| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:07.71 | Steven Woodside | Okay, welcome everyone. This is our first full meeting of the new year. So happy new year to all of you. We're looking forward to a great new year. We've just come out of closed session and there's really nothing to announce or report out at this point with respect to our closed session. But we're now to reconvene in our regular agenda and we'll start with the Pledge of Allegiance. |
| 00:00:36.06 | Babette McDougall | Congratulations. |
| 00:00:36.90 | Melissa Blaustein | to apply to the United States of America. |
| 00:00:36.92 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. |
| 00:00:36.97 | Jill Hoffman | Bye. Right. |
| 00:00:40.11 | Melissa Blaustein | and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice. |
| 00:00:43.01 | Sunshine | one nation under God, indivisible. with liberty and justice for all. |
| 00:00:55.53 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Mr. Clerk, would you do the roll call? |
| 00:00:55.80 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:59.38 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes, Councilmember Cox. |
| 00:01:02.65 | Melissa Blaustein | Here. |
| 00:01:02.96 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 00:01:03.60 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 00:01:05.51 | Ian Sobieski | Here. |
| 00:01:06.13 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Sobieski. |
| 00:01:08.88 | Ian Sobieski | Here. Thank you. |
| 00:01:10.72 | Walfred Solorzano | Vice Mayor Blaustein. |
| 00:01:12.12 | Ian Sobieski | Here. |
| 00:01:12.75 | Steven Woodside | Mayor Woodside. Here. And since Councilmember Sobieski is attending remotely, we need approval for his remote participation as indicated on the agenda. |
| 00:01:23.33 | Jill Hoffman | I think city attorney, I think it's properly noticed on the agenda. Their address is it or is it? |
| 00:01:32.25 | Steven Woodside | It is noticed. |
| 00:01:33.97 | Sergio Rudin | Correct. I believe Councilmember Sobieski is participating under the traditional Brown Act rules, and therefore that does not require a vote of the Council to approve. |
| 00:01:42.26 | Steven Woodside | Okay, thank you very much. Now we do have an agenda to approve but before doing that there's one item that has come up recently very recently, and we would like to discuss the possibility of adding it to the agenda. Under the Brown Act we're not able to take action on items that are not on our posted agenda. However, there are exceptions, a narrow exception, when the matter is urgent and has arose subsequent to the posting of the agenda. And what I'm referring to here, of course, are the recent high tides and emergency developments very recently since the agenda was posted in actually December 23rd. So for us to go forward with this and add it to the agenda, two conditions must be met. It needs immediate attention and cannot reasonably wait until the next scheduled city council meeting or special meeting. And that we discovered the need for the action subsequent to the posting of the agenda. So we would need to vote on that by a two thirds vote, which in our case means four votes, that these conditions exist, and then we can take it up on our agenda. So I'm asking that we do take those actions and make those findings and request a motion to that effect. So moved. Second. Thank you. Would you call the roll? Thank you. |
| 00:03:09.30 | Walfred Solorzano | Yeah. Council member, sorry. Councilmember Cox. |
| 00:03:13.67 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes. |
| 00:03:13.97 | Arthur Giovara | . |
| 00:03:14.04 | Walfred Solorzano | . Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 00:03:15.56 | Arthur Giovara | Yes. |
| 00:03:15.87 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Sobieski. Thank you. |
| 00:03:17.65 | Arthur Giovara | Yeah. |
| 00:03:17.87 | Walfred Solorzano | you Vice Mayor Blaustein? Yes. And Mayor Woodside? |
| 00:03:19.87 | Arthur Giovara | Yeah. |
| 00:03:22.31 | Steven Woodside | Yes. So this this item will concern our response to flooding on Gate 5 Road. And we'll hear from the city manager on that shortly. So thank you. |
| 00:03:40.69 | Steven Woodside | Very shortly, in fact. The next item on our agenda is a report from the city manager. Item 1A, which is on the posted agenda, and then what we've just added is now item 1B, which is with respect to gate 5 flooding. Mr. City Manager, thank you. |
| 00:03:56.60 | Chris Zapata | Yeah. Thank you, Mayor, members of the council, members of the public. I'd want to note to the community that this is a change to the agenda that was implemented this calendar year, which is to take the city manager reports from the end of the meeting and bring them front to the front of the meeting, which is helpful, I believe, because it gives me an opportunity to not speak in a rush. So there are a couple of things on the city manager's report that I want to talk to before I get to the flooding events. One is there is a request that was made at a prior council meeting for the city manager to identify all the spending approved by the city manager for the city. That report is attached in the packet. It goes back to 2022. It talks about some of the activities that were supported with my signature but certainly with city council support not necessarily approval those included things like supporting juneteenth on separate occasions the art projects at the north end of the community, the poetry display that happened during Juneteenth, as well as the SNAP program contribution that was made late last year. So that's in there as a report. And then I also will take the opportunity to tell you that not only did we have floods this weekend, we had fire. and in that fire that happened on Josephine Street, we're working with everybody in that vicinity. We have red tagged the building, but we're working toward something less restrictive and working with the people that are there to ensure that they are not displaced for any uncomfortable amount of time. So that's happening in our community development department. I really want to thank you all for your attention to the events of this past weekend. Besides fires, there was significant flooding. I want to give you a before, during and after synopsis of what it is that we encountered. Obviously, king tides happen in Sausalito on a regular basis. Weather events happen in Sausalito on a regular basis. But the confluence of the two this past weekend was a little rare. So it created tremendous challenges and problems for the people that live there, or pardon me, I a visit there and I really want to thank the property owners for their perseverance because they have they've been persevering through these things for cycles and cycles of this going back 50 years ago I want to thank our staff for their efforts on that weekend our city council members who went out and slogged through the water, our fire and utility district partners who were responsive as well. But again, going back to the occurrence, the confluence of record king tides and heavy river, atmospheric river rainfall really created a situation that was beyond our capability to manage as we might in a normal circumstance. So again, it was not a normal event. It was not a normal response. We had some indication that before the weekend that there was going to be a challenge. So to address that, we did a number of things. Number one, our staff went out and met with some of the property owners to get their ideas about what might be helpful in this event that we knew was coming. One of the suggestions was that we purchase rent a pump to move the water out at certain points. That was good advice. We did do that. We installed that pump. It worked for a short time. You know, we wanted to make sure that our community knew that this was going to occur. So we put out an advance notice in our current newsletter advising people that these conditions were coming, that there were sandbags that we would be at the ready and still. adding workforce to the weekend. We staffed up for the weekend so that we would have people assisting. But even so, all of that was not enough. We also worked with our partners at the county. We notified them through our emergency management system. And so all things were in front of us and doing what we could to deal with the problems that we face. But it wasn't enough. Simple as that. We need to do better. We need to do more. And some of the ways we can do better and do more is by communications. Our communications could be more robust. And so we're working with the fire district right now to merge our two lists of property owners and business owners so that in an event that's upcoming and we know one's coming in another month we'll have a list of people that we can have direct contact with thank you vice mayor blasting for that suggestion so we will do that the council or the fire district is at the ready to help us do that and do better notification we'll provide more more sandbags. We ran out of sandbags. So that's important that the public have access to those. And we're going to look at additional pumping resources because the pumps did work to a point. The pump, the one singular pump did work to a point. But, you know, maybe with some added capacity, it might do a better job, but there are some physical limitations in that area because of the construction of that terrain. We want to make sure that we start talking with the property owners in the coming weeks about formation of an enhanced infrastructure improvement district. That's something that's been brought up by the city council, in particular, then Mayor Cox last year, that that would be a way to bring resources to this area, local resources that might help us do better. I think longer term, I don't want it to be forgotten that this past two years ago, we applied for a grant from the Economic Development Administration for a drainage assessment of that area, Gate 5 Road. We were successful. Katie Tho Garcia worked with then Mayor Kelman and Vice Mayor. for a drainage assessment of that area, Gate 5 Road. We were successful. Katie Tho Garcia worked with then Mayor Kelman and Vice Mayor Blaustein to achieve that money, $600,000. That contract has been approved by the City Council. That work is happening as we speak. So that drainage assessment plan will be done by the end of, I'm guessing, Katie, tell me, July or August. Yes. And so what will happen then is, you know, that will be the template for the scale of the problem. And the scale of the problem is huge. It's beyond an infrastructure financing district. So one of the things that we're recommending that the council consider, as well as the formation of a district with local participation and local support, is that we have some type of lobbying effort in partnership with Marin County, because they're affected by this as well, to go to the state at Sacramento, go to D.C. and say, you know, this is something that's a continuous problems. We're willing to put some local resources into it, but it's beyond Sausalito's capacity to do that. It's probably even beyond Marin County's capacity to do that. So there's a challenge here. There is really more work to be done that we can do better. We did a lot of work. I obviously was overwhelmed by the natural occurrence of the storm and the king tide so I am really really Grateful to the community for again their patience. So this has been ongoing It's not new it will happen again, and so we just have to get better at doing what we do I was asked a question by councilmember Hoffman to clarify the the ownership of this area and the boundaries of this area. And I think that's a good question. So, Deidre, can you pull that slide up? Kevin, Kevin, can you walk through it? because I think it's important for people to understand that Gate 5 Road, Gate 6, those are convoluted property ownership areas. Yeah. I want to show the community what it is that we are looking at to try to help. |
| 00:12:28.52 | Chris Zapata | Well, Kevin, maybe you can verbalize the ownership that you know about Gate 5 Road to Heath |
| 00:12:39.20 | Kevin McGowan | that the five room is not necessarily all city right. It has a proportion of the room |
| 00:12:50.90 | Kevin McGowan | How's that? Thank you. |
| 00:12:52.03 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:12:52.82 | Kevin McGowan | Try again. Happy New Year. Sorry about that. So Gate 5 Road is not necessarily all city right of way. A portion of Gate 5 Road is city right of way with its full width. There we go. And next slide, please. |
| 00:13:13.49 | Kevin McGowan | Okay, we can go to the next one too, since we're already talking about it. So just off of the assessor's parcel map, and this is looking at Gate 5 Road with Harbor on the right-hand side. All the red area is public right-of-way. However, the blue area on one side is not owned by the city, but there is an easement across that portion of Gate 5 Road for access and a roadway and utility access. Next slide, please. even moving closer towards going north from that area towards Coloma. Similarly, the red area on Coloma is a public road, and then it splits as it gets toward the end where there is a roadway and utility easement, and then it splits the road in half. The further portion of Gate 5 Road is not a public road at this point. At least we do not maintain it. Next slide. A couple of different pictures. We have a drainage outfall right at the end of Coloma Street. We call it a canal. I'm not too sure if that's correct or not, but that's an important piece of drainage infrastructure. And we are in public works. We're asking for a structural engineer to evaluate that because it's been there since 1981 and it needs to be reevaluated. Next slide. And again, it goes straight out to the bay. Next slide, please. And I think that's about it. You can see we did try a little test project out there. The picture on the upper right-hand corner is a little looks like a blue box. Well, that is the little pump station. It's about a four inch pump. It worked fairly well until we got to a 6.1 tide. After that point, we have drainage water coming down the hill as well as a 6.1 tide. We couldn't do anything with it. Everything just kind of went over the side, filled up the whole road. We have to reevaluate that. This was a good test. Even though it failed, this is a good test because on a moderate tide, we think we can utilize a mechanical system like a pump in order to keep gate five dry. And we have to rethink what to do when we get these higher tides and a higher precipitation in the area. So that's it for my slides. Thank you. |
| 00:15:29.95 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. |
| 00:15:29.96 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:15:33.05 | Chris Zapata | That concludes my report. Unless you have questions. |
| 00:15:36.80 | Steven Woodside | Well, thank you very much. This is a special presentation, but on an urgent basis. Normally, we don't take public comment or questions, but if council members would like to ask a question or follow up, please do. |
| 00:15:48.74 | Unknown | JOHNSON. Thank you. |
| 00:15:50.62 | Steven Woodside | don't. Thank you. |
| 00:15:51.44 | Melissa Blaustein | Thanks. You know, you did describe the perfect storm, an atmospheric river combined with the highest king tides we've had since 1988. How often can we expect to see conditions that exceed the six and a half foot capacity of the pump? solution that was piloted over this weekend. |
| 00:16:19.44 | Kevin McGowan | How often can be a trick question because we're monitoring the tides and things do change. However, to generally get the king tides in the late fall and in the wintertime like we do on January 1st. We're keeping an eye on this. Our next high tide. |
| 00:16:24.55 | Unknown | However, really good. |
| 00:16:42.37 | Unknown | Well, they may remain. |
| 00:16:45.71 | Kevin McGowan | we'll do our best to see if we can utilize a pump system again, making some modifications again, no guarantees, but a lot of the residents are property owners in this area. I've had to handle this in the past and they have some great ideas. So we want to work with them closely to see if they've got some better ideas, how to address it, What do we do? We're not going to solve this by ourselves. We need everybody's help. |
| 00:17:11.24 | Steven Woodside | Um, |
| 00:17:11.57 | Kevin McGowan | Thank you. |
| 00:17:12.21 | Steven Woodside | Mr. Sobieski, I see your hand raised. |
| 00:17:15.16 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah, I just, can you hear me? I just wanted to speak up. |
| 00:17:17.76 | Steven Woodside | Speak up, please. |
| 00:17:19.68 | Ian Sobieski | I want to congratulate you, Director McGowan, for this test. Indeed, even if it stopped working, Thank you. Great initiative and really promising. first step towards maybe a solution for what is a a regular problem in that area. and maybe a harbinger for a more permanent solution The city manager mentioned that you're going to be looking at expanding it. So I'm wondering if you could just say a word or two. about the next King tide that's forecast in 30 days or so. I know it won't be as high, but will you have additional pumps? Will they have higher capacity? Will there be a backup generator? what is your current thinking? |
| 00:17:57.08 | Kevin McGowan | So thank you, council member. I know that you're kind of diving into the details. And right now I haven't thought that far in advance, but, um, I think the approach would be to do our best to isolate the tidal water coming back in to this area. We tried this by building up a small little box. It's a box around the outside of one of the catch basins. But most of the tide will back up into Coloma Street. We'll need to look at that to see if we need to put more sandbags down there. to try to isolate things. Haven't thought it all the way through yet. And, um, I'll include our city manager and others as we get some better ideas. But the idea is to, yes, put another pump down there. |
| 00:18:39.05 | Ian Sobieski | If you're willing before the next Kingtide, it might be cool to get a report to the City Council about what's planned just so you can see how it works and pay attention. Thank you. Sounds good. |
| 00:18:48.19 | Steven Woodside | Okay. Vice mayor. |
| 00:18:50.76 | Joan Cox | Thank you for including this emergency item and for this report. And huge thank you to Pat Salasco, who spent a long time on the phone with me this weekend answering some questions. And also I know did a lot of work. And similarly, Southern Marine Fire did a lot of response work, as did our PDE during the flooding. So big thank you to everyone involved. I have some not so fun questions that I feel like I have to ask. I know for a fact that obviously many of us experienced the road closures and the difficulties of advancing. And yet many of us who are signed up for alert Marin did not receive an alert Marin text message about the flooding or about the road closures. What was our conversation or discussion with Marin's EOC and sorry, Emergency Operations Center. I will not use jargon. What was our discussion or coordination with Emergency Operations Center? And do we know why an alert Marin text wasn't sent to Sausalito residents or to folks who might be driving on the 101, for example? |
| 00:19:52.65 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. Michael here? |
| 00:19:57.24 | Joan Cox | Hi, Michael. Thank you for your report this weekend. I appreciate it. |
| 00:20:01.58 | Mike McKinley | you |
| 00:20:01.84 | Unknown | Welcome. |
| 00:20:05.58 | Mike McKinley | I thank you Mike McKinley, emergency services coordinator. The first thing we did to contact the Office of Emergency Services would get a WebEOC event started. And we started that at 1100 on Friday. And we started monitoring It was sort of a one way conversation. I talked to the duty officer. I asked questions about some power outages because I was in the field, so I didn't have access. So I was depending a lot on the duty officer giving me some feedback. I can't answer your question about Alert Marin. I thought that Alert Marin messages would have gone out. And yes. Yeah, but essentially what we were pushing was situational status reports, you know, the areas that were impacted. the need for resource or mutual aid, which we never got to. FIRE did a great job. They set up a, we own duty battalion chief, set up a text messaging network. So we had good comms through the event with all the different agencies. Again, relatively one way with the county. If that answers your question. |
| 00:21:18.89 | Joan Cox | that. Yeah, that does. And do you know what it would take for Southern Marin Fire or for Sausalito's EOC to be able to send a message through Alert Marin since we were advised to not use Nixle anymore? |
| 00:21:30.09 | Mike McKinley | Yes, we can absolutely to the duty officer. We could have done that. If we were aware of it, there's a process to call the duty officer. The duty officer would go ahead and get it in the system and get it out to you know, geo fence it or however whoever we wanted to get it to absolutely |
| 00:21:46.21 | Joan Cox | And going forward, Knowing that in order for us to be able to receive, for example, FEMA funding or other resources based upon emergency declaration, what's the status of an emergency declaration for the flooding? |
| 00:21:57.92 | Mike McKinley | At this stage, Deputy Chief Matt Barnes researched that. We were waiting for the other jurisdictions to see whether or not we hit the threshold in total for the county, and I believe that's still being determined. |
| 00:22:13.14 | Joan Cox | What is the threshold in total for the county? I'm sorry. It's okay. That's okay. I mean, |
| 00:22:17.31 | Mike McKinley | Yeah, it's. |
| 00:22:18.89 | Joan Cox | you |
| 00:22:19.01 | Mike McKinley | . Yeah, it's a very high figure. |
| 00:22:20.83 | Joan Cox | Because I recall in 2023, when I was mayor, we did declare an emergency, but the rainfall was heavier, but the tides were about, were less. So it's just... |
| 00:22:30.42 | Unknown | See you. |
| 00:22:30.49 | Mike McKinley | Yeah. |
| 00:22:30.52 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:22:31.63 | Joan Cox | I would love to see us going forward have a path for that, |
| 00:22:34.91 | Mike McKinley | Yeah, I'm waiting for an after action review or some other feedback. I think. Thank you. Frankly, my feeling is the county is very busy trying to put it all together. Right. |
| 00:22:47.35 | Joan Cox | Yeah. Okay, I really appreciate that. And then going forward... Uh, City Manager, I had asked about having an ongoing list of Gate 5 residents. But in terms of other immediate steps, because I understand and appreciate the preparation going and hard work going into our pipeline assessment and knowing that in June or July we'll have more information, but I'm also acutely aware that in February we'll have another King tide event. So what are some of the immediate short term solutions that we can institute now for, Gate five road. I was, I mean, you can tell me, but like, for example, I know you and I spoke about a flood hotline, making sure residents have dry vacs in advance, maybe perhaps having additional pumps, What's our immediate short term? Action. |
| 00:23:35.24 | Chris Zapata | Yeah, everything's on the table. So what we will do is we're summarizing all the things that we know. And then what we will then do, come back to you with a plan. We know that we have an event scheduled. And so what that plan will be and what that will include, I'd hate to start to list stuff off tonight and leave something out. But we will have a plan together. We will provide enhanced communication to the people in that area. We will make sure that there is some type of phone tree for elected officials so that they have an ability to get a hold of the right people at the right time. But, you know, I can tell you, I'm not an engineer. And I do know that, you know, we can make some suggestions, but the actual implementation will need to be vetted by professionals. And I would say that as it relates to stuff to control the water, that's not in my bailiwick, but in terms of communication, we will do better. Could we? |
