they all got tossed aside for this one idea, because she was on the economic I don't know. EDAC. I mean, really, I don't even know how long she's been there. I just want to know, why is it that we're trying so hard to force a round peg into a square hole or vice versa? If we have an organization that's... creates a whole structure of a lease arrangement based on wishful thinking instead of a contract arrangement. That is suspect right there. When we talk about an untested nonprofit, this is what we're talking about. Wishful thinking. Oh, my God, it turns out that he didn't want to do it after all, so now we're stuck for the money. And how feasible is it? Like, when are we going to bottom out on red ink, and when are we going to see black? Every nonprofit has to stay alive. You start a nonprofit as you would start any business. And it runs like any business. Its funding models differ. That's the only difference. And it seeks to do programs. And in its own way, there are corporations, private corporations, that do their own programs too. I just think we have to be realistic about this. When does the city say enough? |
| 03:52:51.49 | Tom Anderson | I'm Anderson. |
| 03:52:52.80 | Unknown | Thank you. Wow. So I'm here as a supporter of the Center for the Arts. I've lived and owned property in Sausalito for 35 years. And now the SCA is, I think, a great use for that building. It's brought much interest and activity to the downtown area. Please keep in mind that the SCA is still a startup. Its operation needs the support from the city and the council. to keep the level of programming up, I urge you to read I urge you to read a piece which is featured today in the Independent Journal that says bolstering large startups will improve economic futures. |
| 03:53:23.19 | Unknown | I heard you. |
| 03:53:33.20 | Unknown | Art sales and contributing benefactors do not bring in enough remedy to sustain operation. as it is today. We are a startup. SCA is paying all the interest on the loan and the city has no staffing or maintenance expenses with the current arrangement. The activities the SCA has programmed for the past two years includes diversity and quality. The exhibits and the events, along with their media promotion, has certainly benefited the downtown businesses and added revenue well beyond the rent that SCA has been paying. |
| 03:54:00.44 | Unknown | This is. |
| 03:54:06.63 | Unknown | The building is old and needs work. I urge you to consider a fair lease that helps the SEA thrive I feel a 10% increase per year for the $4,000 rent is fair. the, Elevator, as you say. Please consider the benefits to have an art center downtown versus an empty bank building and some retail business that would not add to the image of Sausalito. Do not be afraid to stand up to the naysayers. support the art and cultural center and bring that brings people together. Today, we need that more than ever. Thank you. |
| 03:54:45.44 | Walfred Solorzano | Okay, we have Shiva Pactao, then Steven Woodside. |
| 03:54:54.13 | Shiva Paktao | Mayor, City Council members, thank you for hearing, having this hearing and the audience. Um, I You know, with the help of our board and 350 volunteers that work day in and day out at SCA, We've created a dynamic and unique center that is being recognized way beyond Marin County, from all nine counties of the Bay Area. And with the 44 events to date this year, an average of a thousand people per week that come through SCA. So many of them are locals, Marin locals and Sausalito locals. We've, you know, we've had to have eight full-on exhibitions and a lot of affection from people who come in the space and they see the exhibitions and the art. So we're becoming a really well-known center in the Bay Area. So in the past three months, SCA was in 12 full-on articles, newspaper articles, radio, television, all kinds of media about SCA. So now we have the momentum. We really feel that we have the momentum and we have a plan to grow. We've started a membership program just recently, which is going to bring, you know, approximately $15,000 a year. We are really focusing on grant and donations. We think this year we're going to get to $100,000 a year. We've been selling tickets to different events. This last week, we had three events, night events. Although we were open in the morning, we were also doing night events. Our sales target is going to be up by another $4,000 a month. Okay. |
| 03:56:58.57 | Steven Woodside | percent. |
| 03:56:58.79 | Walfred Solorzano | coming. Stephen Wetzel, followed by Dan Christ and Luis Briones. |
| 03:57:06.13 | Stephen Wetzel | And speaking of events, just this month was the plein air art. 20 artists, 19 or 20 artists from mostly outside of Sausalito came and stayed here for a week, parked here for a week, painted these amazing paintings. There's, I think, 93 that were painted just in that week, and they're on display now, and that continues until the end of the month. This is not just about the economics. It's about the art. |
| 03:57:38.33 | Dan Christ | Thank you. |
| 03:57:38.34 | Stephen Wetzel | in Christ. |
| 03:57:38.80 | Dan Christ | Thank you. |
| 03:57:42.07 | Dan Christ | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 03:57:42.26 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you. |
| 03:57:42.53 | Dan Christ | It's a great day. |
| 03:57:42.56 | Brandon Phipps | It's. |
| 03:57:43.05 | Dan Christ | Actually, Chris, but I will claim to be a distant relative, nonetheless. I'm the, for those who might know, I am the treasurer of the Sausalito Center for the Arts, also treasurer of the nearly defunct. Sausalito Art Festival. Foundation. And in that role, I know more about the financial affairs of this organization, anybody in the room, And so I'd hope the council would listen to me. I'm going to talk about four facts and if I have an opportunity, a prophecy. The first fact is that $11,000 a month, if our rent increases. effective of August, We will not make a profit this year. It will wipe out what I anticipate. will be the second year profits of an organization. like many sophomore Startups. usually come back to reality in terms of its gross receipts, 75% of which relate to benefactor contributions, foundations, corporations, and individuals. The second fact is, At $133,000 a year, essentially 11,000 a month. In 2025, it'll represent about 62% of our overhead. There isn't an organization I've ever been familiar with as a CFO for over 40 years. that can afford base rent, let alone utilities and repairs on top of it of about $30,000. It simply is. Uh, an overbearance. of expense to be committed to. The third fact is, If we don't have profit going forward, the next couple of years, there is no way that we can reinvest in the organization. And the last fact is, That lease was negotiated in a Data vacuum. All of the information was in the hands of the city council and nothing in the hands of the negotiators for the SEC. |
| 03:59:36.05 | Tom Anderson | We didn't have a |
| 03:59:36.30 | Dan Christ | We didn't have a business plan. We had no factual history. Keep that in mind as you evaluate this going forward. Thank you, sir. |
| 03:59:45.02 | Walfred Solorzano | Luis Briones. |
| 03:59:53.02 | Luis Briones | Good evening, I'm Luis Briones, and as you know, I'm a member of the board of the Sausalito Center for the Arts. I'd like to talk about a community benefit that I haven't heard mentioned, maybe a little bit by Shiva. Thank you. So through its diverse range of events, SEA consistently generates positive press, both for the center and for the city of Sausalito. While most of this publicity comes from local news outlets, SEA has also garnered national attention already. It was featured in The Guardian as one of the best U.S. exhibitions and art events for Pride Month and highlighted in the New York Times as one of your favorite places to see art in California. As you know, the city recently cut its advertising contract with Creative Digital Agency, CDA. I believe that contract was about $82,000 a year. So this marketing organization was hired to promote the city of Sausalito. As a key part of its marketing strategy, SCA promoted Sausalito events and a large percentage of the events it promoted were produced by SCA at no cost to the city. thus helping the city meet its marketing objectives. With the contract between the city and CDA now discontinued due to budgetary constraints, SCA remains a key source. publicity for the city and no cost to the city because SCA produces its own marketing. As a matter of fact, CDA said that it would charge Sausalito Center for the Arts, $96,000 a year to replicate the marketing that the Sausalito Center for the Arts is doing now. marketing that clearly benefits the city of sausalito so Community benefit? Yes. |
| 04:01:59.16 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Ron Albert. |
| 04:02:04.76 | Walfred Solorzano | Okay, he's on Zoom now, okay. |
| 04:02:07.33 | Steven Woodside | Well, let's finish with everyone in the room. Is there anyone else in the room? |
| 04:02:10.67 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Yeah, we do. We have a new one. We have Kate Carlson. |
| 04:02:12.04 | Steven Woodside | everyone. Maybe we just have people line up in a row and introduce yourselves. Move it along. Thank you, Mr. City Clerk. |