| 00:24:35.48 | Joan Cox | Could we direct staff to have a clear after action report that we can review on consent at our next agenda meeting just so that we know going into the next King Tides? |
| 00:24:45.57 | Steven Woodside | I think it falls to you and I to put something on the agenda and discuss it with the city manager and staff, and we'll do so. |
| 00:24:45.72 | Joan Cox | I think it falls. |
| 00:24:51.80 | Steven Woodside | Okay. |
| 00:24:53.11 | Joan Cox | Thank you to everyone who spent time responding this weekend. I really appreciate, I don't want to discredit the efforts of staff, just being aware of the feedback we've received. |
| 00:25:02.88 | Steven Woodside | Any further questions? Just one additional comment in discussing actually yesterday with Katie Tho Garcia. She said that the projections are that in the year 2050, King Tides will not just be a winter event, but could be a monthly event. |
| 00:25:11.86 | Unknown | Thank you. I'm not sure. |
| 00:25:21.16 | Steven Woodside | Now that's a projection. It's a fairly conservative one, as I understand it, and we need to be prepared. And the sooner we can have these kind of information flows and consider our alternatives, the better off we'll be. So thank you, city manager and all the staff for what you did. It was a tough thing to deal with. The hours involved were significant. And I'm also grateful to those in the audience who've had the patience to wait. I know there's public comment coming shortly, but this we thought was very important to get out to the public. The more information, the better, so that we can all be better prepared next time it comes. So thank you. We now are going to turn to communications for matters that are not on our agenda. I have a couple of cards here, and I'll call them. But first, I just want to make sure everyone understands that . These public communications are to address matters that are not on our agenda, but within our jurisdiction to perhaps act on at some future date. And we really can't spend time asking questions and having lengthy discussions. We apologize for that, but under the Brown Act, In fairness to the rest of the community, it needs to be on the agenda before we can have an extended discussion. It's only when there's an emergency and a finding of urgency that we can do otherwise. So with that, I do have two speaker cards. I'll just take them in the order. Arthur Giovara. Arthur, thank you for being here, and it'll be followed by Fred Moore. |
| 00:27:04.42 | Arthur Giovara | Thank you. I'm here, uh, My name is Art Geovar and I own 599 Bridgeway. I'm here to object to the changing of the way height is made is measured in the cc district it's counterproductive punishes property owners. and restricts building uh, or upgrading in a CC district. that is already impossible to build with an F-A-R- Floor area ratio of 1.3. So you have right now 32 feet. |
| 00:27:54.30 | Arthur Giovara | and three stories, accommodate three stories, but you restrict it already with the, floor area ratio of 1.3. So if you build on the first floor, you're allowed 0.3 to build housing. which is ridiculous. So it's already restricted. I also wanted—this decision seems to be made—it was made by an ad hoc committee And I'm wondering whether any property owners that we're, in the CC district that were brought in to make comments on this. I believe... Uh, Michael Rex and Sophia Sophia were on this, and I think the mayor was. you know, Mayor was on it. I don't know who else was on it. But. I think that property owners you know, should be in the CC district. should have been allowed to make a comment on this. Uh, South Salido CC Dresdick, is already plagued with vagancies. |
| 00:29:09.28 | Steven Woodside | them through. Well, thank you for your comments. And we do listen and hear, and we try to refer these things to the appropriate staff to get feedback and to involve you further. So we've got your contact information. Thank you very much. |
| 00:29:23.21 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 00:29:23.27 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Uh, Fred Moore. followed by Curtis Havel. |
| 00:29:29.66 | Fred Moore | Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. Happy New Year. I just wanted to say, which you don't hear enough probably, that we really appreciate all the time and effort that you put into helping the city and navigate through the various challenges. You've spent a tremendous amount of time and effort, and I really appreciate the dedication that you have shown throughout the year. So thank you very much. On a side note, I recently saw a order to show cause for dismissal regarding a lawsuit that's involved the city of Sausalito and the prop and the project that was approved known as the pocket. As you recall, the pocket had overwhelming. And I want to emphasize overwhelming residential support for a resident support for that project as submitted with the restaurant, the three motel rooms and the upstory deck. I hope that motion for odor show cause for dismissal more likely than not, it includes a settlement agreement. I hope that you don't sign a settlement agreement that includes a confidentiality provision, but rather you allow that settlement agreement to be posted on the city website so that the overwhelming support for that project, the residents can look at the settlement agreement and see what the outcome was. I'm getting a lot of questions about what's happening with that project when it's going forward and so the ability to see that settlement agreement will help the residents understand what's going on thank you very much for considering that |
| 00:30:56.42 | Steven Woodside | Thank you, Mr. Moore. Curtis Havill. |
| 00:31:02.68 | Curtis Havel | Good evening and happy new year, city council. I wanted to be here tonight for this part to let you know what happened at Clipper over the weekend. I know, but is that okay? I know there's this emergency item |
| 00:31:15.38 | Steven Woodside | It's quite okay. |
| 00:31:16.11 | Curtis Havel | Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. So quick update on New Year's Eve. I got a letter from one of our tenants, Club Nautique, who's a sailing school. They have 24 slips in the marina. They declared bankruptcy. So they're done, their doors are closed. This in and of itself is an existential threat because that's how people learn how to boat. They build community at that place. We still have Modern Sailing School in Sausalito, and we're in conversations with them, and we're actually talking to a lot of people. So Friday morning, I came to work ready to hit the ground running. And as I ran through the puddle in the parking lot, I realized, oh my God, look at the tide. The tides started breaching all the defenses that we had. So everything that we've done, which is considerable, water was coming in. Fortunately, we only had three businesses fled. We had, uh, a little bit of water in Jeff Brown yachts. And then two of our artist studios, unfortunately got flooded pretty heavily. The last couple of days, the entire weekend has been a mad rush to dry out, fix, repair, and we're actually collecting right now. Our crew is trying to figure out cost estimates of how much this is going to cost. We're going to provide that information to Chief Barnes just because to build on Mr. McKinley's point, you know, I think people are trying to get a number associated with the damage that was done. The water, the way it moved, we're still scratching our heads we're making plans to address it in the future you know at least at clipper but uh gate five road harbor drive underwater um and it was it was shocking anyways just wanted to give you an update on what's happening |
| 00:33:02.79 | Steven Woodside | Thank you very much. I have no more cards. Is there anyone online who wishes to make public comment? |
| 00:33:03.23 | Curtis Havel | Bye. |
| 00:33:08.83 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes, we'll start with Babette McDougall. |
| 00:33:16.19 | Babette McDougall | Well, gosh, what an honor to be here. |
| 00:33:17.37 | Steven Woodside | You may proceed. |
| 00:33:18.98 | Babette McDougall | Can you hear me all right? |
| 00:33:21.00 | Steven Woodside | Why? |
| 00:33:22.30 | Babette McDougall | Why? going. Can you hear me? Hello? |
| 00:33:26.27 | Steven Woodside | THE END OF THE END OF THE period. |
| 00:33:28.16 | Babette McDougall | Sorry? |
| 00:33:29.10 | Steven Woodside | We can now hear you. |
| 00:33:30.25 | Babette McDougall | Oh, hooray. Thank you. Well, it's a real honor to be the first one up. Of course, I too was quite impressed, amazed, and even traumatized by how the weekend unfolded for us all. And it causes me to take just a slightly different spin on what we're talking about. We're talking about the human being. cost, I'd like to remind us that we live on Richardson's Bay, which is a saltwater body connected to the rest of all the other saltwater around the Bay Area, including under the Golden Gate Bridge. And I just wonder how many people wonder what happened at the Marine Mammal Center this last weekend. We're not the only mammals that rely on this water body. Don't remember. We just tend to forget that we are not alone here. And I just want to ask you guys to, as we think about how we're going to tame this water going forward, because it really is a matter of taming. That's what it is. give and take among nature and man. And we will continue. But in that vein, I think we have to remember these little critters, fellow mammals, right? that really can't do it without our help, especially lately. because we have such an influx of pollutants, we have such an influx of machinery and other mechanical issues, So I just want to ask you to be gentle. as you think about our future. It is not just human-based, and I would invite you to think about for example, the Marine Mammal Center and what they had to go through this past weekend. We are not alone in this crisis. Let's just remember everyone. And with that, I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you. |
| 00:35:01.41 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Any further online comments? |
| 00:35:05.24 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes, we have sunshine. |
| 00:35:12.63 | Steven Woodside | Sunshine, we can't hear you yet. |
| 00:35:15.38 | Walfred Solorzano | Are you going to mute yourself? |
| 00:35:23.99 | Walfred Solorzano | Sunshine, if you can press the unmute button. |
| 00:35:30.36 | Sunshine | Let's see. Okay, now can you hear me? |
| 00:35:33.77 | Steven Woodside | We can hear you. Yes, you may proceed. |
| 00:35:34.97 | Sunshine | Okay. It wouldn't let me do that. Hello and Happy New Year. And I'm still here. I just want you to know that within the next week, I will be celebrating my one year removal from my housing that I had across from where you're meeting now. and I still have not found a place to live. Of my own. So that's all I want to say about that. And what I came in today to find out, what does it mean? with public speaking, that you can only speak within the counsel's jurisdiction. And I would like to say that some of us are not lawyers and we don't have that type of legal background. And would it be possible on the agenda or somewhere to, define what that means. that when you give public comment that it should be within the jurisdiction. So that's number one. Number two is a few months ago, many months ago, I suggested that copies of the agenda be left at the library. so that those of us that don't have computers or can't come in at the hours when your office is open, that we can go into the library and there'll be a copy of the agenda. Or if they're running out, they'll make extra copies when they have time. The other thing is I was sitting out in the hall contemplating all of this, and I saw almost two really bad collisions with doors that open out into the hallway with people walking by. And I would love to suggest either a light, little light to pop on or a bell to ring or something before someone opens the door and crashes into somebody. And those are my only solutions that I'd like to offer for tonight. And I hope that all goes well this year for you. Thank you. |
| 00:37:27.58 | Steven Woodside | Thank you very much, and just for the general information for you and others, we do have copies of the agenda posted outside at the at the front or the southern entrance to the to the building. And we have them posted elsewhere, Mr city manager. |
| 00:37:45.85 | Chris Zapata | At the west door and the southern entrance as well. Okay. Okay. |
| 00:37:50.93 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:37:50.98 | Steven Woodside | Right. |
| 00:37:51.05 | Walfred Solorzano | And as I mentioned to Ms. Sunshine, the library or City Hall staff would be more than glad to print out a copy like we did today. Thank you. |
| 00:38:00.10 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Okay, any further comments online? |
| 00:38:04.13 | Walfred Solorzano | Learn a new one. |
| 00:38:10.44 | Lorna Nealon | Greetings, City Council, City Manager. I want to thank you for, I think that's a... appropriate and smart thing to have the city manager have his meeting has hit have his report first that way especially when there's more people in the room. I'm at home tonight, but not everybody will stay on till 10 o'clock at night. So that's that's great to hear all that and hear about the safety of what you've done with the flood tides. But my public comment has to do with the Coloma safety zone. And a few months ago, then Mayor Cox requested Director McGowan to specifically contact me, Lorna Newland, about my concerns about the crosswalk. And at the last meeting, she requested Director McGowan to have a meeting with concerned residents, tenants, et cetera. And none of this has happened yet, but I have the feeling maybe because of the holidays. Um, Then. The thing I have, there were a lot of public comments at the last meeting about the flashing lights. And as I spoke, it's not just about school children. I can view out my window, all the traffic that's going across Columbus Street. And I can actually, from my workstation, I view cars turning from Bridgeway going up Coloma. And I can predict anybody who's speeding. I do appreciate that speed limit sign was on there going westbound on Coloma. But as Mayor Cox reported, it was an eastbound Coloma where that car was speeding and upended. And I saw the results of that shortly thereafter it happened. There's also a lot, I have more to say, but right now there are so many potholes on Coloma Street. And I looked at all the street resurfacing reports. I don't see any report about or project for Coloma Street to be resurfaced and fixed, and I would appreciate that. Thank you. |
| 00:40:16.11 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Any further public comments? |
| 00:40:18.98 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes, we have Jack Burrows, if you can unmute yourself. |
| 00:40:23.01 | Jack Burrows | I think I've unmuted myself. City Council, happy 2026. And I just want to jump on to what Lorna was saying and tie this into the topic at hand that came up with the king tides and the flooding recently. Um, I believe it was Sunday. I was trying to exit Sausalito from my house on Coloma Street. and was unable to do so because Highway 101 North was completely flooded. I had a kayaker come at me in my car, which was the first for me. It was quite unique. in that way. So I, realizing I couldn't exit Sausalito in the direction that I was wanting to, I decided to cancel plans for that day and come home. Was driving down Coloma Street, to get back to my residence. almost bottomed out in a pothole that was made worse by the recent rains and the flooding that we have on the streets. So, When I got back into my house, realizing that I might have damaged my car, I was thinking, God, all of this flooding that's going on around Gate 5 Road and coming up Coloma Street and the new pump that they put in can't handle everything. I was thinking to myself, This is where all of the housing that was passed in Measure J supposed to go in. Can you imagine a confluence of events where you have catastrophic rain from Um, you know, a Pineapple Express coming through and King Tides. a natural disaster or a fire like we had last week, and people trying to leave Sausalito. |
| 00:42:30.65 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:42:30.67 | Jack Burrows | Thank you. |
| 00:42:30.70 | Steven Woodside | No. |
| 00:42:30.77 | Jack Burrows | I'm just... |
| 00:42:31.03 | Steven Woodside | Your time is up, Mr. Burroughs. |
| 00:42:35.77 | Walfred Solorzano | No further public comment? |
| 00:42:39.07 | Steven Woodside | Okay, thank you very much. We'll now be able to move on to our consent calendar. As I think most of you are aware, the consent calendar, these are matters that are typically not controversial and don't require any significant discussion and can be taken as one motion for all of the items that are listed. And this time we have five items. Item 3A to adopt the meeting minutes of December 15th. Item 3B to reaffirm city council city manager city attorney operating protocols 3c approve an updated position allocation table effective january 1 of this year item 3d receive and file the fiscal year 2025 financial audit update. And 3E, receive and file the recommended budget calendar for fiscal year. It says 2425. I think it means 20, 6, 26, 27, 25, 26. Well, |
| 00:43:48.92 | Unknown | And, |
| 00:43:48.99 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:43:50.62 | Steven Woodside | Okay, we will be dealing with that though, and of course the 2627 budget data and process. That's correct. So those are the five items on consent. We can take those in one motion, unless there are requests to remove anything for a more business item discussion. Seeing none, we can take them in one motion. I think before we do that, we need to ask if there is generally public comment. Seeing none. Okay, none in the audience, none online? Correct. Okay, is there a motion then to prove a consent? |
| 00:44:22.40 | Walfred Solorzano | I'm not sure. |
| 00:44:28.49 | Jill Hoffman | So moved. I'm sorry, Mayor, do we need to confirm what the audit report, the year for the audit report? Because 3D says fiscal year audit. It says fiscal year 2425 financial report, and the staff report attached says 2425. |
| 00:44:45.38 | Steven Woodside | Yeah, I'm sorry. I was reading for the budget calendar for the fiscal year and the following. I'm not sure that's accurate, but the |
| 00:44:52.22 | Melissa Blaustein | . |
| 00:44:52.30 | Jill Hoffman | The audit. The audit. |
| 00:44:53.08 | Steven Woodside | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:44:53.28 | Melissa Blaustein | 24-25. |
| 00:44:53.67 | Jill Hoffman | THE OTHER THING. |
| 00:44:53.67 | Steven Woodside | The audit is for 2425. Yeah, correct. Item 3D is the audit for 2425. |
| 00:44:55.61 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 00:44:55.64 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. Correct. 23e is the financial review for fiscal year 2526 right okay i just want to make sure we |
| 00:45:04.96 | Melissa Blaustein | I move approval of the consent calendar. SECOND. |
| 00:45:09.03 | Walfred Solorzano | Okay. Council member Cox. Thank you. |
| 00:45:12.84 | Angeline Loeffler | I. |
| 00:45:13.18 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. I don't remember Hoffman. Thank you. |
| 00:45:15.29 | Angeline Loeffler | Yes. |
| 00:45:16.01 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Sobieski. Yes. Vice Mayor Blaustein. |
| 00:45:17.68 | Joan Cox | Yes. |
| 00:45:19.76 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:45:20.18 | Joan Cox | Yes. |
| 00:45:20.30 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes. Thank you. |
| 00:45:20.84 | Steven Woodside | And Mayor Woodside. Yes. Thank you very much. We have no public hearing items, but we do have several business items to take up. We're running just slightly behind the schedule, but we're doing pretty well. So let's start with item 5A. This is discussion of the implementation of program eight, which is the affordable housing component of our housing element. We have a staff report from our assistant city manager. |
| 00:45:38.72 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:45:38.76 | Unknown | you |
| 00:45:51.36 | Steven Woodside | And then, of course, there will be time for the public to comment, counsel questions, et cetera. |
| 00:45:58.03 | Brandon Phipps | Excellent. Thank you very much. Good evening to you, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Councilmembers, staff, and members of the public. And, of course, Happy New Year to you all. I'm here to provide an update on the implementation of Program 8, as stated by the Mayor, which addresses public property conversion to affordable housing. First, some good news. The city continues to meet its programmatic requirements under both Program 4 and Program 8 of our housing element. Most recently, the Community Development Department received a letter from the Department of Housing and Community Development requesting an update on the status and timing of implementation of Program 4 with a request to respond by the end of next week. As the council is aware, I'm pleased to report that through the combination of voter approved measures J and K, along with city council action through adoption of ordinance 1325, that's the ordinance adopted on December 2nd, which rezoned the housing elements opportunity sites that are not subject to voter initiatives 1022 and 1128, the city has provided adequate capacity for housing development with appropriate buffers as identified in our certified housing element to meet our RENA. So staff are currently drafting a response to HCD's inquiry and are collaborating with the City Council Housing Element Working Group on that effort. So thank you in advance regarding program eight. More specifically, it identifies key city owned opportunity sites for long term affordable housing development. Specifically, that's site 75, the corporation yard and site 84. That's the MLK Park property approved by voters through measure K. In the housing element, site 75 is shown to be 0.61 acres. is zoned H 70 and is shown as being able to accommodate approximately 31 units of housing, 18 of which are very low income, nine of which are low income and have have been purported to be low income in our certified housing element and four of which are moderate income units. Site 84, as we know, is only impacted on a two acre portion of the site, and we're gonna be preserving all of our park, educational, and recreational uses as a part of this project. It has been approved through Measure K to accommodate up to 50 units of affordable housing, and as stated in the housing element, composed of 35 units of low income and 15 units, excuse me, very low income and 15 units of low income. as outlined in the surplus lands act. when developing affordable housing on public land. There are three primary pathways for consideration. Option one is including following the full notice of availability process under the SOA, which is a comprehensive approach, which in summary starts with the issuance of a notice of availability for an identified surplus property that is then sent to preferred development entities, including affordable housing developers, following which the city will enter into negotiations with interested affordable housing developers to see if both parties can reach some kind of agreement. Option two allows for the issuance of an RFP or an RFQ as detailed under government code section 37364, which requires that at least 80% of the parcel be used for housing with 40% of the units required. affordable to households at or below 75% of the lower income limits, half of those affordable to very low income households. And this option may allow for more city control and can accommodate senior housing, I'll mention. Option three allows for the issuance of an RFP or an RFQ under government code section 54421F1F, requiring 100% of units be restricted to low or moderate income, with at least 75% for lower income households. This also permits senior housing and may provide the city with greater flexibility in future negotiations. So, Based on the timeline presented at our December 2nd meeting, Site 84, the MLK Park property, is planned to be made available for development through the issuance of an NOA or RFPQ by March of this year. For the corporation yard... Program eight currently stipulates that the city will identify an alternative location for the currently functioning yard by July 2026 relocate operations by December 2027 and having the property available for development by March 2028 with an NOA or RFP issued at the time to support these efforts tonight I'd like to request council discussion on a few things one Council's thoughts on which development pathway is preferred for each site, or some method as to how staff may assist in arriving at that determination. Thank you. confirmation of the proposed timeline for issuing the notices of availability or RFPs for both Site 84 and Site 75. For example, would we like to accelerate any of those timelines? and any other specific priorities or requirements you'd like to incorporate into these specific solicitations, keeping in mind the constraints of each approach that are offered to the city. This is a critical step in fulfilling our housing element commitments while retaining our local control over the character and quality of affordable housing in Sausalito. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. |