| 04:02:23.26 | Unknown | Good evening. Thank you for having us. And I am an artist, number one. Number two, the founder of Marin Open Studios in the 90s. and the current executive director of Myrna Open Studios, as well as being on the board of SCA. And. I know a lot about the county and the activity of artists in this county. And I've had a studio here in Sausalito for 30 years. So why am I on the SCA? Why am I fighting and giving all of my time to it? It's because I really believe that Sausalito deserves an art center. And I really see the value of it to the rest of the county, to the artists in the rest of the county. I have a history of being in the Sausalito Art Festival, and I just got a commission. a few days ago from someone What a piece of painting for me. In 2016, at the Sausalito Mart Festival, a big commission. This activity helps artists to survive in this county. And I could not be surviving without Sausalito and its reputation for drawing people here. It's so important. The other thing is that we don't really have the use of a lot of the center because it is in bad condition. It smells right now. There are broken bathrooms upstairs. The triple net lease is not a feasible thing for us to be doing, to take care of that building and to make sure that we present Sausalito in its best way. I've been at the SCA constantly. I produced the Paint Sausalito show. I was the co-chair of it. right now. And We bring value. We bring economic impact. Thank you so much. |
| 04:04:28.66 | Walfred Solorzano | Just if anybody wants to be identified for the record on the minutes, please say your name before you start. |
| 04:04:35.58 | Hank Baker | Hi, Hank Baker. This discussion is really the reason why, another reason why you need a professional broker. We're casting about in a whole bunch of maybe incorrect information. The basis for this lease was a post-COVID economy. the $3 and 61 cents or whatever it was per foot. That's changed dramatically. And it took two years to lease this property on top of it. The setting the lease rate based on debt service is also completely illogical and not done in the private industry. All you did was choose to leverage into this building. the logic of having the lease represent the debt service, the counter to that would be, well, why don't the city just pay all cash and then you have no debt service, so the rent's free. That doesn't make any sense either. your debt service is largely principal paydown. That's a savings account. It's not an expense. Take a look at your real cost. It's just your interest, not the principal paydown. And... Thank you. The building condition has been suggested. The building is in bad shape. It needs a lot of work. The comparables for the Wells Fargo building here or the Bank of America building in in Mill Valley are not correct. They're beautiful, historic buildings. This is a very, very nice modern box that needs a lot of help. It's apples and oranges. And finally, Shiva and her group, her volunteers, are doing a tremendous job I know all of you have been to some of their events. They get better and better every month. And I think that you need to give them a chance to continue that process over the next several years. It'll be a wonderful, wonderful gem community gathering place in downtown Sausalito. |
| 04:06:32.74 | Kit Hayes | Good evening, council members. My name is Kit Hayes. And, um, You know, there's been so much discussion this evening about how to navigate all of the leases that the city has. And I would agree, actually, with Councilmember Hoffman that it does feel unfortunate that we're discussing what to do about the SCA when there isn't a uniform policy in place regarding |
| 04:06:42.09 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:06:53.26 | Kit Hayes | how you're going to lease out all of your nonprofits and what community benefit means. That aside, we have suggested that we would pay a flat rent of $6,000 per month. until the lease expires. At that rent, the SA will be paying all the interest, as Chad pointed out. On the city's loan to purchase the property, plus over $30,000 a year towards the purchase of the building, which is appreciating all the time. It's a great piece of real estate right there. Realizing we signed a lease for $11,000, I do ask the city to reconsider the lease and partner with the SCA given the immense economic, social, and cultural value the SCA has created in its very, very short life. I'd personally love to work with the city to make the SCA and the Bank of America building as valuable as it can possibly be. I see substantive potential to work together to scale the success of the SCA and drive even more business to our local restaurants, bars, and hotels. Let's continue to make the SCA a hotspot in the region and pull in as much money in press as we possibly can. I cannot believe we got the New York Times, who honestly doesn't like to cover California positively ever, to cover us in its first year. That is astounding as a former New Yorker, I will say. I'm still shocked by that. With support and partnership from the city, the SCA will be in a strong position to pursue our membership program, which I'd love to invite everyone who's listening to the meeting to join. You can sign up on our website. and other revenue streams like a potential endowment, ongoing site rentals, art sales, and ticket sales. Also, I do want to make it clear that we're talking about a 50% increase in our rent, and that still is only a 7 percentage points of your overall deficit. So this is like a huge burden to us to help pay for the projected SCA deficit, and I'd really love to see other ways to... Thank you. Raise money. |
| 04:08:37.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:08:38.04 | Anthony Hay | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:08:38.86 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:08:38.88 | Anthony Hay | Thank you. |
| 04:08:44.64 | Anthony Hay | I am Anthony Hay, a resident of Sausalito. I frequently go to SCA and I think it's a big Plus, for the city of Sausalito to have an art center, instead of having these junky t-shirt shops, I think Sausalito needs to look long term about the image of the city. This is a positive thing for the image of the city. And you should not look at it as a real estate deal based on rents. For example, Kushner Wakefield says $3.60 a foot. they don't say how much tis you have to spend to get a tenant how long you have to get free rent And I agree with you, gentlemen, before, the market has completely changed. In San Francisco, the mayor of San Francisco gives stores free rent just to create people to go to a certain part of the city. And in the Bank of America building, they got this museum, completely free rent, just to create traffic. So I think you should not think of economics. You should think, as the city manager said, it's a rupee's cube. You have to look at the other benefits it has for the city. Thank you. |
| 04:10:06.80 | Babette McDougall | Hello. |
| 04:10:07.24 | Diane Johnson | Thank you. My name is Diane Johnson, and I'm a longtime Sausalito resident. I feel that the SCA is an asset to the city, and it is beyond talking about dollars and cents, and it brings so much goodwill to the city. We have international tourists come. I've seen so many people. I've met people there. I've enjoyed the art and the music and the cultural programs. I think it's really important to our city. And Sausalito was originally defined by art and the Sausalito Art Festival, which is no more. The studios at the ICB are very expensive and artists are really struggling to make it in this expensive economy. And I think if you talk about kicking them out or charging them more money, then we're going to have another empty storefront. The Wells Fargo is empty. The Chase Bank is empty. There's so many empty buildings, and that doesn't look good when people come here to see our city, and it doesn't make them want to come back, and I think the SCA did a lot of repairs to the building. They have increased the appreciation of the building. They came in during COVID time and survived, and that was not easy, and I just think that they're good tenants and good tenants are really hard to find. And I have a little unit in my house and the people who rent that unit, they're paying a lot less than market value, but they're good tenants and they take care of the place. And it's a, it's a good thing. And if we end up losing the SCA, we'll have another empty building, and we'll have months with no income from that building. So I think that the benefits of art and culture are really important to Sausalito, and we need to preserve that. Thank you. |