| 00:51:40.81 | Steven Woodside | Before we get questions from the dais, I neglected to introduce you by name Brandon pips our assistant city manager I apologize we'll take now questions from the dais please let's try to be disciplined and ask questions only at this point we then will hear from the public comments on this agenda item and then we can proceed to discussion so questions |
| 00:52:08.47 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Uh, Brandon, you, uh, uh, Happy New Year. Good to see you. In person. Thank you for your report. I reviewed the staff report and the presentation During your presentation, you mentioned three options. for how the city can proceed. I didn't see that in the staff report. I don't see it in the presentation. Can you, Where do we find what those three options are? because I did not. was not able to take notes and write them down. |
| 00:52:40.13 | Brandon Phipps | Yes, I'm happy to provide a more robust summary of each of those pathways to council in writing. I believe that that may have already been provided via email at some point, but I'm not certain of that. Happy to assist with it. I'm also happy to summarize each of those three options available for consideration to the city. I'll say that prior to the holidays, these elements had been drafted as I was recently out. So in preparation for this meeting, I wanted to ensure that I could provide that summary, but unfortunately they're not specifically outlined on the presentation as an attachment, which is the same presentation that you saw on December 2nd. |
| 00:53:20.24 | Melissa Blaustein | December and it's not in the staff report. So can you just, again, like thumbnail say, cause I'm, I feel as though you're asking for direction this evening to, on how we want to proceed, and I don't have I haven't had any opportunity to think about it or consider what's the best path forward. |
| 00:53:38.84 | Brandon Phipps | very much appreciate that. I would say that understanding that and and I and I do understand that the perhaps direction to staff as to engaging a little bit more deeply in evaluating each of those options available and seeing which ones staff feel or any other groups may feel are most well positioned to match our efforts in connection with both of those sites. And if I if I could just go through that summary once again, I'd say In summary, we have an adventure before us. And we have three primary pathways that we can look at. One, I would say, is traditional surplus lands act. We issue our NOA. we, negotiate with interested developers, we see if we can arrive at an agreement. Option two, is the pathways as permitted under government code. Section. Excuse me one moment. I did just call it out earlier. three, seven, three, six, four. |
| 00:54:47.25 | Brandon Phipps | And the city attorney, could you assist me? |
| 00:54:53.42 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, so there are... Basically, there's a... |
| 00:54:57.91 | Unknown | Basically, |
| 00:55:00.34 | Sergio Rudin | An extensive and long notice of availability process in the Surplus Lands Act under which the city must negotiate in good faith with developers who are interested in constructing affordable housing on a parcel prior to disposition under the Surplus Lands Act. Disposition can include sale. It can also be a lease. So under the surplus lands act, either option is fine, but you have to go through that process before you either sale or lease public property for any purpose for a period of longer than 15 years. |
| 00:55:16.71 | Unknown | was a |
| 00:55:31.63 | Melissa Blaustein | Aren't there exemptions to that, Sergio, if it's a income producing or other And so that's why I'm curious about whether there's not another option for us, which is to declare our process exempt from the surplus lands act. |
| 00:55:43.53 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:55:43.66 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah. |
| 00:55:43.78 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:55:47.90 | Sergio Rudin | So there are exemptions. Those exemptions do not include for production or for income, for income producing properties, but there are exemptions for properties that are already restricted. So this is such as Tidelands properties. There are exemptions for properties that are going to be used for development of affordable housing. And there are two of those. that are relevant to the city but the other ones are not relevant to the parcels simply because they're not capable of producing the hundreds of units that are mentioned in those particular exemptions. But there's two exemptions that are relevant to the city. One is in government code 37364. where the city can use that exemption without complying with the Surplus Lands Act process and can just simply issue an RFP to a preferred developer and negotiate with them directly. provided that not less than 80% of the area of the parcel being disposed of is used for housing. that the project will provide housing to persons of lower moderate income and not less than 40% of the total number of housing units will be affordable to persons whose incomes are less than 75% of the maximum income The maximum basically 75% low income households and at least half of those shall be affordable to very low income households. So that's, I believe, a deeper level of affordability than is set forth in our housing element in terms of our anticipated affordability in the site's inventory. The other exception is in government code 54421. F1F. Um, And this requires that 100% of the residential units be available for persons of low or moderate income with at least 75% of the residential units restricted to lower income households. and that there be a restriction that the project be in place for at least 55 years for rental housing or 45 years for ownership housing. So this is the city can use either of those options, I believe. I may have to modify the project slightly in terms of affordability and provide a deeper level of affordability for very low income households, to use the exception in government code 37364. that does have a shorter duration. That one only has to be affordable for a period of 30 years. or it can choose a less affordable Um, alternative. you know, well, less deeply affordable alternative, but require more affordable units for a longer period of time. |
| 00:58:39.85 | Melissa Blaustein | And Sergio, you said that item, the first exception, Government Code 37364, It may require more affordability than what was contemplated in our housing element, but there's no restriction on our ability to designate it more affordable than what we laid out in our housing element. |
| 00:59:01.20 | Sergio Rudin | Oh. Thank you. I think you absolutely can. I think the only restriction here is one of practicality, is finding a developer who can deliver that product. |
| 00:59:09.91 | Melissa Blaustein | Understood. Okay. So, Brandon, you went over, the first option is traditional surplus lands act. Second option is notice of availability under 37364. What was the third option? |
| 00:59:22.78 | Brandon Phipps | I would just respectfully of re-clarify that and say an issuance of an rfp under section 37364 And option three, door number three, path number three would be the issuance of an RFP under government code section 54421F1F. |
| 00:59:41.43 | Melissa Blaustein | And so those are the options. The second two options are the two options that the city attorney just went over. |
| 00:59:47.77 | Sergio Rudin | Correct. |
| 00:59:47.99 | Melissa Blaustein | OK. |
| 00:59:48.68 | Sergio Rudin | And I do think you could issue an RFP that calls for a project meeting one of those two exceptions, i.e. a combined RFP for options two and three. |
| 00:59:58.49 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah. And then You know, we are very interested in including the public in the development of an RFP and in this entire process. And so what are the time restrictions and does your process contemplate including the public and, you know, sharing a draft RFP with the public before we issue it to potential developers. |
| 01:00:24.32 | Brandon Phipps | Well, I think that in some way that's going to be up to us. I'm not sure that we've committed ourselves to any specific number of hearings in our housing element in Program 4 or 8, although, of course, there is an active public process mentioned throughout our element. So I would think it consistent with our best practices at the city to ensure that this is a transparent and public process. With that in mind, I'd want to first look to our existing timelines and look to our next hurdle that we must address as far as beginning the development process for site 84 and that would be march of this year where we have stated in our housing element we would issue the noa and or rfp to support the development of this process project looking forward we have a little bit more of a tail if you will on the development availability of our corporation yard and part of the reason for that is due to the fact that there are a couple steps that we have not yet checked that box on, including the identification of an alternative location for our courtyard, which we've given ourselves until July of this year to accomplish. And I'll end there. Thank you. |
| 01:01:43.32 | Sergio Rudin | And Thank you. |
| 01:01:45.63 | Babette McDougall | Go ahead. |
| 01:01:47.60 | Sergio Rudin | The other thing that I would be remiss if I did not mention at this time is the city generally will have more flexibility if it goes the route of the RFP for the qualifying exemptions from the surplus lands act. And the reason for that is the state's surplus land act guidelines state that the good faith negotiation process that the city must undertake with developers who are responding to a notice of availability The city is prohibited from reducing maximum lock coverage beyond what's allowed in zoning or requiring design standards or architectural requirements, which would have a substantial negative effect on the viability of the affordable housing project that is being proposed by the developer. And so the NOA process that is set forth in the surplus lands act guidelines gives the city less control with regards to things like architectural design and development of a project than deciding to undertake a project that meets the exemptions from the surplus lands. |
| 01:02:46.61 | Melissa Blaustein | And so because the NOA contemplates this negotiation process, that's why it has a quicker timeline requirement. Is that right? And if we do an RFP, do we have some flexibility in how quickly we must issue the RFP? |
| 01:03:00.66 | Sergio Rudin | I think that you have the flex the lack of flexibility here is due to the deadlines the city has prescribed for itself in its certified housing element and we anticipate that HCD will require progress updates and status reports about the city meeting the deadlines that it has committed to. The, The timeframe in the Surplus Lands Act to undertake negotiations is basically a The city has a limited period under which it must undertake negotiations. And if it's unable to reach conclusion at the end of those negotiations, it can typically dispose of property for any purpose. Now, obviously that's not authorized. under Measure J and so the city is going to be stuck trying to continue doing affordable housing development regardless. So for that reason, it probably also makes sense to do the you know, the RFP process for one of the qualifying exempt projects from the Surplus Lands Act. |
| 01:03:59.90 | Melissa Blaustein | And so if we are planning to exercise the exemption of options two or three, don't we have to give notice of our proposed resolution and findings to HCD prior to being able to, and I believe it's a 60-day turnaround, to give them an opportunity to review our resolution and our proposed exemption? So won't that necessarily not allow us to meet this March deadline for issuing the RFP. |
| 01:04:29.91 | Sergio Rudin | So oddly enough, I will double check this, but my memory of the surplus lands act guidelines is that negotiations with developers for one of these two qualifying exempt projects are themselves exempt from that requirement. So as long as you are working to discussions, negotiations, the development of feasibility for these kinds of projects, even putting out an RFP, I believe are exempt from those requirements, but prior to doing anything further. You will eventually, I believe, need to adopt a resolution finding it exempt from the Surplus Lands Act and file it with HCD. |
| 01:05:05.16 | Melissa Blaustein | And typically, HCD requires that they see and have an opportunity to review that proposed resolution before adoption by the city. And so that's something I think we have to add to our timelines. |
| 01:05:19.06 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, we will look into that and certainly confirm. |
| 01:05:21.43 | Melissa Blaustein | All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. |
| 01:05:23.99 | Steven Woodside | Okay. I see Member Sobieski's hand up. Ian, you want to ask some questions? |
| 01:05:30.40 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah, thank you, Mayor. Brandon, Director of VIPS, Happy New Year to you. I wanted to follow up on Councilmember Cox's Question about public engagement in the contribution to the development of the RFP. MR. there was a letter from a group called Friends of MLK. that's been posted to the public comment section of the meeting here today? It outlines a nine step process. that meets the March deadline. that would involve engagement, Q&A kind of engagement, feedback, I'm not sure. engagement with the public over three. meetings. Have you reviewed that email? Can you comment on it? |
| 01:06:18.03 | Brandon Phipps | I have not reviewed that email in depth, but If that is the pleasure of the council, I'm happy to follow and execute. |
| 01:06:26.66 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, maybe I'll just Just for the further answer the question, this is the letter I'm speaking about. So the first step would be that we simply, that staff publishes the drafts of the RFP that's already been developed, as well as if one can be developed for corp yards, that, in a short period of time after that. that staff would hold a meeting members of the community. really not involving the city council. This would be a staff and community meeting, much like we had with sealable rise. where there would be an opportunity for Q&A members of the public so they can ask questions that I'm sure are elicited just by the conversation that we just had with our city attorney. A lot of technical questions about What can and can't be done? as well as ideas that the community might have that staff hasn't thought of. from the research they're willing to do. Then stuff goes away. takes that information and then holds a second workshop where they, report back about anything that came out of their work in the intervening time that might modify the proposed RFPs. And at that point- |
| 01:07:32.28 | Steven Woodside | For Sobieski, excuse me, but... Are you going to be asking a question related to |
| 01:07:37.44 | Ian Sobieski | Yes, my question is, since he hadn't read it, I really wanted to know if there was anything in here that's a gotcha. I mean, we can save that for discussion, too, but I just wanted to know if this, if anything in these nine steps is a gotcha. And so my quick. My point was just to describe it to see if he had any obvious objection if there's something in here that's wrong, impossible to do. Um, So. Is there? |
| 01:08:04.51 | Unknown | I had a question. |
| 01:08:05.23 | Ian Sobieski | it, |
| 01:08:05.45 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:08:05.47 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 01:08:05.50 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:08:06.09 | Ian Sobieski | that. |
| 01:08:06.36 | Melissa Blaustein | Just as a point of order, I don't think we can ask the Community Development Director to comment on something he hasn't seen. the first thing that pops out at me is I'm not aware that staff has developed an RFP. So that that's there's an assumption inherent in the first. step that seems like a gotcha to me so is this that would be a point of order mayor |
| 01:08:26.61 | Steven Woodside | Well, let me just pose the question, is there a draft RFP currently in existence that you're aware of, or either of these two sites? |
| 01:08:41.80 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:08:41.82 | Brandon Phipps | and then, |
| 01:08:41.99 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:08:42.10 | Brandon Phipps | the short answer is no what staff have accomplished is the drafting of a draft and oh a for site 84 the MLK Park property however there is not a draft RFP Drafted for say 84 Thank you. nor for the corporation yard site 75. Okay. Thank you. |
| 01:09:05.75 | Ian Sobieski | I guess the narrower question is, can we have two or three public meetings between staff and public. for input in the formation of the NOA or RFP. between now and March. |
| 01:09:17.80 | Melissa Blaustein | I think that's a discussion. |
| 01:09:19.41 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:09:19.62 | Melissa Blaustein | That's right. I'm just asking staff. |
| 01:09:19.70 | Ian Sobieski | I'm just asking staff if they can do it. |
| 01:09:21.03 | Steven Woodside | I'm sorry. |
| 01:09:21.05 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 01:09:23.04 | Steven Woodside | Okay, I think we're getting into the discussion phase, Ian. I'm sympathetic with your question, believe me, but I think let's hold off on that for a moment until we've had the questions for the other council members answered, and we'll get to your point, believe me, at question time, and maybe members of the public will have thoughts on that very topic, so. |
| 01:09:23.16 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 01:09:26.84 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 01:09:35.33 | Unknown | question. |
| 01:09:45.42 | Steven Woodside | Go ahead. Yes, Vice Mayor. |
| 01:09:47.31 | Joan Cox | Hi, Assistant City Manager Phipps. I was wondering... I appreciate all of the legal background on our three paths and the surplus lands act, but more generally, would we be able to release a comprehensive RFP, which included both sites. So essentially one RFP rather than two separate. |
| 01:10:10.16 | Brandon Phipps | That's a very interesting question, Vice Mayor. And I think I can see where you're coming from as related to certain discussions that I've heard as far as limited, uh, potential for development on the corporation yard site. If we could perhaps combine these two into a singular RFP, it may make the city a more attractive option to developers. Um, So I'd like to look into that with the city attorney. My understanding is, you know, the traditional surplus lands act process is generally associated with singular sites, i.e. one at a time. But the RFP process may be a little bit more flexible and or streamlined to allow something like that. And I think that there is some feasibility, but I'll defer to city attorney. |
| 01:10:58.79 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, I think we would probably want to just verify with HCD that they don't have an objection to that, but I can't imagine that they would be upset or would take a very narrow and constrained reading of a statute that is intended to further housing, affordable housing production. |
| 01:11:13.81 | Brandon Phipps | And that being said, I'll just add, if the city does choose to engage in a release of an RFP or RFPQ with one or both, we still reserve ourselves the option of always triggering the traditional SLA process. So that will never go away as an alternative option in the future, even if we do choose path number two or path three. |
| 01:11:35.81 | Joan Cox | Great, thank you. |
| 01:11:38.62 | Steven Woodside | Mrs. Hoffman, yes. |
| 01:11:41.50 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you, Director Phipps. Thank you for this presentation. And I would also benefit from a written... written especially a chart of the three with the benefits right with each of the each of the pathways that we could choose um and i think the public would benefit from that too um and i'm going to throw you another question um following up on the vice mayor's question of combining the two sites and it's the third site that's part of program eight and that's the similarly titled uh the mlk but it's the MLK school site, and that's site number 73. And that's up the street from the corporation yard, Interestingly, it's a 13-acre site, but the actual square footage for that site under the housing element is only 7,840 square feet, and that's site 73. That's the MLK school site. |
| 01:12:40.50 | Brandon Phipps | That's the, if I may, that's the Nevada Street |
| 01:12:43.47 | Jill Hoffman | Yes, that's the Nevada Street, and that's 27 units, 15 very low, 8 low, and 4 moderate. And under our program 8, that's the third public property conversion to housing and site 73, which is the MLK school site, that's owned, I believe, by the Southern Marin School District. And that's a Nevada campus site. We do say under our housing element that um we were going to meet with the southern marine school district by july of 2025 to identify a planning process i wonder if we did that you mean the sauce luna marin city school district not southern marine school district oh sorry yeah sauce luna marin city school district by i'm i i reverted back to southern marine fire sorry so uh right it's uh south luna marin city school district that we were going to meet with them by July to talk about a planning process. Have we done that or where are we at under this program? And if we haven't, fine. But can we also fold that into this process? That's my real question. So if we're talking about two sites, can we plus that up to three sites? |
| 01:13:21.18 | Sergio Rudin | You mean the fact. |
| 01:13:53.62 | Brandon Phipps | Yeah, interesting question, Councilmember, and thank you for the question. Firstly, I will say that I have had the opportunity to be with the school district within the last year. I'll also thank some of our staff and council members for holding additional follow-on meetings with the school district to assess the feasibility of development and the current status of their thinking. |
| 01:14:02.85 | Unknown | Oh, great. |
| 01:14:03.34 | Unknown | All of that. |
| 01:14:14.37 | Brandon Phipps | in connection with Site 73. So we are accomplishing that requirement as stated in program eight of our element. And I believe we've committed ourselves to meeting with the district on a quarterly basis to continue to keep our finger on the pulse of what the district is thinking. And, of course, also outlined in program eight by November of 2026, we hope to receive a commitment from the school district needed to make Site 73 available for development by January of 2027. More directly to your question. |