| 04:12:09.40 | Raylene Gorham | Good evening. Thank you, council members, again, for hearing from the community about the immediate impact that SCA has brought forth in its first year of operations. And consequently, for your consideration of the future financial sustainability of this local institution. Raylene Gorham here, resident SCA board member. But tonight I'm speaking to you as someone deeply engaged with the power that art wields in the context of community. I just wanted to offer a slightly different angle from which to view the issue. If you're at all inclined to support the arts and artists in our community and all of the cultural and business affirming activity that that brings, I'd like you to consider this. A rent model which aims to squeeze a few thousand extra dollars out of this property will impact the caliber and range of art and cultural activities that the SCA and Sausalito will be able to bring to our community. Sausalito does not need another pay-to-play or vanity gallery model in our downtown. It is hard to see how the diverse range of programming currently offered will not be affected by this dramatic increased rent. Art and events will be driven by the bottom line instead of what they bring to our collective experience and reputation. You have before you a moment to truly support the arts, the capital A Arts, and the benefits they bring to all and not have the center of all victim to a tired trope of cultural institutions succumbing to the pressures of economic swings. Thank you. |
| 04:13:57.21 | Carolyn Revell | Hello again, Carolyn Rubell. I see the Sausalito Center for the Arts as a unique use of a building in the center of a town, which the city was, in its wisdom, purchased. And the art that we see in this wonderful building There's a synergy between the location of the art center and the other wonderful things that are going on in town, Very landing. the Business Improvement District, and I think that the time is now to support this building. I loved Brandon's exploration of alternative uses in this public institutional zone, which might bring in a little extra revenue, perhaps a little cafe could be used if the zoning allowed that to bring in some revenue. But the basic point is this is the right location for this, the right use for this location. And I do hope you'll support a rent approach that will make it possible for them to survive. Thank you so much. |
| 04:15:00.05 | Adrian Brinton | Hi again, Adrian Brinton. So I do just wanna make a couple of quick comments about the financial side of this, cause there's been a lot of great discussion kind of deficits and about the deficit issue that we're facing and how we address that. You know, we're not a broke community. We have a lot of assets. We own a lot of property and we have a lot of great assets in terms of our location and other things, natural beauty, et cetera. What we are is operationally, we're struggling a bit. And we need to increase our revenues in order to pay for the operational costs of running the city. How are we going to do that? You know, it really sounds like there's two fundamental things. fundamentally kind of different approaches on the dais and on our city council. One is to really look at how we look at every penny, which is super important, and I don't disagree with it all, but also to pull back on any penny that we can and kind of really keep a strong focus on that side of it, which is important. The other side is to look at how do we invest the resources we have in order to grow our economy and actually have more activity so that we can, uh, increase the revenues that we're bringing in that way. And I think when I look at the SCA and I look at the other changes we're making downtown this year, That's all in the interest of growing our economy and making it so that we're actually taking this money, we're investing it into our city. And we're making our city better and we're earning more money that way. And I feel like we would miss that a bit in the discussion. We've talked a lot about the artistic history. the artistic value that the SCA brings, which I totally agree with. But I think also, It's a key component of our vibrant downtown. And if we support this startup now and we allow it to grow and growing a startup is really, really hard. I've seen how much work these guys put into it. It's an unbelievable amount of work. It's going to pay us dividends and that will help us address our deficits in the long term. Thank you. |
| 04:17:01.17 | Tom Anderson | Dennis Conway. The idea of having the city manager go out and see if he could find space that the SEA could use just doesn't make any sense to me. And I say that simply because I could just see when people come off of the ferry saying, oh, so where's the SEA? And I said, well, so what you do is you go on Bridgeway, you walked out about three miles, and then you turn right and then, Not too far, but if you see someone there, that's probably where it's at. I mean, it's just not going to work. |
| 04:17:43.88 | Ted Barton | Thank you. |
| 04:17:48.48 | Steven Woodside | I believe you already made public comment. No. |
| 04:17:51.32 | Babette McDougall | Well, does your unofficial but somehow official policy preclude citizens from speaking more than once? |
| 04:17:55.06 | Steven Woodside | That includes citizens from Spain. Thank you. I'm afraid you already made public comment. |
| 04:17:58.07 | Babette McDougall | Yeah. |
| 04:18:00.53 | Steven Woodside | Thank you very much, Ms. McGeefer. |
| 04:18:01.76 | Babette McDougall | Does the policy do it or doesn't? I mean, in our former years, it was not a problem. |
| 04:18:08.23 | Steven Woodside | You're not allowed to make that whole public. |
| 04:18:10.45 | Babette McDougall | You're not allowed to address more than two minutes. Any given agenda item is what your policy says. When are we going to read this policy? Well, let me see a copy of it. |
| 04:18:20.39 | Walfred Solorzano | video. Can we have the next speaker, please? Thank you. |
| 04:18:24.22 | Lorna Newlin | for gender. |
| 04:18:28.71 | Lorna Newlin | Hello, Lorna Newlin. I spoke earlier on the other thing about rents. Now, in February, I spoke on behalf of the SCA and all the good that they had done. And at that time, the council decided, to put it back to staff. for six months and come up with some answers. And then The same day I found out that the chamber was going to lose its space because their rents are exorbitant, I went into the SCA and found out Before any negotiations, they had already received an increased rent letter to $11,000. So I wanted to come again. It's just a matter of, This probably should have not been in public, but they, as everybody says, they have done so much for this town. And it's hard to be an artist. Believe me. I do it because I love it. And I, teach and I contribute. But this is something that I've been juried into a few shows there and the boutique and As part of the lease, The city is allowed to use that space. And I believe that's what the holiday market has been, which has been great for me. and great for the community that people can come and see so many local artists selling there at holiday time. Mr. Zapata has come every time that I've been there and I really appreciate, and a lot of the council people, I appreciate seeing your smiling faces there, but this is a jewel and It is about rents market rate. There are so many Empty storefronts down there. It doesn't look good in our town. And. I think when you're talking about the whole square footage about that, it sounds like the upper floor is not even viable. But anyway, I just hope you will do what they had recommended. Thank you. |
| 04:20:33.20 | Walfred Solorzano | All right. We have Ron Albert online. |
| 04:20:41.79 | Unknown | You know. Okay. |
| 04:20:45.53 | Paul Albert | Yes, hello. I'm sorry I couldn't be present. I'm still recovering from a cold. bomb. Quickly, I I was retained by the board of SCA. I was not a member at the time in early 2022. I represented it through the entire lease negotiations. I'm very familiar with it. Uh-huh. the what Joan Cox, Council Member Cox, or excuse me, Vice Mayor Cox recited was the correct history. The discussion was always that SCA would pay $4,000 a month from January, February. up until July 12th. And there were separate parallel lease negotiations going on with Ogeo. And that's where the city hoped to make significantly more money. SVA entered the building under a temporary license agreement to activate the building for the benefit of the city. And then on July 12th, the council met and said, we're ready to sign the lease, but we want the rent to go from 4,000 to 11,000. SCA was faced with a choice at that time, whether to exit the building, cancel all the programming that is scheduled through the end of the year, or make a good faith effort to pay that rent increase. The board has made that good faith effort and continues to make an effort to raise more money. But. That was not their original plan. That was not the original negotiation. And the board has always acted in good faith, to my knowledge. I joined the board at the conclusion of those lease negotiations and donated my legal time to the board. |
| 04:22:48.39 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. No further speakers. All right, we'll close public comment then. Bring it back up to the dais. I guess I'll kick things off. I'll just say, you know, The primary business of South Slater is to take care of the safety and welfare of the town. And we spend the vast majority of our money on our police and our infrastructure. and our core services, but we also do have discretionary spending. The chefs at the chili cook-off are gonna get $150 each to buy beans and spices. It's not making anyone any money. We literally blew $25,000 of cash up at the 4th of July fireworks. They cost $35,000, but we only got $12,000 in donations. Previous year, same thing, so $25,000, Burning the money up. I had a great time at fireworks. I think fireworks are popular. I think we all support fireworks. It's what we choose to do because it's to celebrate the country and to celebrate ourselves in our community. It also happened probably to make some money in the same derivative way we're talking about SCA helping make some money by bringing people to downtown and paying to park. But you can't prove it. Uh, what you When we look at other leases in town, we've seen plenty of examples where we've made choices to ask for less than the absolute maximum because it serves a secondary purpose. The Yacht Club, which I'm a member of and love, their lease is $150,000. for that to get the buoys, the big building, and by the way, a parking lot with 18 spaces, which I understand are worth roughly $4,000 each a year. So that means their net payment for the building, for the parking lot, beyond the parking lot, would be about $78,000. So just roughly a little less than twice what the SCA is paying. Why is that? Because the yacht club, even though it's a private club, it's open to anyone to join. It does a youth sailing program. It's where we all go to drink after the jazz by the bay. It's intrinsic to our community. It's part of our social fabric. it's perhaps not exactly the same people as the 350 people who volunteer at SCA, but there is probably some overlap, but it's probably similar in terms of its social knitting. And at year two, that could just be the beginning of the SCA. Compare that at least to, let's say, Spinnaker Restaurant, which is $450,000, for also a waterfront location. No buoys, but that's purely commercial. Or the Ice House next to the SCA building, $1.00. $1 that building surely we could rent to a crepe creperie or an ice cream shop and make more money But we don't because and I'm a member of the historical society too. We want to celebrate our history We want to show ourselves off the volunteers in the community are there doing something that represents the city now all these services celebrating our history, providing youth sailing program. providing arts could be a service of the government, much like our parks and rec is a service of the government. We pay for it. We do take revenue in from parks and rec but it still costs us something it doesn't generate revenue cost of something to do parks and rec and All these other things, if the historical society or the arts or the youth sailing program were done by the city it would cost us something would be in our budget instead we get all these things for free because volunteers do them with some partnership with the city And that's what the SCA is proposing to do. And it's in that vein that I think charging them a rent that is discounted in sort of the same way we do in these other examples, the dollar for the ice house or the discounted rent for the Yacht Club makes sense. It's fair, it's consistent, and it's part of our mission and we can afford it. we charge the sca eleven thousand dollars even eight we'll be pretty much guaranteed that we'll either put them out of business or make them so anemic that they will fail on their own and not provide the kind of quality program we're talking about but you know what we won't do We won't fill one pothole. We won't pay one inch of street because we have $5 million in our CIP account right now waiting to be spent. We have more than 2 million a year allocated with Measure L to go into that bucket. And the dollars just aren't big enough there. I agree philosophically, if we changed our whole philosophy across town and charged everybody market rent, now that would make a difference. But I don't see why the first people we should pick on are the artists. I think that art is intrinsic to the brand of Sausalito. It's part of our quality. It's who we are. It's what brings us together. It's worth fighting for. making at least as much a priority as some of the other things that I made mention of. So it is a qualitative choice. At the end of the day, I fully respect both my neighbors who feel differently and my colleagues who feel differently. They have a different point of view. And that's why you have a democracy. And that's why, you know, three people want to go to the beach and two go to the mountains. Well, you have a vote and you end up going to the beach. So it's not about moral right or wrong, but it is about ultimately choices. And my choice and my advocacy is the, I'm the most extreme, I guess, keep the rent the same. Let all the money... that would be instead the little crumbs that would be on top of the big pile of cash that we have on our balance sheet go back into the SCA so that it can do more program, programming, so that it can take care of the building, maybe paint the building. All I would advocate is That's what I would see, is that it would be a virtuous cycle to help our organization and our town. It's on brand. It's the kind of thing that 20 years from now, people couldn't imagine we didn't do. So I would keep the rent the same. I would just make two suggestions, or make two conditions of that keeping the same. It's that we require that the SA paint the building within eight months. And with the rent certainty, they would be able to budget for that. I think they should have a mural competition and do something amazing that really stands out. And the second is I think they should increase the representation from the city of Sausalito on their board of directors. Currently it's one. I think it should be three. And those would be my two suggestions in keeping the rent the same. Thank you very much for the indulgence of my colleagues. Those are my comments. |
| 04:29:20.04 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah, sure, I'll dive in. Yeah, happy to. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, everybody, for being here. I think we're having the wrong conversation entirely. So let me offer you a middle way. But, Let's all stipulate SCA is great. Shiva, you're amazing. You've done fantastic things. We've all been there. |
| 04:29:35.80 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 04:29:35.97 | Susan Kendall | you. |
| 04:29:38.82 | Ian Sobieski | I don't think that's the issue. I heard the CFO say we had no business plan. And so for those who are trying to recall how we got here, we had an open process. We were presented by the committee with three ideas. We were told they were fully-baked business plans. We were told how they were going to pencil out. We had other options. We picked this because we were given a business plan. And then we were told, well, it's a startup, so we gave it some time. And sometimes startups have to pivot. And that's not unusual either. And so I think why I think we're having the wrong conversation is because we have a fiduciary duty. We are stewards of the land. We are stewards of this city. And I think it's actually a disservice to both SCA and the taxpayers to have this conversation around debt payment and renewal. And is that what we're trying to cover? First of all, everybody in the room knows we don't have a policy about how we are going to rent to nonprofits. You all know it because you've been very generously... with us for seven hours. And so because we don't have that, we've been making assumptions about what the city wants or needs. I've also heard the building is in disrepair. I've heard there's no business plan. I've heard you can't afford the rent. Not like anybody up here doesn't want the SCA. So it's our duty to actually change this conversation and make it better by offering up different opportunities. We didn't send it back to staff for the staff to come up with ideas. and delayed it for six months so the SCA could come up with ideas, right? And SCA, I think, did come up with ideas. You increase your programming, you reach out to staff and say, what happens if you change the zoning? What are the opportunities there, right? And so I think we need a more robust conversation about how we work harder to make it work better for SCA. And that's not a rent cut because obviously that business model is not working. It is actually taking a hard look at that area and figuring out what does SCA need to survive? And what do we as owners of that building need to make sure that that building doesn't go into massive disrepair? I heard the bathrooms don't work. I heard it smells. I heard you can't go upstairs. I mean, we literally can't just tell SCA go at $4,000. That those things don't get fixed. So I actually think we have a much bigger task at hand on the council. And if we really want to have a partnership around it, we got to do a lot more work than simply keep a lower rent. I think we need to sit down and figure out how we make this work for that building, for the taxpayers, and for SCA. And so that's what I would offer up. I think that's the direction this needs to go in. I think that's a long-term sustainable and new, potentially, business plan. I've heard talk of a sort of a convention center vibe. People are looking for a place to gather, other uses. There's over 300 nonprofits in Sausalito. I'm sure many of them would like to be a part of this amazing community you've all created down there. So I hope we can have that conversation in that direction, because if that building is in that disrepair that I'm hearing, this is not going to move in the right direction for us, even no matter what the rent is. We actually have to help SCA in a bigger way. So Those are my thoughts. |