| 01:14:49.07 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:14:49.37 | Brandon Phipps | as the school district is a separate public agency from the city they must be the entity that would take the lead on the release of the noa and or any rfpq for the development of the site for that reason i would recommend not combining at this time based on both lack of information and then this agency difference in priorities and they may have their own approach that may be different from the cities so i'd recommend um Focusing on the two city owned sites for now, pending further updates from the district. |
| 01:15:21.05 | Jill Hoffman | Let me ask you this, just as a follow-up. I completely feel your angst on this, right? But let me just go down this road for just a second. Because we say in our program, by January 26th, January 2026, rezone the site to housing, right? And that rezone would come from the city, correct? Or it comes from, who does the rezoning come from? Let's just let our director answer, if you don't mind. |
| 01:15:46.97 | Brandon Phipps | So I believe you're referring to the implementation of program four, which is related to the rezoning of identified opportunity sites that |
| 01:15:56.05 | Jill Hoffman | I'm just reading from program eight. from the paragraph from program eight that says by January, 2026, rezone the site. And that's, I don't know the page. Uh, |
| 01:16:05.07 | Brandon Phipps | Yeah, like likely restated in program eight as as we have committed to rezoning public property. So that has been accomplished as a result of our adoption of ordinance 13 2025, which was done earlier this year. Excuse me. Late last year when we adopted the rezoning of sites not subject to our voter initiatives. And that did include site 73. |
| 01:16:16.95 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:16:16.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:16:17.07 | Unknown | What? |
| 01:16:26.64 | Jill Hoffman | So that's probably been redone. So check, excellent. So as we're going through this process that we just went through tonight, Um, and as we're going out and doing this conversation that we're having, it would seem to me that, The school district is going to have to go through the same process. But the issue is that this is part of our housing element and the delivery of these units and our contact with HCD and the commitment from the city of Sausalito to deliver units is our responsibility, not the school districts. |
| 01:16:59.56 | Steven Woodside | Ms. Hoffman, if I can briefly interrupt, I think this is part of our discussion. We can certainly get to it. |
| 01:17:04.44 | Jill Hoffman | No, but I'm giving this. I said, isn't that right? |
| 01:17:07.34 | Steven Woodside | Well, isn't that right? |
| 01:17:07.95 | Jill Hoffman | Isn't that right? I'm confirming with him that that's our responsibility, regardless of the hoops that the school district has to go through. |
| 01:17:09.52 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. |
| 01:17:15.68 | Jill Hoffman | And if we're going out, and figuring out how to surplus this land or RFP And we're trying to consolidate you know, for getting you know, bids and are we going to be able to do this cheaper because we've got one, you know, contractor coming in and we're getting I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS. you know, funding from the state for housing, if we say, hey, we've got three sites. And by the way, now we have a teacher site. |
| 01:17:46.10 | Steven Woodside | Excuse me, Ms. Hoffman, we're continuing You're continuing a discussion item. And we have questions. |
| 01:17:52.67 | Jill Hoffman | But I know. our director who has direct contact with HCD continually about new grants that are coming down for teacher housing. if we add that to our pile of effort, And we now have three sides instead of two sides. And I was getting to my questions. |
| 01:18:10.82 | Steven Woodside | I appreciate it if you get to your question right now because we really |
| 01:18:11.65 | Jill Hoffman | if you get to that. |
| 01:18:16.02 | Steven Woodside | We really want to hear from the public on this, and we want our questions answered, but not prematurely engage in the discussion about what alternatives we would choose. |
| 01:18:23.53 | Jill Hoffman | My discussion is going to be, isn't it better if I can get the question out and get the answer from the director? are you not aware of grants that are coming down specifically for teacher housing? |
| 01:18:35.31 | Sergio Rudin | I can address some of the questions that were raised by Councilmember Hoffman. Um, In terms of the city's requirements under the housing element law and the housing element, The city's program identifies Site 73, which is the uh, the school district's campus as a site for housing and the city is required to rezone it and allow development of housing. If the district does not actually develop the housing there within the time frame commitments that are in the housing element, the city is supposed to identify a substitute site. That is the city's obligation. So that is not city property. We do not have legal control over it. And we cannot physically develop it ourselves. Um, |
| 01:19:19.74 | Jill Hoffman | But if they don't develop, then we have to identify additional sites |
| 01:19:25.89 | Sergio Rudin | Bye. |
| 01:19:25.92 | Brandon Phipps | Correct. That is a problem for us. That's correct. And one of the elements of Program 4 that I look forward to implementing with staff on a go-forward basis is this continued tracking as related to what development are we seeing in the city? How are we actually achieving our arena and what we've stated in our certified element? And then to really sound the alarm, wave the flag for council and city management in the case that we start flirting with that line, if you will. If we start getting into a situation where we may experience a no net loss requirement. the alarm wave the flag for council and city management in the case that we start flirting with that line if you will if we start getting into a situation where we may experience a no net loss requirement in that case we would invoke the process that we've already put into our housing element which states that we would move to identify alternative sites with priority to sites that are city owned and greater than one half acre |
| 01:19:27.66 | Jill Hoffman | That is probably |
| 01:20:09.85 | Steven Woodside | And if I can just interrupt with a simple question, tonight before us, is Program 8 specifically referencing the MLK site and the corporation yard with respect to the possible issuances of NOAs and RFPs? That's what's on the agenda tonight. So let's please focus on that so we can at least get through that tonight. Thank you. |
| 01:20:34.43 | Jill Hoffman | I don't see why we wouldn't discuss additional things. |
| 01:20:40.20 | Steven Woodside | were obligated under the housing element that This council and previous councils approved programs four and eight. We have to follow through on the deadlines that are there. I, I, I, I think this. |
| 01:20:51.02 | Jill Hoffman | I think this... That's part of program eight includes... |
| 01:20:54.55 | Steven Woodside | Please, can we have this discussion later when it's time for discussion? |
| 01:20:55.96 | Jill Hoffman | I can... |
| 01:20:58.73 | Steven Woodside | The. |
| 01:20:59.26 | Jill Hoffman | I was asking for information from our staff that's pertinent to program eight. |
| 01:21:05.52 | Steven Woodside | The issue before us, and I'll ask the city attorney, on the agenda is a discussion of implementation, specifically including MLK, and the corporation yard with respect to issuance, possible issuance and release of NOAs and RFPs for those sites. That's what's on the agenda tonight. Can we focus on that and resolve that to the best of our ability tonight? |
| 01:21:34.17 | Sergio Rudin | I don't see why you can't. |
| 01:21:37.80 | Steven Woodside | I'm urging that we do so, is really what my comment is addressing. |
| 01:21:48.04 | Steven Woodside | Are there any more questions? |
| 01:21:54.99 | Steven Woodside | I see none. So now I really invite public comment. And before doing so, I do have one card and there may be others. coming forward. I just want to let everyone know that We've had a chance to read the various public comments that were submitted in writing, and we thank you all very much for your comments on this item. And I do have one speaker card, Michelle McCalla. |
| 01:22:29.11 | Michelle McCall | Hi, good evening, City Council. Happy New Year. I hope you did all enjoy a well-deserved break, and I echo Fred's sentiments. I don't think we realize how hard you work for us in your public service. So thank you, 2025. excuse me, was a shit show, and I'm so happy that it's a new year, and we're going to start fresh. So firstly, I just want to introduce myself. My name is Michelle McCall. I've lived on Tamala Street for almost 10 years. I am a friend of MLK Park because I live around the corner from MLK Park, and I'm also on the South Dakota Parks and Recreation Commission. Firstly, I just want to remind everyone that Measure J passed because over 70% of voters voted yes on J, including me. So I heard the word acceleration tonight. I agree, and I believe in building in the Marin ship. Let's accelerate building on J sites and provide housing for the working waterfront as well. Wouldn't that be great? Okay, unfortunately, though, we are now in this mess where Measure K has also passed. So I am asking our city council, favorite word of 2026, transparency. And it's still a park. It's still a park. So before we carve it up, I am asking the city to ensure a transparent, staff-led RFP process for the MLK Park and Corporation yard housing projects that includes meaningful public input before proposals are finalized. And Jill, I do appreciate your question, though, for another time. I specifically sent you a detailed outline, which thank you has already been referenced, the nine steps of how I believe our city council should approach this process with community Input? Uh, so I won't spend more time on those specifics. But this approach does respect mandated timelines while giving residents a real voice and shaping outcomes that will affect Cecilito for decades. And you know, personally, I'd like to see a community center with a pool for all ages to enjoy. Um, And I'll leave that with you. But lastly, and this may be a question for the city attorney, It may be a dumb question, but listen, if we make our best efforts and the city can't find a developer that will deliver on the promises that you made to us to make Measure K pass, can we legally say no? Thanks for your service. |
| 01:24:36.74 | Walfred Solorzano | you. We have people online, Bette McDougall. |
| 01:24:44.00 | Walfred Solorzano | is |
| 01:24:44.22 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:24:44.32 | Walfred Solorzano | Google. |
| 01:24:44.55 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:24:45.23 | Babette McDougall | Thank you so much. So yes, I have some questions, also some comments. So the last time anyone spoke about removing the corporation yard to a new location, it was well before these epic floods, and it was the response of... from our city community development person, now assistant city attorney. is, well, we're going to move it to Mill Valley, we think. And so now, again, I ask you, is that really a practical solution? No, I don't believe it is, especially if we have to go there by canoe. |
| 01:25:13.61 | Unknown | No. |
| 01:25:17.85 | Babette McDougall | with head-on collisions with automobiles in our way, So let's just be real about what we're doing here. You want to start with city owned property. Well, there's some sense to that, but not a lot. You got Measure J passed. I say start there. And the last thing you want to do is fill with MLK. That's the last thing you want. because we do need a community center. We need an indoor basketball court that's state-of-the-art. We need swimming pools that are state-of-the-art. We could be an event mecca like none other if we just got serious about MLK and using it for its intended purpose in the first place. Jury rigging that. That vote was really the most embarrassing thing I've ever seen the city do. Shame on all of you. Shame on you for allowing that. I'm really, really disappointed. So going forward, I would like to know where would you reasonably put a corporation yard? And along those lines, let's just look at the mess that the residential areas have become. Because everybody's gone crazy over going into sideline businesses like buying and selling cars, which apparently I have one such neighbor. I'd like to know, is there a corporation yard for the residents? You keep handing out permits to do business at home without any thought to how that ends up cluttering a neighborhood up. And mine's a good example of it. We have dozens of cars belonging to one household. And I say enough is enough. Give them a corporation yard where they can rent space and clean up our neighborhood so it's safe for our kids. Right now, it's not. Thank you very much. |
| 01:26:48.57 | Walfred Solorzano | All right, next speaker is Lorna Newland. |
| 01:26:56.14 | Lorna Nealon | Hello again. I would like to thank Council Member Hoffman's comments and I'm sorry that she was somewhat cut off by the mayor. Because I think it's important They're, uh, there was no public comment listed on this agenda item. And I know for a fact that people put in their, their emails on the weekend. I know I put mine in before the meeting started today and the meeting started late, but on the other hand, at least council people have seen my letter and it's, As a resident and tenant of MLK, I would have liked to have been able to read the other public comments. Based on everything that was just said, it sounds to me like an NOA is kind of a direct... There's no limitations on it. If I understood that right, I'm not asking, do you not interrupt me, please. The RFPs, there are more things that need to happen with that. But on the other hand, Nobody's talking about you guys because of Measure K and the whole election was misleading because it talked about a commercial building. I have taught classes in Sausalito for 23 years, 20 years at that site. And I have done pro bono work for sister cities and taught people. And I don't know, we've got private schools, the Lycee, we've got the New Village School on the other side. They're not being touched. However, if you put that parking lot by the Lycee, they're probably going to move. And they are the largest schools. rent, renter in this town. But anyway, back to this, The thought of incorporating that school to have teachers there and work with them and work with them in advance and combining these sites makes sense because it sounds to me like there are plenty of low income sites available. |
| 01:29:00.77 | Walfred Solorzano | Next speaker is Aaron Nathan. |
| 01:29:07.89 | Aaron Nathan | Hi there, and good evening, and thanks for taking the comment here. I will say I'm very glad to hear the reception around the idea of having additional public comments, and I think that should help us get to a better solution that can hopefully involve many of the concerns that we've heard and then also accomplish the things that we're mandated to do by law. I will say that... Exploring some ways that we can also look at accelerating things like the Measure J site makes good sense. From what I heard from the city attorney, there is lots of risk in a lot of the elements that are within our current housing element, things that we don't control, like the school district is a great example. I think my understanding is we're going to have to find sites that can make up those if they don't come to fruition. And we should be figuring out smart ways to incentivize developers as early as we can so that we don't fall under a builder's remedy kind of situation and flirt with that line that Brandon mentioned. So I think it is a really good idea for us to consider all the options that we have to accomplish the housing needs, with really Measure J being something that I think has far less complexity and opposition than some of the things enabled by Measure K. Regardless though, I will say thank you for the consideration of the public input, and I think that that's going to be really important for us moving forward. So thank you. |
| 01:30:47.30 | Walfred Solorzano | Next speaker is Jack Burrows. |
| 01:30:54.17 | Jack Burrows | Hello again, City Council. Hope you all had a restful and wonderful holiday season in what was a very tumultuous 2025 here in our beloved city. There is much to be done going forward to ensure that our city retain its civility, honor its past, and welcome our future. Careful planning and ethos of consideration and action with the intent of making the best of a bad situation for all citizens of Sausalito should be our calling, and it is up to you on that dais to answer that call. There has been a lot of talk recently about the Hacienda days of the 60s and 70s here in Sausalito. And I'm asking all of you to remember the spirit of inclusiveness, equity, and love that prevailed in that era. From a lens clouded by recent events in our housing element plans, it is easy to come to the conclusion that our city has become the antithesis of that spirit, a selfish, self-interested, and self-dealing enclave that protects the views of the wealthy at the expense of the rest of us as we have foisted upon us the lion's share of the housing element burden. Now that Measure K has passed, I am writing to ask the City to ensure that a transparent, staff-led RFP process, or NOA process, for the MLK Park and Corporation Yard Housing projects includes meaningful public input before proposals are finalized. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:32:32.75 | Walfred Solorzano | Adrian Brenton. |
| 01:32:36.66 | Adrian Brinton | I thank you very much for taking my comment and all of the great comments on this really important issue. I just wanted to say that, you know, hearing the discussion about the corporation yard and combining these projects, I think makes a huge amount of sense. You know, trying to get this housing built is going to be very difficult. They're very small projects and trying to get some semblance of scale on them, I think, is extremely important to try to get a successful uh project it's difficult because it makes it more complicated um i was surprised to hear so much discussion about the school property given that it wasn't on the agenda um you know i think each property we add we probably make it exponentially more difficult so you know if we make it two properties it's twice as difficult if we make it three, you know, it's going to be way, way more difficult, especially with the different owners. But the two owners together, the two properties together seem like they make a lot of sense. There's also seems to be just still a lot of fear about this change and the changes that are coming with housing. Change is really hard. I think that we've got a lot of really smart people thinking about these things and the conversations i've had with people you know there's a lot of great ideas especially around other places in the marine ship and really kind of getting underneath some of the really long-term issues that we've had around maintaining our infrastructure the flooding was terrible it's a sign of our under investment when we prevent any kind of development for decades and decades we have places that don't change and they're sinking. And so by allowing some development, we have a chance to actually take into account the sinking and be able to address some of those things with the changes that are coming. So I think we've got to kind of think about things a little bit differently instead of looking at the way they are and just imagining how much worse they're going to be I think we got a lot of great opportunities to make things better You know the schools. Yeah, they're gonna have a trouble, you know when there's development But they have trouble now because their teachers can't live here So maybe we can you know have a little bit of a trade-off there. Thank you so much for taking my comment |
| 01:34:39.50 | Adrian Brinton | Thank you. |
| 01:34:39.52 | Walfred Solorzano | No further public comments. |
| 01:34:43.51 | Steven Woodside | So, um... Thank you. |
| 01:34:45.27 | Walfred Solorzano | Sorry, I just had a last minute Friends of MLK Guest Park. |
| 01:34:45.30 | Steven Woodside | Right. |
| 01:34:54.31 | Steven Woodside | Can you- |
| 01:34:54.55 | Unknown | Hi, John Gavin. Thank you for your time today. I just wanted to voice my opinion on the corporation yard. And in previous discussions at the city council, there was no talk of affordable housing developers that utilize modular housing. There's been great strides of technology the last decade or so for modular housing, I think can really help move the needle on both scale. and also affordability. And so when we're looking at the City Corporation Yard, I strongly suggest that Throughout the discussion, modular housing comes up as well as housing for the teachers. We have three grade schools within a quarter mile from each other. And I think teacher housing should be much more widely discussed. Senior housing is important, but if you want to maintain strong schools in Sausalito, like we all do, I think teacher housing should be on the table. Thank you. |
| 01:35:53.66 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:35:57.04 | Steven Woodside | Heard another voice. Thank you. |
| 01:35:59.15 | Walfred Solorzano | All right, no further public comments. |
| 01:36:00.62 | Steven Woodside | Okay, so we'll bring it back for discussion. And I'd like to start with Ian, if you're still on, Ian, because I know you wanted to get into some suggestions with respect to process. |
| 01:36:16.36 | Steven Woodside | Are you still there? I don't see Ian on the screen. |
| 01:36:22.65 | Walfred Solorzano | He's still on the panelist, but yeah, |
| 01:36:25.56 | Steven Woodside | might not be available right now. I just thought I would start with him because we did interrupt that. So, um, vice mayor, you have some thoughts. |
| 01:36:33.74 | Joan Cox | Sure. I'm happy to start. I really appreciated all of the suggestions, which I'm sorry that if you didn't have a chance to see the correspondence we received from Friends of MLK Park. There were a number of suggestions and recommendations specifically with regards to transparency in the process of deciding what does and does not go into the RFP, holding a number of public meetings around and discussing the contents of the RFP and the direction for what type of development we want to see on, on both of these sites. And I just want to say I wholeheartedly support all of those recommendations. And I think, |
| 01:37:00.64 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:37:00.77 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:37:00.79 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:37:00.84 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:37:08.49 | Joan Cox | And we can go through each of them as helpful or, Um, but I also wanted to share that, um, since, Councilmember Cox and I have been um, assigned to the publicly owned land. subcommittee, I started the process of establishing a task force for housing on publicly owned land as part of our work so that in addition to the requests made from these emails from Friends of MLK Park and others, we're planning to host hopefully biweekly meetings with a task force that will engage additionally on these conversations so just so for the purposes of discussion um and i've spoken to some of these people who i will name and it's not completely finalized but obviously myself and councilmember cox from the city council from the edac we have two representatives scott thornburgh and alex woe who will kind of make it work with their schedules um from park and rec slash friends of mlk michelle, Michelle McCall has agreed to serve as well from Friends of MLK Park, Aaron Nathan is going to serve on the task force. Sybil Boutilier, who is here and who is a long-time expert on senior housing and has been engaged for a long time. We'll be participating. Morgan Pierce from Sausalito Beautiful will be participating, and we'll also have some Support from Carolyn Revell and we are in the process of finalizing a Planning Commission representative. So just to say, in order to continue public engagement, this won't be a Brown Act committee, but it will be a place where folks can convene, give additional feedback and comments. And so just wanted to put that out there as well for the council to be aware of. |