| 04:32:52.90 | Steven Woodside | the next time. I can. |
| 04:32:58.11 | Joan Cox | I was on the council that voted to buy the Bank of America building. And we knew at the time we purchased it that we were buying this property for less than market value. And we considered it to be an investment that would appreciate, and I believe it has. Um, I was not on the council that selected the SCA as the tenant, but I have heard Councilmember Hoffman speak quite eloquently and persuasively regarding the competitive superiority of that proposal over others. I still remember the first event in the plaza. It was one of the first gatherings in Sausalito following COVID. And the entire outdoor plaza was full of people. Council members, I saw the city manager there, Ann Arnot. I saw people I had not literally seen in years because of COVID. And so I was so inspired and encouraged by this community center fulfilling the purpose that I believe was envisioned. I think it is important that there has been a major change since the lease was initially negotiated that I believe merits an amendment to the lease. If you just read the lease, you see numerous provisions in there about the potential for a rooftop tenant and all of the provisions being made for accommodating that rooftop tenant, including a provision that would abate the SCA's rent during construction to accommodate the rooftop tenant. And so it's very persuasive to me that the first seven months of negotiations contemplated a $4,000 a month payment by SCA. And then the city put SCA in the untenable position after it already had licensed the facility, had been in the facility for three months, that now they said, oh, we're gonna make you responsible for the entire $11,000. If we get another tenant, we'll offset your rent by the rent that we, that that other tenant pays. And so, you know, the SCA accommodated the city's needs. But I think what the mayor asked earlier was, is really important. When you... when you buy a property, you You know, you often don't have your tenant subsidize the entire cost of that property. You're investing in property because the property itself appreciates you know, if we needed to, we could sell that building. And guess what? We would do a lot better selling that building with a tenant occupying it than if it was empty. And so, I also was interested to hear Hank Baker point out that a benchmark for a lease rate should be the interest cost, not necessarily the principal pay down. So I really do think it's somewhat... unfair of the city to expect a nonprofit to defray the city's entire investment cost in this property. Um, I also believe the projections by the SCA are too modest. Um, I love that they, uh, get a thousand dollars, a thousand people a week as visitors. Um, I love that they are recognized nationwide by the New York times and others. And so I believe they are consistently generating positive outcomes for the city of Sausalito that have value. So, um. A couple other things. I do want to acknowledge Shiva, who is the SCA's only paid employee and who's working at least 60 hours per week, every day and works every day of the week to keep this facility on an upward trajectory. We heard from the community development director about zoning changes. I would like to be sure that if the SCA does sublease and we have the right to approve any sublease, that it not sublease to a competing business like a coffee shop, for example. We have plenty of coffee shops. I don't envision a coffee shop at the SCA. I would have loved to see them enter into a partnership with the Chamber of Commerce, I believe those negotiations are ongoing. with the chamber being the front agency for other agencies like Golden Gate Bridge District, the tourist company, a taxi company, and other institutional types of uses that would be complementary to to SCA. So I know that there are still Um, irons in the fire that have not yet come to So what I'd like to see us do is increase the rent to the level. I'd like to see us execute a lease amendment. I'd like to see us increase the rent to the $6,000 that the SCA proposes. I'd like to have the city take over responsibility for capital improvements. I think that's an unfair burden. I think this triple net lease is unfairly burdensome for a nonprofit such as the SCA. Um, And as the land owner, I'd rather see us undertake those capital improvements than the SCA. I think our lease should include profit sharing so that any year that the SCA actually makes a profit, they share some portion of that with us so that their success is ours. Those are my thoughts. Thanks. |
| 04:38:51.59 | Joan Cox | That's where I'll come. |
| 04:38:52.81 | Ian Sobieski | I believe that the chamber is no longer interested in that facility. |
| 04:38:56.60 | Joan Cox | No, they are still interested. They just don't have any money to spend for this upcoming year, but they are interested in being in a partnership with others. |
| 04:39:11.32 | Jill Hoffman | Sure. Well, yeah, I was not here when we purchased the building. I was deployed. That was the year I was gone and deployed with the Navy. But I did watch it from afar, and I talked to Tom Riley. He was sitting in my seat at the time, and I told him that I supported it based on what he was telling me. Because we did get a good deal on it. To me, by definition, that was market rate. We bought it. That's the market. whatever. um but that doesn't justify any in my mind any decreased rent that just means the city for once had some good luck and I thought we made a good investment. But the deal and the conversations we had all along. was that this was an investment for profit. We did not invest in this building to lose money on it, period. That was never part of the conversation. And always the conversation was, we are going to negotiate the lease so that at least it covers our debt service. It was I mean, we had many conversations right down to the last conversation that we had about what the what the lease rate was going to be and the runway that we were going to provide for the SCA to allow them time to prove their business model. Because as one of the guys said, we were in a in a data vacuum like we didn't nobody. We took a huge risk on this model. We didn't know if it was going to work out. And so that's why we baked in or tried to bake in a lot of um, a lot of terms in the lease so that we could be ensured that this was a viable business model that this city and the people of Sausalito as investors were investing in. And so that's why we had metrics in the lease that SCA was supposed to make. or hit as part of the lease agreement. I didn't see any calculation of those metrics tonight in the staff report. My understanding from last February was that not all of the metrics had been met. We were also supposed to revenue share with, that was also part of the reduced rent for 18 months, was that we were going to revenue share with SCA with events that they threw. In other words, they would throw an event, they get an event fee, and we were supposed to share 50-50. And the revenues from that, at some point, there was a floor of 15,000 inserted in the lease so that we didn't revenue share until the revenues were over 15,000. I don't recall ever seeing that part of the lease before it was signed. I mean, that was the concept. And that's why we went out on a limb as a council, really not to take the other proposals that we had received and vetted through the working committee. and give a chance to this model to see if it would work. I think it's pretty clear that this business model isn't going to work based on two years' worth of metrics that we now have. We've had some anecdotal kind of evidence presented, but I haven't seen any sales tax revenue from the SCA itself. What's the sales tax revenue that would justify the increase? right i saw a lot of other you from the SCA itself. What's the sales tax revenue that would justify the increase, right? I saw a lot of other anecdotal sort of evidence that while people are going out and buying other things, they're coming here, they're going out to... dinner, they're maybe staying in hotels, but I didn't see any evidence of the inverse of that was true, in that people are coming here specifically for an event at the Arts Center, and that they're specifically staying in the hotels and they're specifically going out to, other than the survey that the Center for the Arts did. And so, I remember back in February that Councilmember, or Vice Mayor Cox, specifically asked are you going to be able to make your rent? If we give you a six month continuance or a six month, you know, extend this for six months, are you then, are you going to be able to comply with the lease at the end of that time? And the representations by the SCA at that time were, yes, we need to expand on things that we're working on. We have the summer season coming up, but we expect it in this time to be able to make are read. And