| 01:38:42.70 | Jill Hoffman | Sorry, hold on. Are you saying that you're forming some kind of committee but you're saying it's not a Brown Act committee? It's a task force, like the landslide |
| 01:38:47.34 | Joan Cox | Thank you. or the Sea Level Rise Task Force. |
| 01:38:51.32 | Jill Hoffman | you |
| 01:38:51.34 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:38:51.43 | Joan Cox | I think it would be Brown Act though. |
| 01:38:52.86 | Steven Woodside | It's not a Brown Act. We have the ability. We have an ad hoc committee focusing on the publicly owned, city-owned lands consisting of the vice mayor and former mayor. And what is the... |
| 01:39:04.74 | Jill Hoffman | purpose of it? It's a path for it? |
| 01:39:05.63 | Steven Woodside | It's to look at these particular issues and to gather information to engage in public outreach to the extent we can do so given the time constraints. |
| 01:39:19.56 | Jill Hoffman | These issues, meaning... |
| 01:39:19.64 | Steven Woodside | These issues. the issues that we're talking about right now. You mean... |
| 01:39:22.74 | Jill Hoffman | You mean, as the |
| 01:39:26.86 | Steven Woodside | These two publicly owned sites are on the agenda tonight. These two members, less than a quorum, have been asked to take the lead on our side, to engage in public outreach and to report back. Obviously, staff would be involved, and one of the objects will be to report on what our options are, what recommendations there are, to make sure that whatever goes out, whether it's an NOA, RFP, under what circumstances, that it will have been carefully reviewed, subject to |
| 01:39:42.93 | Aaron Nathan | So much. |
| 01:40:02.55 | Steven Woodside | extensive public disclosure and debate. |
| 01:40:06.11 | Jill Hoffman | Sorry, you are the two council members on this task force? |
| 01:40:08.76 | Steven Woodside | As I indicated at the last meeting, former Mayor Cox and Vice Mayor. |
| 01:40:18.60 | Steven Woodside | On the publicly owned lands and the rationale, of course, is that the two of them previously were engaged, focused on the corporation yard and have a good, a good knowledge of some of the proposals that or some of the comments made at that time regarding the viability of that site. This is not telegraphing any conclusion whatsoever. |
| 01:40:41.16 | Jill Hoffman | Well, maybe. Maybe we should have discussion about who's on the task force. |
| 01:40:47.27 | Steven Woodside | Yeah, I'm confident that the two members that I've asked to serve are going to do a great job. They've already taken the initiative to do so. And if I may ask former Mayor Cox to comment on this and her perception. |
| 01:41:00.59 | Walfred Solorzano | uh, |
| 01:41:05.45 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah, I agree. So we've received since our appointment at the end of last year to the subcommittee, I've received numerous public comment from various people, including Michelle, other friends of MLK Park, and the vice mayor and I have conferred about the importance of, of having a transparent and inclusive process as we consider how best to develop the two parcels. Um, and I'm thrilled with the vice mayor's, um, perspective about possibly combining the parcels to achieve the developability that was lacking with respect to the corporation yard itself. And so we are hitting the ground running with this process. And I'm very pleased at the agreement of the various task force members that the vice mayor mentioned to participate in this process, because it really will take a village to do it effectively. And of course, it is an ad hoc committee. We will only make recommendations to the council and bring it back for full discussion, fully armed with feedback from the various task force members and the public. |
| 01:42:15.02 | Jill Hoffman | And so just focusing on that, because that's what we're talking about, I guess, right now. And so the motion for process that Councilmember Sobieski, oh, Councilmember Sobieski's back. So this is different than what Councilmember Sobieski said. was talking about, and that was the email that we received from the Friends of MLK, because I believe they specifically requested that Council members, specifically not be involved in this process. I believe I, and that's council member Sobieski. I see that you're back. |
| 01:42:46.83 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah, sorry, the Zoom has kicked me off, and I got a text from one or two people that they got kicked off. |
| 01:42:51.30 | Jill Hoffman | Can you turn up the volume on? I can barely hear him talking. |
| 01:42:56.10 | Ian Sobieski | It may be different. speak louder? Can you hear me? Thank you. |
| 01:43:02.29 | Steven Woodside | We can hear you much better. |
| 01:43:02.80 | Ian Sobieski | I got kicked off the Zoom, so apologies. Okay, yes, so sorry, I missed some of the discussion that already happened and I apologize. My proposal for discussion purposes would be It's not the exclusive of anything else. I think there is this working group that's set up that certainly can continue to do its work. And I think there was something discussed that I may have missed. I was proposing that, or we'd like to move either now or at the appropriate time during our discussion, that staff adopt Among other plans, the nine step outline in the M.O.K. Friends of M.O.K. letter for how they engage with the public. It involves two meetings before the RFP is released for both sites. And those meetings are genuine two-way streets, Q&A, well as ideation. It allows the public to be And And about what from each other. So, I don't need to repeat what's in the nine steps. It's in there in the letter that was posted to the agenda. but I'm going to propose that in addition. It's not exclusive. I think what you're referring to, Councillor Hoffman, is just The idea is that these two public meetings not be run by the city council members. It's it's really staff engaging with with public just forgetting input. Thank you. So I'll make that motion at the appropriate time. |
| 01:44:34.65 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thank you. Yeah, I think that's right. Thank you. |
| 01:44:40.20 | Steven Woodside | So if I can just weigh in with a couple of general comments first. We, this city and other cities, as we all know, were many years ago required by state law to adopt a housing element. And we were thrown a number. Long before I got on the council and maybe even before some other members were on the council, the same pattern. State gives a number. We have to provide for a number. We have to provide for a fairly high percentage of low and moderate income housing as part of the housing element. I'm not questioning the goals of the state law. But what we see tonight and what we've seen for the last several years is tremendous uncertainty about how we're possibly going to meet that number. vigorous debate over many years and decisions made long ago, long before I got on the council that said we are going to identify opportunity sites, some of which I agreed with, some of which I don't. Same is true, I think, for every member on this council. We can all pick it apart and say, I don't like this site. I do like that site, and I wish we didn't have such a high number. Having said that, Where I come from in all of this is that we have, for many years, told the state Thank you. we are going to meet certain deadlines in programs four and eight. We may not today like it. but we committed to it. It was done duly after public input and comment, and we're stuck with it. That's the former lawyer in me speaking. We're stuck with it. We have to comply. That's our deadline. And to the extent we're going to try to revisit all of the other sites, which I'd love to do at some future date. We're not able to do that now. We've got to move forward with what has already been approved by HCD at the state level, which we've committed to over many years. I could have taken the easy route personally and said, I didn't like it, so I'm going to vote no. But I feel... I have to support the city in meeting its obligations. Now, how we go about it, I really appreciate it. the comments that say there needs to be at this juncture, additional public input. Why? Not to revisit the sites, but to make sure that we're doing so consistent with what the voters approved, and more importantly, that we do so in a way that makes sense for the community as a whole. And We don't accelerate one at the expense of another that we try to do. as being suggested we try to do things in combination so we get to the end result that we're looking for Um, So that's my three minutes. Thank you. And I really think we need to move forward with the process that's been outlined by the vice mayor and supported by the former mayor and and will have the staff involvement and public involvement. We have a short timeline. That's our problem. We don't have time to have Brown Act meetings and have five different council meetings. I don't think we have time. I don't think we can get the job done. And I'm really looking forward to hearing from the public through this process so that we can make a quality decision at the end. by the deadline. Sorry to have exceeded my time. |
| 01:48:27.30 | Joan Cox | Are we all supportive of the idea of directing staff, if allowed by our city attorney, to do a joint RFP for both of the sites together, continuous? Just so we're, I am. Okay. Okay. That's great. |
| 01:48:40.65 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. |
| 01:48:40.90 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:48:40.95 | Steven Woodside | I see no dissension from that. |
| 01:48:44.29 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah. I just wanted to address the letter from the friends of MLK. You know, I thought it was a very thoughtful letter, but I think it demonstrated some of the, you know, our goal is to increase transparency. I think it indicated that they are not fully aware of where we stand right now. So the first step in that letter was to review the RFP that's been prepared by staff. There's been no RFP prepared by staff. So rather than wholesale adopt that letter, roadmap, I would like the task force to work with the friends of MLK who will be represented on the task force to identify an appropriate roadmap given where we are and where we need to be within the timeframe outlined by the Assistant City Manager this evening during his presentation. |
| 01:49:33.84 | Joan Cox | I definitely think that we absolutely don't need to have a public workshop this month and a public workshop in February. And whether it's whether we have the draft RFP or just it's a we need to honor that process. |
| 01:49:47.10 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah, I endorse that. I just didn't want to wholesale adopt something that is not entirely accurate in terms of some of the assumptions. |
| 01:49:57.60 | Jill Hoffman | So I think, um, To start off, I think the city attorney is that. Anyway, I think the city attorney agrees that we can talk about the school site under the agenda, because our agenda says discuss program eight. comma, including, the two sites. The only other site is the school site. So I don't and I don't want to belabor it because, you know, I don't mean that we're going to include that in uh probably uh the rfps because we don't own it so we can't anyway so we wouldn't do that but and that wasn't my point anyway my point was to provide direction uh going forward and now that you've reminded me that we formed this task force i frankly had forgotten but the task force would be to fold that in right because we have to push on that because the school district isn't going to because it's not part of their process, it's not part of their plan. But they need they need housing for teachers. Every time I talk to anybody who works at a school, they need teacher housing. We have the ability to bring that to the table and we're working on that anyway. And we've just decided we're going to issue an RFP for two sites. And so if we're going out and issuing an RFP for two sites and We know that there's a lot of talk right now for teacher housing throughout the state. And if we can help them. and tell them this is how we're issuing an RFP, this is how we're surplusing, maybe we're going down this path and if they can just follow our lead and we can lead them And we have to do that anyway. And they have to do it by a certain... We have to deliver that by a certain date or we have to find alternate sites. I can't imagine that that's not in our best interest as a city. So I hope that that's part of our direction tonight after we do a motion for... whatever direction we're going to take that the direction to our, um, that to our task force is to continue to coordinate with the school districts to hopefully coordinate with them for maybe a mirror RFP for that, for those 24 sites that we can get from the MLK school site, which is Site 73. |
| 01:52:13.43 | Joan Cox | What if we appointed a school board |
| 01:52:13.68 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:52:17.34 | Joan Cox | member to the task force, for example, or a representative from the district. Because I think that's I love it. |
| 01:52:21.81 | Melissa Blaustein | I will say that the city manager and I reached out to the, uh, superintendent. Last year, we had a meeting scheduled that she canceled it. We're seeking to reschedule it and will, of course, include Vice Mayor Blaustein. So absolutely, we are engaged and intending to continue to consult with the school district. And I'm happy to bring up this possibility with them. But I also love the idea of inviting a school board member to join the task force. The other thing is we have a ribbon cutting coming up for the Dorothy Gibson House, and we're inviting Senator Mike McGuire to attend. I would love to engage with him when he's here for that. with identifying additional funding for housing. Because he had promised funding for the corporation yard. I'd love to engage him with funding for the development of the school site as well. So I'd like to try to kill two birds with one stone when he's here. |
| 01:53:29.52 | Steven Woodside | Joan, I was trying to figure out how are you going to relate the ribbon cutting to this discussion, but you did a great job. |
| 01:53:35.88 | Joan Cox | Bye. I was raised still. |
| 01:53:37.85 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry, Ian. I just want to add my support for pushing hard on on teacher housing and working closely with the school district to see if we can provide some assistance. My only concern is we face some shorter term deadlines that have to be met. So I don't want us to get too far or too, what's the word, distracted or consumed by the biggest picture when we've got to focus on these two sites in the near term. And I think what I'm hearing from everybody is we want to accelerate from what had previously been indicated and approved as part of program eight, et cetera. We want to accelerate the corporation yard. and with a possible view of combining it. So I just wanted to, add my support to that so there's no confusion. And I'm sorry, Ian, your hands up and you're patient. Thank you. |
| 01:54:39.34 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you very much. I guess I wanted to make sure that This... proposal from the Friends of MLK is considered in its essence. I feel like it's a little uh, probably factually correct, but somewhat distracting to make a distinction between the NOA and the RFP. Because that's exactly the kind of bit of factual distinction that would be very good for the public to understand And, can't engage us in a Q&A because now we're having discussion time so there's no chance for us to engage with people that want to understand what the difference is, when the RFP will actually be done, so on and so forth. So I think what's an essence in the letter from Friends of MLK is, Thank you. Thank you. is that there be at least two public forums. And this can be in addition to the task force. |
| 01:55:39.62 | Steven Woodside | We've got as far as two public forums and then you froze. |
| 01:55:46.73 | Melissa Blaustein | I mean, I'll respond to that and say I'm happy to have, I support two public forums. |
| 01:55:54.27 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 01:55:54.29 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:55:54.30 | Melissa Blaustein | He's trying to talk. |
| 01:55:54.98 | Joan Cox | And, |
| 01:55:55.92 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah, no, that's great. But the notion is that the forms would be built on each other. And so it's not just two forms. If you miss the first one, you can attend the second. The idea is that at the first meeting, there's going to be some idea. you and do research or think about. And conversely, people that care are going to wonder, going to have a |
| 01:56:27.73 | Ian Sobieski | It's really impressive. |
| 01:56:28.74 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:56:28.85 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 01:56:28.95 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Frustrating for us. There should be some... We can't really follow you. You keep cutting in. So... |
| 01:56:29.42 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 01:56:29.45 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah. |
| 01:56:29.66 | Fred Moore | Correct. |
| 01:56:29.88 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah. |
| 01:56:29.89 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 01:56:29.91 | Ian Sobieski | to do. |
| 01:56:29.96 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 01:56:30.03 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah. |
| 01:56:30.62 | Fred Moore | to be able to do it. |
| 01:56:34.80 | Steven Woodside | All right. Thank you. |
| 01:56:34.94 | Arthur Giovara | All right. |
| 01:56:35.07 | Ian Sobieski | I, |
| 01:56:36.69 | Steven Woodside | If I could read your mind a little bit, you want us to look at the essence of what's being proposed, and that is appropriate, significant, meaningful public engagement from the people who've spoken out and made suggestions on how they would like to see that happen. That's the essence. And I think you have unanimous support for that. The detail that you described, the NOA, the RFP, et cetera, yes, there's a lot of information that some of us are well aware of how that works. Many people in the community will not will not have the same level of understanding that our city attorney has, for example, or that Joan has because she practices regularly in this area. But we don't want all of those details to confuse everybody we want those details to be understood as well as they can be so that there can be meaningful public input so I think we've got the right people on the on this group to help advise and obviously to the extent the city attorney's input is needed the staff can call upon him to help explain as necessary |
| 01:57:52.46 | Ian Sobieski | Can I get a little bit? Just one last question, Mary. That's fine. |
| 01:57:58.25 | Steven Woodside | I'm sorry. |
| 01:57:58.79 | Ian Sobieski | I'm going to turn it off again. |
| 01:57:59.30 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Ian, you got cut off again. I'm sorry. |
| 01:58:03.50 | Ian Sobieski | possible to get a schedule of these up? |
| 01:58:07.14 | Steven Woodside | A schedule? You're asking for a schedule? Did I understand you? |
| 01:58:07.19 | Ian Sobieski | Well, Yeah, of the dates. for these public meetings. |
| 01:58:14.97 | Melissa Blaustein | Ian, can you sit? City Clerk, is there an ability for Ian to chat in Zoom? can he send his comment to you in chat? That way we could see it publicly and we could respond. So I'm seeing the technicians nod their head If you can facilitate the ability of Councilmember Sobieski chat within Zoom. because we're not able to hear his comments. He keeps cutting in and out. |
| 01:58:48.76 | Jill Hoffman | That was going to be my question. |
| 01:58:50.02 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah. He is allowed publicly. Yeah, Ian, if you can turn off your video and speak with your video turned off, it does not violate the Brown Act in terms of your participate public participation. |
| 01:59:06.66 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah, thanks. I'll try one more time. And after that, I'm just going to text you my comments, Joan. Okay. Could we just get a schedule as soon as possible for these public meetings? |
| 01:59:16.97 | Jill Hoffman | Um, Hey, |
| 01:59:17.80 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 01:59:17.93 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:59:18.09 | Melissa Blaustein | It's. |
| 01:59:18.32 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 01:59:18.51 | Melissa Blaustein | I agree with that. |
| 01:59:19.84 | Jill Hoffman | And your comments are now much less garbled. So if you wanted to. try your comments again. |
| 01:59:28.41 | Ian Sobieski | All right, I'm just going to say one more time, which is we have to get to the finish line, which is the issuance of the RFPs to developers. So it would be great to get the schedule of getting from here to there in the public domain as soon as possible so that everyone can know what they're working with. |
| 01:59:43.69 | Steven Woodside | Vice Mayor would like to comment, I think, on that point as well as some related points. |
| 01:59:47.18 | Joan Cox | Okay, I just kind of put together changing the wording from RFP to NOA on what they suggested in steps with timeline. And I'll read it in if you guys wanna weigh in and it can serve as potential direction. So step one, By January 15th, staff shall public the first draft framework for transitioning the NOA. So whatever we have, even if it's like a couple of paragraphs or a one pager, just available so people are in the loop. Step two, They'll, you know, the subcommittee and the task force will review the recommendations and have a meeting before a public workshop. Step three, after two to four weeks before the end of January. Staff will hold a public workshop to present the draft framework, answer questions, solicit community input on terms for the proposed for the proposed joint RFP, Step four over the following two to four weeks, staff shall evaluate task work recommendations, public input and determine which elements to incorporate, modify or decline. Step five, staff will hold a second workshop to present the revised RFP framework and explain how task force and public input were addressed. Then finally, Staff 6 will submit a final report to City Council recommending the RFP. City Council can consider that report. Then Step 7, following authorization, staff will release the joint RFP for both sites, and while publishing all responsive proposals on the City's website, and then hold an additional workshop to review proposals as an action. |
| 02:01:16.02 | Melissa Blaustein | So the only change I would make is to not use the word NOA. The NOA is if we went the traditional surplus... Draft RFP or draft one page RCA. |
| 02:01:26.98 | Joan Cox | Bye. |
| 02:01:27.03 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes. |
| 02:01:27.97 | Joan Cox | Okay. |
| 02:01:28.02 | Melissa Blaustein | that is not yet |
| 02:01:28.97 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 02:01:29.03 | Melissa Blaustein | COMPLETE. |
| 02:01:29.31 | Joan Cox | at RFP. |
| 02:01:29.37 | Melissa Blaustein | and- And I see the assistant city manager nodding his head. So he agrees. |
| 02:01:32.38 | Joan Cox | going like |
| 02:01:33.03 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes. So he agrees. I endorse your proposal so long as we substitute the word RFP for NOA. |
| 02:01:42.23 | Jill Hoffman | I think somewhere in their... there was a second, there was somewhere in there a workshop, right? two workshops, but... where they're a workshop where that didn't have anything to do with the task force, but the workshop was going to take feedback from the public that didn't have anything to do with the task force, right? That was going to incorporate feedback from the at least two times. Yes. Right? Yes. Okay. I'm sorry. I guess I didn't hear it. Okay. And that was, yes. Okay. And then that was what was requested by the Friends of MLK. |
| 02:02:09.76 | Joan Cox | Yeah. I'm sorry, I guess. |
| 02:02:16.34 | Melissa Blaustein | This process is separate from the work of the task force. The task force will assist in implementing this process. |
| 02:02:21.95 | Jill Hoffman | process, it'll bring all of it back to the council for us to consider as. |
| 02:02:25.95 | Steven Woodside | Before I ask for a motion to implement what you've just outlined, I'd just like to ask the assistant city manager whether, from your perspective, staff can handle that. Thank you. |
| 02:02:39.42 | Brandon Phipps | I'm pleased to handle that. And thank you for the question, Mayor. My only point of clarification would be perhaps to request some additional detail on the nature of the workshops, perhaps where they might be hosted and what time of day. You don't need that direction. |
| 02:02:59.25 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:02:59.32 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you. |
| 02:02:59.42 | Steven Woodside | but you need it from the |
| 02:03:00.78 | Brandon Phipps | you If council would like to provide that direction now, that would be appreciated. If, you know, I can also coordinate and collaborate with the task force to arrive at that. |
| 02:03:02.03 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:03:12.07 | Melissa Blaustein | What was the question again? It's when would the workshops be held? And I think that's something we need to, you know, poll the council for. We already have a strategic planning workshop on the last Saturday in January. And we're talking about doing one of these workshops in January. So I think we need a little time to poll and. confer with members of the public as well So I don't think we can give that direction this evening, but I think we will. I endorse the council member Sobieski's request for a timeline ASAP. And so I think that will be part of that timeline work that we will be doing. Thank you. |
| 02:03:49.37 | Steven Woodside | and then, |
| 02:03:49.50 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:03:49.65 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. And I'll just ask my colleagues who are on the task force whether you think it's doable in your schedule. |
| 02:03:56.94 | Joan Cox | Yeah. Oh, yeah. |
| 02:03:58.94 | Steven Woodside | Okay. So is there a motion to give the direction? that, |
| 02:04:05.53 | Melissa Blaustein | I move we give the direction enunciated by the vice mayor. |
| 02:04:09.28 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 02:04:09.30 | Steven Woodside | second. |
| 02:04:09.70 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 02:04:11.17 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Um, Do we need a roll call? |
| 02:04:14.46 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:04:14.56 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:04:16.28 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Cox. Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 02:04:19.66 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 02:04:20.52 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Sobieski. |
| 02:04:24.42 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:04:24.50 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:04:24.62 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:04:25.13 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes. Thank you. Vice Mayor Blasting. Yes. And Mary Woodside. Yes. |
| 02:04:28.37 | Ian Sobieski | Yes. |
| 02:04:31.03 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:04:32.18 | Ian Sobieski | Yes. |
| 02:04:34.09 | Steven Woodside | are we ready to move on to the next item Okay. |
| 02:04:38.36 | Melissa Blaustein | this looks like he had |
| 02:04:40.65 | Steven Woodside | Thanks again to everyone for their participation. I think we're gonna take a Six minute break. It's. |
| 02:04:53.65 | Steven Woodside | now can move on to |
| 02:04:54.02 | Jack Burrows | can move. |
| 02:04:56.56 | Steven Woodside | Item 5B, and this has to do with the Humboldt Street dock repair. And Mr. Phipps, you're back up. Different topic. |
| 02:05:07.18 | Brandon Phipps | Happy to be here once again, counsel. Long time no see. And good evening to you. Tonight we're seeking a review and direction on a draft RFP for the Turney Street Floating Dock Improvement Project and Business Partnership. I'm just going to make sure these doors are closed. Okay. The Terny Street area includes floating docks adjacent to the Humboldt Street bulkhead that are in need of repair and replacement. This RFP represents what I'd call an innovative approach, a public-private partnership where the selected party would fund the design, construction, and operation of improvements while the city retains ownership and generates lease revenue. This effort complements the broader Turny Street Dock and Ramp Improvement Project currently being managed by anchor QEA and our very own resiliency and sustainability manager, Katie Thao Garcia, which received a state grant and a city contract to accomplish the Turny Street Dock and Ramp Improvement Project. The draft RFP, that is for the Floating Docks and Business Partnership, envisions a three-phased approach. First phase is a pilot business concept operating from the existing dock facility with minimal spot repairs during the planning phase. Phase 2 envisions a coordinated design development with Anchor QEA, followed by the selected party completing final design, permitting, and construction at the dock facility at their expense. Thank you. Phase three is a long-term business operation that aligns with the city's vision for maritime character, public access, and environmental stewardship. I'd like to thank the city attorney for identifying a few practical items that I'd request council direction and or discussion on before this RFP can be issued. The first relates to Surplus Lands Act compliance. So before issuing this RFP, the council must adopt a resolution declaring this land as exempt surplus land on the basis that it cannot be used for non-tidelands grant purposes. This is essential to avoid potential penalties under the Surplus Lands Act, and really will open the door for this opportunity to move forward. Second is lease duration. The draft RFP mentions short-term and long-term phases, but does not necessarily specify durations. Under our tidelands restrictions, leases cannot exceed 45 years. However, we need to identify specific timeframes. Otherwise, it would be difficult to attract qualified bidders since they can't plan business operations or recoup investments without knowing the lease term. Staff recommends considering a Well, I'd say 10 to 20 year initial term. I think you may see in the RFP, we may have called out a 15 to 20 year initial term with renewal options, but I'd appreciate any council guidance and feedback on this. Thirdly, city goals and returns. um we should more clearly articulate in the rfp what the city expects in return both financially and in terms of public benefit and explicitly state that any improvements remain city property at the end of the lease term. Fourth is more timing concerns. Should we wait to issue this RFP until after anchor QEA completes its design work and council selects a preferred design alternative? The current draft requests that bidders propose building improvements that neither the city nor anchor QEA can fully define yet. So this could limit the quality of responses or require substantial revision later on. I will just pivot to another perspective here that leaving these things open ended may also support or incentivize more creative responses to see what can be supported or what wants to be supported by the private sector. So that's a line that I'd like council to assist us in, you know, kind of arriving at exactly how would we like to treat this. Additionally, prior to awarding any contract, we'll need to complete a CEQA evaluation. Issuance of leases is a discretionary action, and development may trigger CEQA review, depending on the ultimate project that we select, as well as potential environmental impacts. So the applicable exception is unclear without understanding the ultimate project scope. Regarding the evaluation criteria, we have a number of criteria that will add up to our ultimate score for any proposers. Business concept and strength, that's a 30 point design and construction approach, which is 20 points. Proposal qualification, 20 points. Financial proposal, 15. Environmental stewardship and public access is 10 points. And then performance in the interview is a five point score. On to the timeline. If we proceed, the timeline will anticipate advertising the RFP in late January, having proposals due February 24th, selection and interviews in March, and. Council consideration of award in late April and an agreement execution and notice to proceed in May. Of course, based on any direction from Council this evening, we will augment this timeline to ensure that it complements any extensions or space needed to, for example, adopt an SLA exemption. Tonight, I am open to any city council direction, as always, but I would request council's direction on a few items, some of which I've already touched on. Would council like to see the resolution declaring the site as exempt surplus drafted and brought back. I'm hoping that that's something that we can accomplish in the near term. What lease duration parameters should we be specifying? Again, I've mentioned 15 to 20 or 10 to 20, open to council guidance. Should staff issue the RFP? in the short term or wait until anchor qea completes design alternatives and council selects a preferred option i think that there are advantages to both approaches What are your priorities for lease return as far as revenue generation, public access, maritime character preservation or some combination. The note as part of this, I understand in discussions with certain council members that You know, there is an opportunity here to potentially have some facilities paid for up front by a private sector entity in lieu of or excuse me, in complement with lower lease terms over time. So that's just something for consideration and that I understand to be the case. Are there any specific business types that you'd like to encourage or prohibit? and any modifications to the evaluation criteria. Again, this is an opportunity to improve a really valuable water asset that we have in the community. at potentially limited capital costs to the city while generating lease revenue and supporting our maritime heritage. However, we want to ensure, staff want to ensure that we're structuring this properly and correctly from the start. So with that, I'll open it up to any questions from Council. |
| 02:12:39.65 | Steven Woodside | So first, council questions, and then we'll hear from the public. And I know you've listed a number of questions for us to be resolved, and we'll get to that after we've had our questions answered and hear from the public and then be able to give you the direction that you're asking. |
| 02:12:55.90 | Brandon Phipps | And I'm happy to repeat any of them. I understand. You'll probably need to. These specific questions have been recently arrived at based on recent discussions with city attorneys. |
| 02:12:57.81 | Steven Woodside | You'll probably need to. |
| 02:13:06.60 | Steven Woodside | Bye. |
| 02:13:06.65 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you. |
| 02:13:06.68 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:13:06.72 | Brandon Phipps | SO, I THINK IT'S A |
| 02:13:07.04 | Steven Woodside | first questions. |
| 02:13:07.96 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you. |
| 02:13:08.02 | Steven Woodside | Bye, Samir. |
| 02:13:08.59 | Joan Cox | Yeah. So I appreciate that there is a real interest in a pilot project. I'm just wondering, is there a reason that we're attaching the overarching larger RFP to the pilot project as one thing? Do we want to just start with the pilot project or would we be allowed to start with the pilot project in light of this? Or is it the idea that this person demonstrates their work, this firm demonstrates their worth and then continues on as the ongoing operator? |
| 02:13:35.77 | Brandon Phipps | The structure of this RFP is based on feedback that I had received prior to drafting this RFP from from counsel and administrative staff. So based on any request, you know, or direction from counsel, this can be parsed out. It can be separated, and I'm open to any changes that council would support. |
| 02:13:58.93 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay. so again... Same thing I said last time. I don't have a slide. It's not in the staff report. all of these questions. while we're taking public comment. I mean, I wrote down what I, you know, you know, do we want a resolution draft? What duration do we issue the RFP now? Uh, What business do we want to certain business types, evaluation criteria, if you can when we're ready to discuss, I don't know if there's something you can put up on the screen so that we can give direction on all of the points. I In the future, is it possible for you to get us an email or something in advance so that we can be prepared to address the various questions that you would like direction on? |
| 02:14:49.15 | Brandon Phipps | Absolutely, Councilmember. I appreciate it. |
| 02:14:50.41 | Melissa Blaustein | appreciate it. This is the end of a holiday season. You've gotten feedback from the city attorney, I understand, but to help us do the best job we can to help you. If you can help us in that way, that would be. |
| 02:15:01.99 | Brandon Phipps | So long as council appreciates that I'm also trying to do my best job to help you, we're in alignment. |
| 02:15:06.06 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:15:06.09 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes. |
| 02:15:07.78 | Melissa Blaustein | Appreciate that. |
| 02:15:08.30 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 02:15:08.33 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:15:08.77 | Walfred Solorzano | So would you like me to put up something on the screen so I can? Okay, I'll do that right now. |
| 02:15:16.20 | Steven Woodside | Any other questions before we hear from the public? Yes. |
| 02:15:20.40 | Jill Hoffman | Bye. So when... When we did our LOI with No. the owner of what we what we call bridgeway marina that's not actually a permit or marina but with bridgeway marina to bring it up to code and the concept that he had at the time, this was part of the city-owned property that are the... you know, the no longer usable slips there, that was part of that project. And so that's the area that we're discussing right now, I believe. um have we we've we've confirmed with the owner of that marina that he's no longer interested in going forward or performing on the Letter of Intent. |
| 02:16:14.25 | Brandon Phipps | So I do appreciate that question. I would say that the scope of that item is a bit different from the scope of this item. I understand the floating docks to be located within a city right of way, which would make these improvements under the discretion and ownership of city. The adjacent site, that is the Cameron Razavi site, has been subject to an LOI that I understand to have been abandoned. One of the things that I've recently done with that specific property owner is contact them to get their feedback on what project types they are currently evaluating. And I have received a couple project types that he would like to pursue, one of which is an expansion of a harbor. But I wouldn't like to get, just to respect the scope of this item, I don't want to get into details on that unless council would like me to. |
| 02:17:07.67 | Jill Hoffman | No. unless councilors are in the state. That's fine. I just wanted to confirm that that he was no longer interested in moving forward on the LOI, and we were no longer interested in moving forward, right? Correct. The other one was I couldn't tell from Um, the, uh, the RFP or the staff report, what the outline was that we were talking about that was subject to the agreement. And so do you have any kind of a schematic or an outline? I mean, I know we're the fingers of the docs, but I couldn't tell what specifically the, the parcel that we're talking about. |
| 02:17:48.06 | Brandon Phipps | Yeah, understood. You know, what I can point to you now is the first page of attachment one. in connection with this item, which does show an image of the floating docks in question. If you've, and I am almost certain that you have, if you've been to the joinery and you stand out on that beautiful wooden dock overlooking Richardson Bay and that adjacent harbor, you'll see immediately in front of you some underutilized floating docks that are frankly, and unfortunately, a bit past their prime. That is the subject of this RFP. |
| 02:18:23.56 | Jill Hoffman | And that's okay. And that's all we're talking about, just a floating dock area. |
| 02:18:26.55 | Brandon Phipps | Correct. |
| 02:18:27.56 | Jill Hoffman | And- |
| 02:18:28.35 | Steven Woodside | ramp, excuse |
| 02:18:30.70 | Brandon Phipps | The ramp is subject to a separate RFP that our resiliency and sustainability manager is leading. And that project has at least already been kicked off as far as selecting a consultant. That's anchor QEA, which received a state grant and our city, city contract to accomplish the tourney street dock and ramp improvement project. |
| 02:18:56.01 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:18:56.13 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:18:59.42 | Jill Hoffman | And so, okay, here we go. And so the bulkhead is not part of the project, but the floating docks are. |
| 02:19:09.33 | Brandon Phipps | Correct. |
| 02:19:10.07 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 02:19:10.81 | Brandon Phipps | The bulkhead, however, is a part of the complement, we'll call it a complementary RFP or a complementary project with Anchor QEA. |
| 02:19:20.53 | Jill Hoffman | And is that part of the... RFP we're talking about? |
| 02:19:26.10 | Brandon Phipps | It is not. |
| 02:19:28.83 | Jill Hoffman | in December, but it's not part of what we're talking about right now. |
| 02:19:32.61 | Melissa Blaustein | Not. Not. Is a part of this R.S. |
| 02:19:33.08 | Jill Hoffman | not. Okay. And are either one of these projects, do they have anything to do with Site 301 that's part of the housing elements? |
| 02:19:44.85 | Brandon Phipps | Not directly, no. |
| 02:19:46.67 | Jill Hoffman | do they indirectly have anything to do with Site 301? Because it looks to me like on the housing element plan, They're very close. Yep. And I can't tell on the site map. |
| 02:19:54.89 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:19:54.92 | Brandon Phipps | Yep. |
| 02:19:57.91 | Jill Hoffman | It looks to me like they're contiguous or are part of. |
| 02:20:01.92 | Brandon Phipps | Absolutely. In the sense that they are proximate, there is an indirect impact or there is, you know, some indirect association, but not a direct association. |
| 02:20:13.25 | Melissa Blaustein | Isn't 301 owned by Razavi? |
| 02:20:17.84 | Brandon Phipps | 301, a portion of 301 is owned by Rosabi. Right. Yes. |
| 02:20:23.15 | Jill Hoffman | So how would this, how would it affect So this is, okay, so my question is, if we give somebody, so part of the issue was, with, The LOI with Mr. Ravazi was we were going to lose this and we were going to gain outboard tie-ups because this is public access, right? These are city-owned slips. Ideally, they would have been for public access, free for people or almost free for people come in and tie up and have their boat there for a few hours and whatever, have dinner and leave or shop or whatever, and then leave. Um, They've been non-operational because they've been silted in for however many years. And so we're trying to figure out what to do with them. one option was the LOI Mr. Ravazzi was going to build his new Marina, we would have gained public access outboard slips with Mr. Revazi's new project, but he's not now building it. And part of our housing element plan was the site 301 which I believe has about 24 units, right? And so... and part of site 301 also was water-based housing right as part of a marina and part of a galilee like marina and so i don't know have we thought about how a 15 or 20-year lease with giving up this public access site would affect Site 301. I mean, we represent that we're going to work with the marina for public, a Galilee type marina. Including city owned property, right? |
| 02:22:11.74 | Brandon Phipps | completely different. Yep, I do appreciate that. a lot that alignment that you've found with site 301 in the housing element. What I and you've obviously read into the details here with respect to site 301, it's also stipulated that we may expand the site's development area by providing right-of-way access or development access to that property owner or those property owners. The impact of this project, I believe, would be to really disallow that area from being expanded for future development. The good thing for us in this case is that it's in the water. So the right of ways that are under consideration for expansion to allow greater development at densities of Site 301 are land-based right-of-ways. This is a water-based right-of-way. So I don't believe that we would be curtailing the development potential of Site 301 through this process. |
| 02:23:08.73 | Jill Hoffman | Would there be a way to include that in the RFP and propose that in the RFP? and encourage that in the RFP, because that might be beneficial for you know, a developer who might be interested in developing water-based housing Can you say what you mean |
| 02:23:30.03 | Melissa Blaustein | Include that, encourage that. What does that mean? Water-based housing. Thank you. |
| 02:23:35.26 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:23:35.27 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah. |
| 02:23:35.41 | Jill Hoffman | for our |
| 02:23:35.78 | Melissa Blaustein | housing have a proposer include as part of their business plan, water-based housing. Why not? |
| 02:23:35.97 | Jill Hoffman | Exactly. |
| 02:23:41.86 | Melissa Blaustein | I'm just asking what your question is. |
| 02:23:44.98 | Jill Hoffman | I'm getting out. |
| 02:23:45.67 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you for clarifying. And if that's counsel's direction, we can certainly integrate that kind of language into the RFP. |
| 02:23:52.27 | Jill Hoffman | I mean, as an alternative. And I would hope in the RFP, and my next question is, um, public access, right? I didn't, I mean, I didn't read all, however many pages the RFP was, apologies, but is there a requirement in there for public access as well? |
| 02:24:12.60 | Brandon Phipps | Well, as far as vision and priorities, I did take a stab. At... defining these, and I'll just read them off if it's okay. Complement Sausalito's maritime nature, character, and heritage. Support and enhance maritime uses in the area. Preserve and promote public access to the waterfront. Protect environmental resources, including eelgrass beds in Richardson Bay. Contribute to the economic vitality of the waterfront area. Provide services or amenities that benefit both residents and visitors, and demonstrate long-term sustainability and commitment to the community. |
| 02:24:51.21 | Jill Hoffman | So how many, and we've got how many slips there now? six i think six or well maybe six five or six slips Again, they're not operational, right? |