so I agree that we have metrics now, that we have things that we can rely on. and the confidence level of whether or not this model is going to work in this location. I think, and under the current lease, clearly it's not gonna work. And so I think I agree with actually Councilmember Kelman We need to define that. What is it that's working for the Center for the Arts that we can expand on, that we can support? What's not working for the Center for the Arts? and how can we as a city bring this to a viable business model? Right now, we do not have a viable business model, nor do we have the luxury with our current budget. to accept non-producing, business models that the people of Sausalito our funding. And so everybody who every, you know, we've gone through this for, I think, the past four months where we have, you know, a certain reality that is our budget, but then we have certain, you know, um, THE FAMILY. priorities, or I don't want to say pet projects, but everybody has their passion or their way of evaluating But, you know, does that actually merit driving us further into debt? I don't think that it does. We have to we have to apply discipline up here on the council with ourselves. just like we have to apply discipline across the rest of the city and the rest of the departments. We have to Way. this model that we've been presenting, that we gave a shot. And I supported it. two years ago. But there were controls and the controls haven't been met. And so I think it's time that we really have to we owe it to the people of Sausalito as stewards of their finances to figure out how to make this work or how an art center can survive in Sausalito because I don't think it's at that location. And I don't think it's a current model. I think it's clear. |
| 04:45:27.40 | Blake More | First, I want to commend the Center for the Arts and especially Shiva. Thanks for being here for all of the amazing work that you've done so far to really change the face of the downtown. I really feel that the Center for the Arts was a pioneer in starting to reinvigorate the conversations about what the future of the downtown would look like. And now we have our business improvement district that's going to bring even more people into the Center for the Arts and we have a new Fairy Landing coming forward and I, I... don't believe that this is going to be a money loser for the city. I really believe in its capability to be a strong revenue generator for the city of Sausalito, which is why I'm consistently supportive of it. And I actually was skeptical initially when the proposal came before the council because we had proposals from developers that would have paid the full rent. But the footprint of the downtown would have looked so different. And I hear so much so frequently from our community about how the character of our town is so special and it's what makes us who we are. And our character is really rooted in the arts, whether that's the ICB building or the |
| 04:46:25.04 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 04:46:35.79 | Blake More | uh artists formerly known as the Sausalito Arts Festival which we no longer have the arts have always been a driving force of our character and who we are as a community and to have the arts serve in the role of the heartbeat of our downtown seems really appropriate for the type of community that we want to continue to build on as we make investments in our economy going forward and in reinvigorating and ensuring that we have a revenue stream that's going to be impactful for years to come. So I want to be supportive while thinking about what we can do to ensure that the Center for the Arts has the means to continue to produce events that will bring more and more people into our community. I appreciate Councilmember Cox, Vice Mayor Cox's suggestion of the accepting the proposal of the Center for the Arts at the 6000 level and also potentially changing the terms of the triple net lease. But I would welcome a discussion because I can tell and I appreciate Councilmember Kellman's that we, you know, deserve a big kind of a step back conversation about how we want the Center for the Arts to function. But I really feel that the arts are the heartbeat of our community in many ways. And so it's our duty, just like it's our duty to balance the budget, it's also our duty to support the arts. So that's where I stand on that. |
| 04:47:50.95 | Steven Woodside | All right, so I mean, I agree with you, Vice Mayor, with the comments that you had made, but go ahead to comment. |
| 04:47:53.42 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. I think he's going to make a turner motion. |
| 04:47:59.66 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah, thank you. And so this is great because I think we all do very much believe in arts being the fabric of our community. With that said, I think we should follow the, make a motion, or counter motion that we follow the city manager's recommendation to increase the rent to $8,000, but that we also pursue a path towards modifying the zoning in that area and work directly with those in charge of the business model for SCA to identify a manner in which we can move forward that sustains them and sustains them and sustains our investment, i.e. the physical infrastructure of that building. I think there are probably details to be worked out in terms of how we work directly with SCA and whether we pursue a temporary use permit or changes to the public institutional. But I think we need to. I don't think we're serving SCA by simply putting them in a building that needs work and needs care, and we're not serving our taxpayers either. So I think we really have to work quite closely with SCA to make it viable. And what we were presented was that it was viable, and we have some proof points now. So that's my suggestion, and that's my counter, is that we accept the city manager's suggestion and that we look at a zoning change and work with SCA to bring in somebody to offset some of that rent. |
| 04:49:21.45 | Steven Woodside | So I feel like a theme is about trusting our volunteers to make things happen, like they made the Saucyote Yacht Club so successful, like the Ice House is so successful. And I believe in our people, some of whom are in this room, that they can make the SCA successful, but they need our resources. So that's why I think we should leave the rent at $4,000. The vice mayor suggested six. You are suggesting eight. I'm still advocating for giving them as much resource to succeed as possible. I think that money is better spent with them. Obviously, I'll go with the vice mayor's number if there's no one else to meet me at four. I think her other suggestions about profit sharing and cap improvements are also something I can support. I would encourage that we, to your point about how to cooperate with these volunteers and make sure there's a two-way street in communication, I would support having, as I mentioned before, three board members from the government. It could be, you know, we could decide who it is, but for example, it could be the head of Parks and Rec Commission, could be. whoever that is, could also be automatically on the board of the SCA. So, That's where I'm coming from. |
| 04:50:38.35 | Ian Sobieski | Mayor, I'd just like to add one more thing. And just for the record, I feel very strongly that the presentation that we received from SCA, along with the other applicants during the RFI, was, of course, given in good faith. It was very impressive, and it painted a particular picture that we chose to really invest in and to go forward with. And I just, I don't have the feeling that any characterization, that there was an 11th hour change, that we didn't know whether there's this change of circumstance. I think all along the way, we pressed and asked some hard questions about the rooftop bar concept. And I think a lot of people were very reasonable and said, yeah, it's probably unlikely, but we're going to make it work. So I hope we just continue that collaborative dialogue and that collaborative characterization of us working together. |
| 04:51:26.72 | Jill Hoffman | excuse me i'd like to second the motion by council member kelman i don't think i have that and i think I agree. that you know, in concert with that, we have to help them. We have to do what we can to help the Center for the Arts figure out how to cover their expenses and make them a viable business model. I think that's number one. I think I agree no one up here is against the arts. And I take issue when, I disagree with a financial analysis of something and then I'm accused of not liking whatever that thing was earlier tonight I was accused of not liking parking. I mean the biggest advocate for parking on this Council so because i'm applying financial rigor to this city on piece of property. and to, um, you know, and to a lease that was knowingly entered into At that time, we could have pivoted right then and said, you know, I don't think this is going to work, and we need to pivot to one of the other candidates that we had for this building. But I'm willing to give some more runway. I think we have to look at the financial realities that we're in right now. you know, I can live with 8,000. Um, combined with some real efforts by the Center for the Arts and with the council, and frankly, people that have more experience in art centers. And I know you guys have done a ton of work with when you first started with other models and how those can be applied here, but I think we need to understand and know with the amount of foot traffic that we get at that location, that's a prime commercial location. There's hundreds of people passing that location every day. So the fact that it's not performing, sales tax isn't where we would want it to be, that the revenues aren't where we wanted it to be based on that location. Oh, you know, brings a question to me about what is the viable business model for that location if it's not the Center for the Arts. But conversely, I want to still work to see if we can make it work there. And I'm committed to that. And that's why I would support a reduction from 11,000 per month to 8,000, knowing the people of Sausalito will have to absorb that 3,000 delta per month. So that's where I'm at right now. |
| 04:54:03.06 | Steven Woodside | Any other discussion about this motion? |
| 04:54:08.08 | Unknown | I |
| 04:54:09.19 | Joan Cox | outlined what I would propose, but there's been no formal motion. Someone could make an alternative motion that would get voted on first. |
| 04:54:17.81 | Steven Woodside | Yeah, the councilman coming does your motion include taking on the capital improvements as as the vice mayor suggested as. taking on responsibility for capital improvements. Right now it's an absolute triple night lease, so absolutely everything. |
| 04:54:31.41 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah, I think this is the difficulty of trying to negotiate in real time in open session. So I am not prepared to answer that, partly because I think it goes hand in hand with the new policy that we have not yet developed. And so I wouldn't want to oblige one party to do it and another party not to. So I don't know how to answer that in real time at this hour. |
| 04:54:52.54 | Steven Woodside | So do you want to make a motion or |
| 04:55:00.71 | Niels Carlsen | I could. |
| 04:55:01.52 | Joan Cox | I mean, my concern with the pending motion is that I believe that's infeasible financially for the SCA. And so I really liked the mayor's suggestion that we increase the city representation on the SCA board in order to foster this creative problem solving. I'm worried that, you know, different board members currently have different perspectives about opening a coffee shop versus sharing with P P bid or sharing with chamber of commerce. And I, I, I'm, So I really like the increased participation by the city in governance, particularly if the city is going to be defraying some of the investment expense of this property. |
| 04:55:59.60 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:55:59.62 | Steven Woodside | Well, I... Thank you. I mean, I guess I'll make the motion because I want a second, the alternate motion. to match the vice mayor's suggestion of $6,000 a month, taking on major, and have it be a normal triple net lease, so not including extraordinary capital expenses, just interior improvements, plus that we have three board members appointed from the city council, and profit sharing of, is there a percentage you had in mind? |
| 04:56:22.48 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:56:22.52 | Anthony Hay | Thank you. |
| 04:56:30.15 | Joan Cox | 50-50 once they're over a certain threshold. |
| 04:56:31.06 | Steven Woodside | there over a certain threshold. 50-50 percentage of profit sharing over a heart or Well, |
| 04:56:39.65 | Joan Cox | Profit. Profit. This is a nonprofit organization. So right now, you're required to share anything over $15,000 in... Um, event, um, |
| 04:56:54.01 | Dan Christ | Rental income, not a bank. It's rental. Thank you. I'm glad you tried. |
| 04:57:03.31 | Steven Woodside | We can't, we can't, we hang on. We'll sort it out of here. Thank you. If you have a question for anyone, the vice mayor will ask it, but let's just take it one step at a time because this is a aspect of the term. |
| 04:57:20.50 | Joan Cox | here. Landlord's share of third party event rent shall be 50% of the total license fees collected by tenant for all third party events in excess of 15,000 per month. |
| 04:57:34.22 | Steven Woodside | So that's what you're talking about is 50% of event sharing? Okay. So the event brand, yes. |
| 04:57:35.35 | Joan Cox | Yep. Yep. |
| 04:57:41.05 | Joan Cox | I'm retaining paragraph 5.3.2, unchanged. |
| 04:57:46.89 | Steven Woodside | Yes, so retaining that paragraph unchanged, making the rent $6,000 and taking on the capital improvements. And increasing the city governance to three board members is the motion. |
| 04:57:55.57 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 04:57:55.58 | Ian Sobieski | and increasing. |
| 04:57:56.75 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 04:58:00.41 | Ian Sobieski | I would like to, it's not an amendment, it would be direction to staff to Consider a zoning change? I mean, there's some statements made about our volunteers and such, so I don't have to. But I think that should be a dialogue. They've been fired. I think they should be able to look at it. |
| 04:58:09.35 | Steven Woodside | made about |
| 04:58:10.03 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 04:58:10.28 | Steven Woodside | You're absolutely right. you with the I got it. |
| 04:58:17.62 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 04:58:17.66 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Second to that motion. |
| 04:58:21.59 | Sergio Rudin | So just for clarity, this is for staff to negotiate and prepare a lease for approval by the council. At least at the moment. a lease amendment with the proposed terms and additionally to undertake the process of developing a zoning amendment. |
| 04:58:39.97 | Steven Woodside | Well, no, I think that's direction to staff to consider zoning. That's an ongoing direction. That's going to be a separate issue to bring back to us about issues of zoning changes. |
| 04:58:50.28 | Ian Sobieski | May I clarify? I think just simply to open it up and let signal to the SCA folks that the council is open to that. If you'd like to work with staff to pursue some type of change to the zoning, whether it's the uses or a temporary use permit, we encourage that. I think that's all. |
| 04:59:09.88 | Joan Cox | up. Councilmember Cameron may I make the clarification that it not be a competing use with existing downtown uses. So there was concern over an art gallery that competed with Hanson's, a coffee shop that competes with Poggio's. So I would just want to be respectful of not turning this community center into a competitor with other downtown businesses. |
| 04:59:40.04 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah, I think my feedback there would be that that would be a recommendation, but the concern about it was that we didn't want to charge below market rent for another gallery when people were paying full market rent for galleries. And so I would like to just leave it. I support yours in concept and I leave it to to SEA to evaluate those opportunities. And if you come back with something that Seemingly along those lines, you should bring it back anyway and let us talk about it |
| 05:00:08.27 | Steven Woodside | Okay. |
| 05:00:08.69 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 05:00:08.79 | Steven Woodside | So there's a motion on the floor. It's been seconded. We'll have a vote now. All in favor say aye. |
| 05:00:16.29 | Joan Cox | This is the mayor's motion. Aye, with the direction proposed by Councilmember Tillman. |
| 05:00:21.20 | Steven Woodside | with the... Yes, those opposed? |
| 05:00:24.10 | Ian Sobieski | No. Thank you. |
| 05:00:25.40 | Joan Cox | I'm not sure that |
| 05:00:25.97 | Ian Sobieski | was. and I think that's a good thing. |
| 05:00:26.97 | Steven Woodside | So motion carries 3-2. Congratulations. Thanks for sticking with us late into the evening. We have one more business item to knock out. I think we should. |
| 05:00:38.06 | Unknown | I think we should. |
| 05:00:40.81 | Steven Woodside | Mm-hmm. |
| 05:00:45.60 | Steven Woodside | Um, |
| 05:00:50.56 | Ian Sobieski | Mayor, may I respectfully ask that we look to an adjournment? That you can move to adjourn. |
| 05:00:54.15 | Shiva Paktao | Thank you. |
| 05:00:54.17 | Unknown | That you can do. Thank you. comments, please. |
| 05:00:58.22 | Steven Woodside | I'm sorry, we are going to move to the next item. There's going to be a motion to, I think, continue the item. So we're going to listen to public comment on the ordinance of, which I'll read now. The next item is introduction and waiver of first reading of ordinance 5-2024, an ordinance of the city council of the city of Sausalito repealing and replacing chapter 3.30, purchase of supplies, equipment, and services and procedures for public works projects. So we're going to hear that. And then after that, we'll hear public comment for items non-legit. |
| 05:01:38.08 | Joan Cox | I don't think there's going to be much public comment on these items, and we're going to continue it. |
| 05:01:44.02 | Unknown | brush like you all because you found that the guest situation. |