| 02:25:03.55 | Brandon Phipps | Right. How do you define slip? Yeah, exactly. |
| 02:25:06.62 | Jill Hoffman | That's an excellent point. submerged, you know, whatever. Okay, so we've got some slips, but Okay. And I think, site 301 we've got it on our housing on it for 34 total units right so again this is not site 301 but contiguous with this and is our housing element site 301. So. Anyway. Okay, thank you for that. Thank you. Those are all my questions right now. Thanks so much. |
| 02:25:34.89 | Sergio Rudin | I will chime in on the issue of public access to the extent the city is going to have new improvements constructed. This would obviously require permitting from BCDC and it is likely that BCDC would probably want to see some form of public access for service. |
| 02:25:51.47 | Brandon Phipps | And thank you, City Attorney Rudin, for that. I have integrated into the RFP a requirement to collaborate and discuss with other permitting bodies such as BCDC. |
| 02:26:03.13 | Steven Woodside | You have another question? Go ahead. Okay. |
| 02:26:05.83 | Jill Hoffman | What is it permitted for right now? What permits do we hold? Does the city hold any permits for it currently? |
| 02:26:15.94 | Brandon Phipps | you know, without having dug into a historic record of this right of way, I'm not able to answer that question, but as a part of the overall, approach and, you know, kind of finalization of approach on this RFP, that would be a step that staff will accomplish. So I can provide that information at a later date. |
| 02:26:36.48 | Jill Hoffman | I'm wondering, yeah, luckily we have the BCDC alternate sitting up here on the dais right now. Perhaps we could clarify that. But it may be easier and better for the city to obtain the permit prior to that. Right? |
| 02:26:52.31 | Brandon Phipps | Oh, we will be doing, if I may be so bold, we will be doing this very much by the book and above board. All permitting requirements will be fulfilled prior to any project implementation. |
| 02:26:55.73 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. Yeah. |
| 02:27:03.93 | Jill Hoffman | Right. Okay. Okay. Thank you. |
| 02:27:10.03 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. from the dais. I don't questions. Excuse me. I don't see anything from Mr. Sobieski. No questions. Thank you. Public comment. One card so far. Curtis Havill. |
| 02:27:17.75 | Ian Sobieski | No questions. Thank you. |
| 02:27:33.13 | Curtis Havel | Good evening, I'm Curtis Saville. I serve as Harbor Master for Clipper Yacht Harbor, but I'm also here in my capacity as a member of the South Florida Sustainable Waterfront Association. This is a great project. I was incredibly, we are all incredibly pleased at KFAR Garcia's efforts to get grant funding to work on the Tourney Street project. And then this of course is immediately adjacent to that This is a huge opportunity to spark that sense of business and commerce along the city's waterfront water taxis going back and forth, bringing people to the restaurants. If you're coming in from out of town, you can tie up at the dock, go have lunch at the joinery or Solito's or run up the run up to driver's market. This is a real flashpoint in terms of what's possible on the waterfront. It can and should be Sausalito's kind of crown jewel in terms of the waterfront. Right now, if you're passing through. Um, and you're anchoring in Richardson Bay, Tourney Street's your only legal public touchpoint. Um, to not have this facility prepared and able to accommodate guests, not just guests that would be coming from out of town, But also the folks who have boats here in Sausalito, they want somewhere to go and something to do. There's nothing better than a sunset cruise in the bay. maybe stopping and grab a quick bite to eat and then heading home. I mean, this is this is something that A lot of folks along the waterfront, I get feedback all the time, why aren't we doing something like this? Why isn't there more in Sausalito to do on my boat? So this is a great opportunity to take advantage of that. And I think in terms of the public, private, in terms of the timelines and whatnot, I'd like to think we have a little bit of time. Um, I understand, I appreciate the, the, move to get this going. Um, but I wanna also make sure that whatever private interests does benefit the public as a whole. So it's a careful balance. Thank you. |
| 02:29:32.86 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 02:29:33.04 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:29:33.06 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 02:29:33.08 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. I have no more speaker cards. Anyone online? |
| 02:29:34.78 | Walfred Solorzano | and... Yes, we have Lorna Nealon. |
| 02:29:43.99 | Lorna Nealon | Hello again. It was good to see the presentation. What I want to speak about is this kind of point of order. I looked at the agenda this weekend and again today. I first... Uh, tried to find Humboldt Street. And according to Google, it's Humboldt Avenue in Sausalito. And it goes quite a long stretch along there, but it is Avenue, not Street. And perhaps Google is wrong. But the main thing is the staff report, and I'm sure city council gets their own packets coming into them. But the staff report, when I click it, it's an invalid link. Attachment one that says draft RFP for Humboldt dock improvement. it shows the RFP for Tierney Street only. And then attachment two is the RFP for Tierney Street. So until I heard this presentation and could see a portion of these slides, at least now I know what's going on, but I thought you guys should know what sometimes appears to the public. Especially I do notice, I can't help it. I, I, a lifelong proofreader and they just, things come out at me where, names are misspelled of city staff or the finance director or Coloma Street is often misspelled as Colma. So anyway, just to let you know, if you could, Brandon, if you could look at What's actually on the agenda when you have time and look at those links, I don't see them as being accurate. Thank you. But on the other hand, This sounds like a really wonderful project, and it was good to hear the harbor master of Clipper talk about that. I'm a member at the cruising club. I have lots of people with boats. Some are moored here. Some come into the cruising club. And to have more opportunity to have people come in and use a slip or use a floating doop, I think that's great. Thank you. |
| 02:31:44.62 | Steven Woodside | Thank you, anyone else online? Yes, we have Bette McDougall. |
| 02:31:51.40 | Babette McDougall | I'm going to go. Thank you very much for acknowledging me. So like so many others... And I want to thank Joe Hoffman for really trying to drill down on getting some clarity here. I found this particular item on the agenda thoroughly confusing. Thoroughly. Like, for example, I'm aware of the company called Anchor QEA. And they don't have a bad reputation. One of their principals told me, I said, well, what does QEA stands for? He goes, you really want to know the truth? I said, yeah. And he goes, nothing. Thank you. It's just something that they brainstorm and create. I don't know if that's true, but that's what he told me. So here we are. They've got a contract, I assume, and we're going to put them to work to do something with Attorney Street Dog, I assume. And yet at the same time, either contiguous or potentially even overlapping, their area of oversight with this particular grant, I guess we've given them, I guess we've awarded them the contract. Does that mean they get the whole enchilada going forward? Because it's all so commingled. It's all so confusing. And I don't see how you can do one. without also planning for the other. I don't see how you decouple them. Quite honestly, if you're talking about an immediate Well, you're talking about a place to put in and take out your boats, right? So we're talking about that kind of facility. and whether there is absolutely a necessary need for a bulkhead there. So how that gets planned into the infrastructure matters because we have all this rapid transit stuff we're supposed to be thinking about down the road. So we have all these issues coming at us at once. And I find that by commingling these ideas, confused. Do we know that we're going to do a separate RFP that won't actually just immediately be awarded to anchor because they're already there doing the work? Does it really make sense to sort of bump them aside and bring in yet another agent? I would just like to know to the extent that the city has thought this through. And if anybody can comment on that, I'd be very grateful. Thank you. |
| 02:33:52.73 | Steven Woodside | Anyone else? |
| 02:33:53.61 | Walfred Solorzano | Sorry. Next speaker is Adrian Britton. |
| 02:34:01.00 | Adrian Brinton | I thank you again for taking my comment and thanks for the great conversation on this. You know, when we think about Sausalito and our maritime history and how we pride ourselves of being a maritime... community and we see the docks like this and also the ones on next to the trident and, you know, in the state of disrepair and kind of neglect that they've experienced for some time. It's so great to hear this on the agenda to do something really, really cool with this. You know, obviously it's going to be a difficult thing to do, but, you know, We could be bringing in people from all over the Bay area into Sausalito with a public access, like a mooring field, bring your dinghy in, pull into the, uh, into the joinery dock area, you know, and visit Sausalito. Like people love Sam's they go over to Sam's all the time. And the, one of the things they talk about is how great it is that they can pull up in their boat and we could be that. Uh, so I'd love to see something like that. And I think, uh, doing a public private partnership and having a business in there that could develop some of these things would be great for our downtown. It would be great for our reputation as a maritime community. And it would just be great to be able to take pride in these city resources where, you know, now, quite frankly, it's hard to look at them. You know, it's hard to kind of really see the state that we've let them get to. So, you know, obviously, it'll be a long process, but super excited that this is getting started. Thank you. |
| 02:35:33.86 | Walfred Solorzano | No further public comments. |
| 02:35:35.57 | Adrian Brinton | Thank you. |
| 02:35:35.58 | Steven Woodside | OK, well, we'll bring it back to the dais for discussion. Want to take the lead? |
| 02:35:40.16 | Joan Cox | Sure. I'm happy to take the lead. I'd like to see us move forward with the RFP at least for the pilot projects, because if we're expecting three to six months, any new business that wants to be on the waterfront doesn't want to miss the peak season, which would be the summer months when people are really excited about being out on a boat and on the water. And we have a lot of tourists visiting. So I'm really comfortable with figuring out a path that the rest of my colleagues on the dais see as making sense going forward. I feel like we need to, answer direct assistant city manager to Fibs's questions. And if we could get those up or he could reiterate them so we can go through them together, we can start there. But I'm definitely supportive of finding a swift way for us to move forward with this because, enjoying our waterfront is fundamental to our community values. And I think there's a real opportunity. I lived in Bridgeway Marina and I was always very disappointed by the, by the unused docks on my walk to the joinery. So I think that there's a lot of potential, but do you have the questions that you can |
| 02:36:47.54 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you. I'm able to read them one at a time. |
| 02:36:50.41 | Melissa Blaustein | I thought you were going to... The city clerk said he was going to put him up on the screen. Get that up and share him. |
| 02:36:53.02 | Walfred Solorzano | PUT THEM UP ON THE SCREEN. |
| 02:36:55.61 | Steven Woodside | Okay, but in the meantime, other comments? |
| 02:36:58.39 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:36:58.41 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 02:36:58.98 | Steven Woodside | Yes. |
| 02:36:59.07 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. I was going to ask this clarifying question, and then I forgot, so I'm going to ask it. So, There's a line in here, Anchor QEA's optional nine Optional Task 9 budgeted $14,796 includes development of three targeted concepts for floating docs. So... Do I have it right that that means that we had an optional task from QEA just to build the docs for 14,796? |
| 02:37:32.53 | Melissa Blaustein | Design. Done. |
| 02:37:34.00 | Jill Hoffman | Or design optional nine tasks just to build the, you know, or design docs for $14,000. instead of doing a private, one option or one road is At the end of the day, we could just have these guys build us docks for the city to manage, and they would just be public municipal docks. Tell me... Yeah. |
| 02:37:53.56 | Brandon Phipps | Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. And appreciate the question on that. We're able, based on council direction this evening, to move to, you know, parse or slice up this RFP, expand it, remove elements based on direction from this group. So that's at your discretion. |
| 02:37:53.71 | Jill Hoffman | Absolutely. |
| 02:38:11.02 | Steven Woodside | If I may intercede, though, the anchor contract is for design, not to build. I believe that's... |
| 02:38:20.03 | Unknown | I believe that's true. |
| 02:38:21.79 | Steven Woodside | And it was an option. And the recommendation, as I read it, is that We may potentially activate that. option. in relation to making sure there's a coordinated design. Um, with respect to the rest of the project that they are undertaking, the ramps, et cetera. |
| 02:38:43.05 | Brandon Phipps | I think coordinated is a great word for that. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. |
| 02:38:47.59 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, okay. I understand now. Thank you. |
| 02:38:49.41 | Brandon Phipps | Okay. |
| 02:38:50.80 | Melissa Blaustein | I'll weigh in on some of the questions that I took note that the assistant city manager mentioned. So He first asked, do we want to see a resolution draft? So, We have to approve a resolution, and I don't need to see a draft in advance. If it just comes to us for approval, and I know you'll work with the city attorney who does these, I'm sure, for other agencies as well. |
| 02:39:14.88 | Steven Woodside | go through if there's any concern about that or objection or alternative, let's take them one at a time. |
| 02:39:20.39 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:39:22.22 | Steven Woodside | I see no |
| 02:39:23.72 | Melissa Blaustein | No objection. Problems with that. I see that Councilmember Sobieski has his hand raised. I don't know if it's to respond to that. |
| 02:39:29.89 | Steven Woodside | Oh, I didn't see that. |
| 02:39:30.01 | Melissa Blaustein | Oh, I didn't see that. |
| 02:39:31.02 | Unknown | Sorry. |
| 02:39:31.18 | Ian Sobieski | I'm sorry. |
| 02:39:31.31 | Melissa Blaustein | Bye. |
| 02:39:31.95 | Ian Sobieski | I have comments, but I think you're on the right track, Council Member Cox. So please keep going and I'll leave the comments out. |
| 02:39:37.62 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:39:37.64 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 02:39:37.66 | Melissa Blaustein | Next is duration. Because this area is in flux, I would, opt for the shortest duration of 10 years, that would allow a business entrepreneur to recoup their investment in improving our docs. And then I'd like to see optional renewals with at the option of both parties, so that we're not sandwiched in, in terms of future development opportunities or things of that nature. So I'll... |
| 02:40:08.40 | Ian Sobieski | I did have a do you want to take comments one at a time? Council member Cox or |
| 02:40:08.60 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes. |
| 02:40:13.06 | Ian Sobieski | What? |
| 02:40:13.23 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:40:13.33 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:40:13.38 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:40:14.82 | Ian Sobieski | Should I comment now or should I repeat it? Yes. |
| 02:40:14.87 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:40:14.88 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 02:40:15.27 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:40:16.45 | Steven Woodside | Yes. We're going to take these one at a time. Jump in any time. |
| 02:40:18.26 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah. On this one, I would like to echo Councilmember Blaustein's notion Uh, that, we could bifurcate this and have an RFP for a Short-term pilot use this summer And that would be the goal is to see if it may not happen, but there might be a proposal that someone could get launched the tourist season. for the tour season, this one-year kind of pilot. that would be separate from a longer term uh, and obviously more expensive and bigger commitment. |
| 02:40:52.04 | Melissa Blaustein | And in that event, would we then pay for the docs? Because, you know, the way the RFP is framed is that they pay for the doc and then they have the opportunity to recoup their investment through the revenue generated on which they would also pay business license tax to the city. |
| 02:41:09.61 | Ian Sobieski | I thought Director Phipps made an interesting comment, To one degree, the less we specify this, the greater creativity we might get from respondents. So if, If we overly buttonhole it, then we might eliminate respondents. To my mind, if it were my property, I would say, Thank you. A short-term proposal and include a long-term proposal if you want. But is there a short term proposal that might stand in its own legs? You know, Clipper Yacht Harbor, has a stack of floating Docs. on the land that are, and there are other people like this, maybe an enterprising entrepreneur would like to, float them over and do a, Do a summer of water landings. I'm happy to. |
| 02:41:50.77 | Melissa Blaustein | I'm happy to expand the RFP to ask for options either or both. Either or both. So if we don't get any proposals for a short-term pilot project, then we'll evaluate whether we want to embark on something more long-term. |
| 02:42:07.35 | Brandon Phipps | And if I may, could Council opine on how we define short term and long term in this context? |
| 02:42:13.51 | Melissa Blaustein | Well, the short term is a pilot project as described by the vice mayor, which is essentially a year. the long term would be you know, 10, uh, uh, up to 10 years with options for renewal. Okay, next, should we issue the RFP now? I do think we should issue the RFP now, particularly since we're including the pilot project. So rather than necessarily shoehorning ourselves in for 10 years. And the RFP already talks about the importance of collaboration with QEA. and coordination. And so I think that should remain a condition of the RFP, and with that proviso, I think we could issue the RFP now, I really liked what Vice Assistant City Manager Phipps said about the opportunity to get ideas. As QAA is performing its work, we could get ideas from potential businesses and now to incorporate into the work that they're into the design work that they're doing. |
| 02:43:19.19 | Ian Sobieski | Councilmember Cox, I have a question for you as the municipal attorney. on Council, uh... So in this RFP legal language, uh, Are we accidentally constraining ourselves by having the grading system? from encouraging ideas that might be new. or will we have full flexibility to accept Uh, proposals. |
| 02:43:43.22 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah, so one way that you can address, one way I have addressed that in prior |
| 02:43:43.25 | Ian Sobieski | Yes. |
| 02:43:47.95 | Melissa Blaustein | um, procurements, uh, is to include, uh, innovative, uh, creative ideas as a scoring, um, you know, the identification of creative ideas as a, you know, five point scoring parameter. |
| 02:44:05.93 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 02:44:05.95 | Steven Woodside | Yes. |
| 02:44:06.04 | Ian Sobieski | Bye. |
| 02:44:06.12 | Steven Woodside | I think the scoring |
| 02:44:07.22 | Ian Sobieski | My feedback on that would be to make that as big as possible because I think we want to encourage people. |
| 02:44:07.24 | Steven Woodside | I came back. |
| 02:44:08.20 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:44:08.26 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:44:12.23 | Ian Sobieski | The missing element is we really wanna encourage some creativity and in the proposal. So I'd have that as weighted as we possibly could as one of the leading things. I wouldn't have said that. |
| 02:44:22.22 | Brandon Phipps | I wouldn't want to say. Yeah, I'm sorry. Really appreciate this discussion. I'll go back to the scoring criteria. The strongest element, 30% of this draft RFP is weighted towards the strength of the business concept proposed. So I think that that's consistent with what I'm hearing from council with design and construction being the next most important piece at 20% of the total score. |
| 02:44:45.42 | Melissa Blaustein | I think you should incorporate into the strength of the proposal the idea of creativity and that the council member Sobieski has enunciated. |
| 02:44:54.69 | Brandon Phipps | You absolutely read my mind, council member. Thank you. |
| 02:44:57.35 | Steven Woodside | And if I just make comment about such scoring things, I see them as guidelines. And I think that we have to have flexibility and the proponents need to understand that there's an overriding concern when you take the proposal as a whole. You might have very different proposals, and you may choose that one seems to serve more of the purposes, if you will, public access, accessibility to the water for visitors as well as residents, et cetera. Now, how do you define that in numbers, I think is challenging. So when it comes forward to us, we would be able to say, OK, here's the proposal. Do we like it? Do we not? Do we approve it? Do we not? we're not bound by a scoring system when we make our decisions, we try to debate and discuss. |
| 02:45:44.64 | Melissa Blaustein | Well, then I think that the RFP should be clear that the scoring will inform staff's recommendation to the council, but that the council will have the final say. |
| 02:45:55.88 | Steven Woodside | I like that. I'm very comfortable with that. Yes. |
| 02:45:59.81 | Melissa Blaustein | All right, next item. I wrote down lower lease terms. I don't know what you meant by that. 10 or 15 years or 35 members oh i think so that's the same thing as terms of the duration |
| 02:46:08.41 | Brandon Phipps | So that's. And you've opined on that 10 years with option to extend. |
| 02:46:13.98 | Melissa Blaustein | Business types, I mean... I don't think we should constrain the proposal by limiting it to certain types of businesses unless you had something, some concern in mind for it. |
| 02:46:27.92 | Brandon Phipps | No, I think thank you for the opportunity to comment. I think that the division and the priorities that I enunciated in the RFP as related to maintaining maritime character as well as public access help to provide those those bookends. And I agree. Innovation is great. We don't need to necessarily define. |
| 02:46:45.17 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay. And then evaluation criteria with the, with what, um, the other, the next thing I wrote down was evaluate. I loved your evaluation criteria. I thought they were properly weighted. I do like what we've already discussed about expanding upon the definition of, uh, the business plan to include creativity. But I also liked, uh, the things that you already included about, um, public access, collaboration with neighbors, things of that nature. |