| 05:01:50.03 | Ted Barton | Thank you. |
| 05:01:50.35 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:01:50.82 | Ted Barton | Yeah, take a bow. Thank you. I'm speaking out of turn. Yeah. |
| 05:01:54.74 | Steven Woodside | Yeah, thank you, ma'am. Thank you, ma'am. We need to proceed with our next item. So I take it that the sense of the council, is the sense of the majority of the council that we don't want to hear materially on this item and we'll just have public comment. |
| 05:01:55.39 | Ted Barton | Thank you. |
| 05:02:07.38 | Ian Sobieski | We can continue to work on. |
| 05:02:09.25 | Steven Woodside | Okay, there's a motion to continue item 5C to a future meeting. |
| 05:02:13.04 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:02:13.06 | Tom Anderson | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 05:02:13.31 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 05:02:14.97 | Tom Anderson | Thank you. Thank you. Yes. |
| 05:02:20.74 | Steven Woodside | You made the motion. |
| 05:02:20.76 | Tom Anderson | You made the motion. Thank you. Take care. |
| 05:02:23.93 | Steven Woodside | We could potentially, well, let me just discuss the notion. I'm with you, Vice Mayor, that we could hear this matter expeditiously, I believe. It seems pretty close pro forma. |
| 05:02:33.11 | Tom Anderson | Thank you. Yes. Maybe it doesn't go over. |
| 05:02:40.08 | Steven Woodside | You can say things on the record. There's a motion on the floor. That's been |
| 05:02:43.00 | Jill Hoffman | There's a motion on the floor, let's discuss it. No, I see no reason to hear any further item. It's 1230 at night. We need to see if there's public comment on this item. Yeah, I agree, we have to see if there's public comment, agree, but then I think we can return. |
| 05:02:50.64 | Joan Cox | Yeah, I agree. |
| 05:02:53.48 | Steven Woodside | Is there any public comment on item 5C, the waiver and first reading of ordinance 524? |
| 05:02:59.77 | Walfred Solorzano | Yeah, we do ever get online. But... |
| 05:03:09.58 | Eva | Thank you. I'm actually waiting for a non-agenda public comment. Any other public comment? |
| 05:03:14.44 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. All right, there's a motion to continue it. It's been seconded. Just wanna make sure. So we do wanna hear it. Okay, aye. So we'll unanimously. |
| 05:03:21.91 | Joan Cox | I know. |
| 05:03:25.76 | Joan Cox | I didn't hear you say all in favor. |
| 05:03:26.11 | Steven Woodside | All in favor? Aye. Sorry, I thought I did. Opposed? Okay. It is passed unanimously. Item six is communication for items not on the agenda. If anyone wishes to comment on items not on the agenda, this is your moment to do so. |
| 05:03:28.06 | Joan Cox | I. |
| 05:03:45.72 | Niels Carlsen | Right. |
| 05:03:47.98 | Steven Woodside | He's Miss McDougall and Eva Cresante. Why don't you go ahead? Ava, go ahead. |
| 05:04:00.13 | Eva | Thank you. Can you hear me okay? |
| 05:04:02.31 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 05:04:03.90 | Eva | You can? |
| 05:04:05.04 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 05:04:05.87 | Eva | Okay, thanks so much. Yeah, I just wanted to bring to your attention that last Thursday, three physicians who had recently returned from Gaza gave a Senate briefing, and I'm happy to provide the recording of that to you, it was, it was, uh, it was pretty disturbing stuff. And I, I think everybody heard about the, uh, essentially the terrorist attack that Israel launched today in Lebanon. with I think close to 10 killed. And this was done using pagers. It was yet another attack, apparently, on hospital workers who use pagers. And so I do have some questions. |
| 05:04:56.53 | Ian Sobieski | I do have some questions. This is not within our jurisdiction. And so we know. |
| 05:04:59.99 | Eva | No, no, no. But I do have some questions. I'm leaning up to that, Ms. Kelman. I do have some questions because through a series of CPRAs, I found that Melissa Blaustein, had taken a trip to Israel paid for by the JCRC does not appear like many of the other trips to have been disclosed. Now, there is a problem with how it was reported on her Form 700, And it appears that gifts over $590 in her trip was approximately 10 times that amount. They should not there. There's a strict series of regulations with the FPPC, and that may be out of compliance. I've reached out to Miss Blaustein several times and she has not responded to me. And thus, I am obliged to bring the matter forward to council in an attempt to get an answer about it. But on a larger level, there's an enormous amount of tax money that's going. |
| 05:06:08.64 | Steven Woodside | His name is McDougal. |
| 05:06:16.13 | Walfred Solorzano | Oh, let me put it at one. |
| 05:06:19.39 | Babette McDougall | Well, that was an interesting one to follow. Thank you. You know, this has been a very frustrating council meeting. Here we are coming up on an election, and you would think that after your first four-year terms, and I'm addressing myself to the two neophytes on the councils, that maybe by now you'd get some traction instead of it becoming more chaotic as it is in fact becoming. So what we are faced with, I thought it was fascinating that you would say that you are a fiduciary agent and you're trying to be, absolutely on top of fiscal oversight, and yet here we are in a deficit. And here is yet another situation barely into the fiscal cycle that was never planned on your budget, like previous issues like the PBID. It should have been on your budget for the year, but it wasn't. So here we are looking at expenditures above and beyond a budget that is already in a deficit. Now, how long are we going to pretend that we have more money than in fact we have to spend? Nobody likes being a Grinch. That's for sure. I don't enjoy standing up here and having to stand. in contradiction to my neighbors, I love that Center for the Arts too, but we have to be realistic about our finances. Mr. Mayor, I don't know. |
| 05:07:36.46 | Joan Cox | Mr. Mayor, a point of order. This is a comment on the SCA, which is an item on the agenda. This is the opportunity to comment on the agenda. |
| 05:07:41.90 | Babette McDougall | Excuse me, it's a public comment, and I'm using it as one example of fiscal irresponsibility. And I think the only way we're going to get through this problem is... is to realize that this three-member voting bloc that never moves except in lockstep never thinks independently of you each. You come in with your deals already made. This is not the way it's supposed to be in this council chambers. There may be another place for you, but this is not it. And I think if we can get people on the council with more direct experience, then the city itself will stand to benefit from it. And I'm just disappointed because I had great hope that it would be better. |
| 05:08:21.80 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Next person. We've got to send you. Thank you. |
| 05:08:23.69 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Thank you for your comment, Ms. McDougall. Sunshine? Yes, now is the time. Welcome. |
| 05:08:34.32 | Unknown | Actually, I was hoping that they all would be in here to hear this too, because I, Contrary to what was just said, I was so impressed that you were able to find the yes within a difficult situation that had a lot of no in it. and my daughter lives in Croatia. And she taught me a new saying. and it's called Odom Podom. And that means everything happens in its time. So there are no mistakes. You all did great at going deep within yourselves and coming up to a solution. And these people were wonderful. in the way they brought their comments, because they were not, they were really supportive of you and of their And so, things. So, I'm just, you know... when everything happens in its right time, I just looked at the clock and Is it really supposed to be 1230 that I give my public comment? Okay. Thank you all. I appreciate that you pulled it all out. And you really made a very positive impact on me. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 05:09:52.40 | Steven Woodside | Thank you, man. |
| 05:09:53.88 | Walfred Solorzano | No further public comment? |
| 05:09:54.86 | Steven Woodside | So we are now going to city manager report. Any report for us? Not tonight, Mayor. All right. Any reports for our committees? We have to take any future agenda items. Any public comments on any of the- |
| 05:10:12.35 | Joan Cox | I would like us to consider the whole audit of the red zones and white zones in Sausalito. It may be a distant priority given our budget constraints, but I'd like to include that for consideration. |
| 05:10:26.05 | Steven Woodside | So future agenda item audit of renegade red zones. there's now an opportunity for public comment on the, everything you just heard. Is there any public comment on those things? Mr. City Manager, anything? City Clerk, nothing? No. All right. Well, then, thanks for everyone's forbearance. I will adjourn this meeting. Enjoy the rest of the weekend and the chili cook-off. See you there. |
Babette McDougall — Neutral: Glad the work was done and suggested considering cobblestones for steep inclines in future projects for better traction and neighborhood charm. ▶ 📄