| 02:47:17.30 | Jill Hoffman | How do we add in there protections for the housing projects that may go, that are contiguous and have right of way across? So if we have in our housing element that site for site 301 for housing, right? So they're going to have to have access across that site and easements across, I assume, for access. And if we have long-term lease, we enter into a 20, 30 year lease for that property, I think, Sergio, we're gonna have to have language in this lease that this lessee will in no way constrain access for the future inhabitants. for this housing project that may emerge inside 301. |
| 02:48:08.85 | Steven Woodside | Could I make a slightly different point? There should be some defined existing rights of way in the area, and I prefer to see the RFP say no interference with existing rights of way because someone is going to argue, hey, I should be able to hop out on the docks and... |
| 02:48:09.78 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 02:48:28.04 | Steven Woodside | jump across and get through that way, et cetera. And I know there's sensitivity to the docs themselves. |
| 02:48:34.06 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, but we can't take action of our current housing element and especially when we're envisioning that you know, that this site, the city owned site, you know, and now, you know, that this, this site that we've identified in our housing element, you know, and now we're constraining that. I can't do anything. That's good. I wouldn't have. I wouldn't have. |
| 02:48:55.54 | Steven Woodside | I can't do that. |
| 02:48:56.56 | Ian Sobieski | about access. |
| 02:48:57.82 | Steven Woodside | which would not be an issue that we would have to. Constraining existing rights of way. Mr. Sobieski. |
| 02:49:01.48 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah. |
| 02:49:01.52 | Jill Hoffman | Absolutely. |
| 02:49:01.58 | Ian Sobieski | . Thank you. Yeah. just gonna say i thought that that would be an issue to be sure to watch out for before we awarded any such lease he said |
| 02:49:09.18 | Melissa Blaustein | He said it's an issue. We can't hear you sometimes, council member, but he said it's an issue that we need to be aware of as we move forward. What I'm saying is. Um, We need to enunciate in the RFP that the city, this is city owned property. The city retains the right to make accommodations required to carry out its housing element with advance notice to the lessor. |
| 02:49:37.17 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. And do we need to call out that there's a housing site right next, like right next door? |
| 02:49:42.20 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. I don't know that we do. If we comport with the housing element, that's. |
| 02:49:49.22 | Jill Hoffman | I mean, I think in the RFP, we need to notice so that there's no complaint later. Like, by the way, you share a, you share a boundary with. this Site 301. But we'd like for you to be a good neighbor and facilitate that. Well, that's already in the RFP. What is it? Being a good neighbor. Yeah, but by the way, you have a boundary with a housing site. Thank you. |
| 02:50:09.66 | Melissa Blaustein | So, |
| 02:50:16.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:50:17.18 | Jill Hoffman | How many, how much... |
| 02:50:17.20 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:50:19.72 | Jill Hoffman | And so how many public access slips are we, do we have an expectation of how many public access slips? |
| 02:50:26.13 | Melissa Blaustein | We just say maintain public access. So that would be part of the evaluation. |
| 02:50:28.63 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. I'm not. I think that would be better. |
| 02:50:30.42 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:50:30.52 | Jill Hoffman | as well. |
| 02:50:31.39 | Steven Woodside | And depending on the nature of the configuration, it could be one number or another. |
| 02:50:34.21 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah. Yeah. Right. Okay. Gotcha. And this is something also we would evaluate as part of the evaluation of the type of business that is proposed. |
| 02:50:44.47 | Steven Woodside | Um, Mr. Sobieski, your hand is up. Do you want to add something at this point, John? |
| 02:50:50.21 | Ian Sobieski | No. Thank you. It looks great. |
| 02:50:53.30 | Melissa Blaustein | All right, and then here's the one that I didn't have. What are the priorities for lease return, revenue generation, public access, Maritime character preservation or some combination. I think you've addressed those in the evaluation factors. So I am less concerned with lease return revenue generation than with. the implementation of the Um, Public access and the utility of the docks. I agree with you. And Sobieski just said, agreed. Thank you. |
| 02:51:29.83 | Jill Hoffman | I'm interested in lease return revenue generation. |
| 02:51:29.98 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay. |
| 02:51:34.14 | Melissa Blaustein | I said I'm less interested than I am in the I think we'll get- |
| 02:51:37.07 | Steven Woodside | I think we'll get- |
| 02:51:37.86 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 02:51:37.88 | Melissa Blaustein | interested in that. |
| 02:51:38.73 | Steven Woodside | Yeah, we're going to get proposals. And at that time we'll have to decide if there's enough to satisfy, um, |
| 02:51:42.47 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah. |
| 02:51:45.22 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:51:45.24 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah. |
| 02:51:45.27 | Steven Woodside | for Hoffman. |
| 02:51:46.13 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. I mean, it's 30 points out of 100 is the type of business. So that'll be... Okay. |
| 02:51:52.01 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:51:52.16 | Melissa Blaustein | I see Councilmember Hoffman smiling, so I'm pleased. I think we're all on the same page. Anything, any other direction you need from us? |
| 02:51:59.21 | Brandon Phipps | This has been excellent. Thank you, counsel, for the direction. And I'll thank the city clerk for his assistance on ensuring that this is accurately typed up in the record. |
| 02:52:09.40 | Steven Woodside | Thank you very much. So that does it for item 5B. We now can move on to the road resurfacing projects list. Thank you again to all of you who patiently waited for this item. |
| 02:52:24.00 | Chris Zapata | This is one of our favorite topics. Well, Kevin McGowan is coming up to discuss it. I just really want to make the point that continued investments in our streets is necessary. Our pavement management index needs to go up. Some of the things that we've done in the past couple of years have helped, but there's a lot more to do. And so what we're going to try to do is preview that for you tonight, understanding that the most valuable, tangible asset that a city has is people. The second most tangible asset is its streets in terms of value. So Kevin, please. |
| 02:52:24.86 | Steven Woodside | Oh my God. |
| 02:53:00.65 | Kevin McGowan | Thank you, city manager, and good evening again, mayor and city council members. So I do have a presentation for you this evening on item 4C, which has to do with the initial list of roads to be included for the 2526 resurfacing project. Next slide, please. Thank you. My presentation this evening is an initial step in developing a list of roads to receive treatment for the year of 2526 resurfacing program. There are many opportunities to modify this list in the future. This is just the initial step. We'll get back to whether... Council would like to change it in the future. They've got plenty of additional opportunities. I'll go over the pavement management system, which you've heard about in the past, just to kind of refresh our minds of what that is. I'll also provide a little background into which roads are identified in that report and need treatment. And I'd like to also bring up some alternative strategies that the council has talked about in the past, as well as seeking your direction on whether to pursue these type of strategies in the future. Next slide, please. In 2022, Pavement Engineering Incorporated developed the 2022 Pavement Management Program, which provided a rating for all the city's 26 miles of roadways. The rating is called a Pavement Condition Index, or a PCI. In 2022, our PCI was 58. Out of 100. The optimal rating should be around 70. So we're kind of low on that scale. The report noted that the city can increase its PCI rating by dedicating more funding to repairing and resurfacing roadways. An allocation of $1.8 million annually would not change the PCI for the city. And an allocation of $2.9 million would increase the city's PCI average by five points over a five-year period. To what? Okay. The report also provides recommendations to the city on which roads should be addressed each year. City staff utilizes this preliminary document to start the process. It doesn't mean we have to select those roads. It just means that's our starting point, and then we go out and take a look at some of these. Next slide, please. Um, included. with this item is a preliminary list of roads for the 2526 resurfacing program. The type of treatments include completely resurfacing some of the roads, which is shown on the map, which is included in your packet in blue, And micro ceiling is also shown in green. So we have quite a few microsurfaced roads that are proposed. The list also includes a bunch of slurry seal roads, which is easy to install, but I didn't want to include it on this particular map because it would just clutter the colors too much. Micro sealing includes applying a bonded wearing course to the top of the existing surface. This type of treatment is intended to extend the life expectancy of a road's outer surface. A slurry seal does the same type of thing, but it doesn't have aggregate or a bonding course to it. So it is kind of a less expensive type of repair, but it does add some consistency to the road surface itself. Traditionally, the city does include a list of alternative streets in each resurfacing program, which are bid with the project, and if funding is available, the council can choose to award those roads at the time of the contract award. Next slide, please. Preliminarily, the The pavement management program report indicated that we should be resurfacing several roads in town, including Alexander and Sausalito Boulevard. However, after our field staff went out and took a look at this, we think that Sausalito Beautiful is more, should be, should receive a microsurface compared to fully resurfacing it. Staff intends to issue an RFP to secure services for a design firm to prepare the plans and specifications for this project. That would also include that they would go out again and take a look at these roads specifically. So not just one review at this point in time, and we would look at it later. The design firm will further examine the roads and prepare bid documents for the project. Other roads such as North Street and Josephine Street, or it could be Avenue, I'm not sure, which were not completed in the last year's resurfacing project will be included in this year's project. So something that we missed last time, for some reason, we'll pick it up this year. Next slide, please. The Pavement Management Program report also identified partial sections of roadway for resurfacing, such as Crescent and Pine Street. I'll talk a little bit about Pine Street in a bit. We also received a few emails with this item coming to council. And I wanted to thank those who made that effort to correspond with us. We really appreciate it. Thank you. One of the emails noted an area at the intersection of North and Atwood that needs replacement. That's true. And it's already on our list. And we already have a contractor working on it. However, PG&E has a line that is too close to the surface, and we're waiting for them to lower that line. We're anticipating that that work at 4th and, excuse me, I don't think it's 4th, it's North and Atwood, should pick up with some construction at the end of this month. I'm hoping, knocking wood over here. The second email notes, excuse me, I'll continue on that one. the email also suggested that we should be replacing or resurfacing a portion of North Street going from third to fourth. And at this point, we did take a look at it. It's a concrete street. It is cracked, but it doesn't look that terrible. So right now, I wouldn't suggest that we pursue that piece. We can include it by looking at it at a later point in time as well. But I think there may be worse roads on the list at this point that we need to address. The second email noted a traffic concern at Central and West Street. This is appreciated. It may not relate specifically to resurfacing. So what we're going to do with this email is included in what we call the traffic coordination committee, where we meet with police and fire and sometimes planning to go over traffic issues here in town and decide whether we can put in more signage Next slide, please. |
| 03:00:08.55 | Kevin McGowan | As noted earlier, Sausalito also includes alternative streets to be considered for resurfacing. In this case, we would request our design engineer develop the design for 2nd Street, Princess, and Sunshine Avenue, which are all in pretty poor shape. providing alternatives at this time of construction award will allow the council some flexibility to pursue additional repairs to the city streets if funding is available. Council approved a CIP project to update the striping along Bridgeway. This was in the last, this current year, capital improvement program. We're currently moving forward with that project. and micro-sealing a portion of bridgeway before the striping project is initiated will improve the road surface. In addition, we are applying micro-surfacing to bridgeway from Nevada to Spring Street, And we also are thinking of... Uh, doing more microsurfacing, and we would suggest probably adding a section that goes from Harbor towards Nevada Street. So that way, have more continuous sections of Bridgeway that we're trying to tackle each year. We're doing this in sequences. Next slide, please. Good. As noted earlier, this year's list includes 26 streets to receive micro sealing. This treatment is intended to extend the current life of the roadway by bonding the surface layer with aggregate and sand Thank you. This type of treatment is weather dependent. We can't put it down when it's raining and it's got to be a little bit warm. So we would have to address that in the summer months or later in the fall where we still have temperatures. This type of treatment is much less expensive than fully resurfacing a roadway. Next slide. |
| 03:02:07.00 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. Kevin, before you move on, can you give an example of a micro-sealed street like Caledonia? Yeah. |
| 03:02:13.66 | Kevin McGowan | Yes, right out in front of us here on Caledonia. That's been microsurfaced or micro-sealed. I think it was 2018 is when that occurred and it's held up fairly pretty well. So there are certain areas that are Not as great, but, you know, it's longer than five years, so we're doing pretty good. Uh, Let's see Slurry Seal. I'm ahead of myself. The list also includes slurry sealing 25 roads. Installation of a slurry seal material works well on asphalt surfaces and can extend the life expectancy of the roadway itself. The consultant secured to develop the design for the 2526 resurfacing project will need to review the list of slurry seal roads and make sure that the treatment is appropriate. Changes to this type of treatment or changes to the road list should be expected as the design is developed. Thank you. Now, hopefully nobody caught the mistake in the slurry seal list. Just checking to see if you actually looked at it. I didn't catch it originally, but Tracy Way should not be slurry sealed. It's been redone already. So just checking. I'm glad you caught it. |
| 03:03:27.07 | Unknown | So, |
| 03:03:30.53 | Kevin McGowan | Next slide, please. All right. The city's capital improvement program includes included this project for 25-26 fiscal year. Traditionally, the city allocates $1.9 million for resurfacing, and in this fiscal year, the council approved an additional $1 million to support roadway resurfacing. The development of the plans and specifications and estimate will target a construction cost of about $2.5 to $2.6 million. There does have to be some soft cost in there as well. Next slide, please. All right, some other interesting things I'm hoping that I can pick up here since we've discussed this in the past. Tonight, I also wanted to bring up some other issues that have been mentioned by the council in the past. Previously, council directed staff to determine an approximate cost for microceiling bridgeway, which is approximately $4.8 million. That's a little bit different than I may have presented to you in the past. However, several of our projects are already addressing bridgeway improvements, such as the Bridgeway Improvement Project from Napa to Johnson Street, the section of bridgeway from Nevada to Easterby, is to receive a micro seal next summer as well. And it's currently already, already awarded to a contractor. In addition, the 2526 road list includes a portion of Alexander Avenue, as well as Bridgeway, from Easterby to Napa. Treating bridgeway in stages aligns with other projects as well. For example, we just received a proposal to study a section of bridgeway from Princess to Richardson for mid-block crossings. it would be good to get through that study first to decide whether we want to make changes there before we put down new paint striping, as well as possibly putting in a micro seal or resurfacing that section. And as one of the members of the public commented earlier, this list doesn't necessarily include everything. Coloma Street is getting a full resurfacing as well. Even though it may not show up on this particular list, it is a fully separate project. Next slide, please. Over the past year, The term complete streets, it is getting late, isn't it? I can't say it correctly. Over the last year, the term complete streets has come up several times. Complete streets refers to the concept in which improvements to a street are made not just for vehicle travel, but The design team also looks at other issues such as traffic calming, storm water retention or filtration, pedestrian access, bicycle access, parking, and all aspects that can be incorporated into the design of a public roadway. Not every street should be considered for a complete streets review. In Sausalito, many of our streets are very narrow and barely handle two ways of traffic. However, based on counsel's comments, there may be an opportunity to address complete streets on several roads in town, such as Pine Street. And this is a picture on one of these of Pine Street. Pine Street between Bonita and Caledonia is a 40-foot-wide, one-way street with parallel parking. While this section of roadway is not on the current list of resurfacing, Developing a complete streets study of this roadway section may yield improvements that are in line with the complete streets concepts and may better serve the community. Staff recommends placing this type of project on next year's capital improvement program to study it. Some other strategies include addressing the lowest PCI road in town first. Some older concrete roads in Sausalito have a very low PCI. But, are still very functional. Older concrete roads tend to last a long time, even though they show cracks and other things. distresses, their immediate replacement may not be necessary. So that's why I mentioned that earlier on North Street. Yeah, it's cracked. Yeah, it's busted up, but it may not need to be replaced. Next slide, please. At this time, we recommend moving forward with the development of an RFP. to secure the services of a design professional, for the 2526 roadway resurfacing project. We'll continue to reevaluate a few of the roadways on the list and may modify the treatment based on that evaluation. This is a dynamic process that can be modified at almost any time throughout the process. So if we want to add roads, remove them, whatever we want to do, we can still do that. We welcome council's input on the road listed and also welcome the public's input on whether we should include other roads not on the current list. Next slide. |
| 03:08:59.20 | Kevin McGowan | Right. Okay. Um, the council, the council at, like I said, at any time has the ability to direct staff to pursue an alternative strategy for resurfacing. This can include prioritizing treatments along main arterials such as bridge way. If we want to change our strategy, we can do that. Council can also direct staff to study the implementation of complete streets initiatives. Staff recommends identifying potential streets such as Pine Street, for this type of study and include it as a separate project to next year's CIP. Council can also direct staff to address specific streets that may not have been identified in this preliminary list. So we welcome that as well. We do recommend including as a bid alternative Bridgeway to microsurface Bridgeway from Coloma and To Nevada Street, which will be contiguous with other work that's going on there. And with that, that concludes my hopefully short presentation on this subject. And I welcome your questions and comments. |
| 03:10:07.01 | Steven Woodside | Very well. So questions from the dais? |
| 03:10:11.04 | Melissa Blaustein | I think I missed it. You've talked about microsurfacing bridgeway from Coloma to Nevada, but what about the other reach of bridgeway from... um, where you left off to Princess. |
| 03:10:29.32 | Kevin McGowan | So that's a very good question. So, are paving on Bridgeway, heading south. Right. Heading south. It stops at... Oh, yeah. Johnson Street. Glad I'm. OK, good. Johnson Street. It stops there. We could, if the council so suggested, we could microsurface the rest of that heading south, going through downtown and stop at Princess. We could do that. My evaluation of that area is that it doesn't look as bad as some of the areas on the northern section. As you come in and out of town, when you get a chance and you drive that section, Look at some of the lanes and you'll notice that on the seam lines of the asphalt, you get some potholes that are coming out. That tells me that this is about the time where we're going to need to put some type of a bonded course on that section. I don't see it in the section from Johnson to Prince's. That's only my opinion. That's my only question. |
| 03:11:28.97 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 03:11:29.98 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 03:11:31.16 | Joan Cox | Hi, Director McGowan. Thank you for for this presentation. I wanted to ask about Second Street. You talk about it in alternatives as a place that's a main arterial that might provide more impact to the community, but I don't quite understand what the plan is and why it's not yet being addressed. |
| 03:11:51.04 | Kevin McGowan | I don't quite understand the question. Second Street, as far as treating the asphalt. |
| 03:11:57.50 | Joan Cox | Yes. And I mean, I, and I guess, would that be in the same context of improving re-striping the the roadway. |
| 03:12:07.46 | Kevin McGowan | Yes, I think we're hitting that. Yes, that's correct. |
| 03:12:10.42 | Joan Cox | Because the crosswalk obviously continues to be a request that we hear from the community and at the corner there. |
| 03:12:16.25 | Kevin McGowan | Yes. On this list, you'll notice that Alexander is on the list for resurfacing. It might be a good opportunity at this point to have a bid alternative, which covers Second Street, which is contiguous with Alexander Avenue. So it provides two sections that are right next to each other. This might be the right time to do that. especially if we're going to start thinking about re-striping Bridgeway in its continuous nature. So that's the intent. |
| 03:12:46.73 | Joan Cox | Okay. And so that's direction we could give. Sure. Okay. |
| 03:12:53.56 | Jill Hoffman | question. I just wanted to go back to North Street, and I'm looking at the pictures that were included in the letter, the second letter, I think, that we got tonight. Um, and I don't know from Anne Mehta Thunen, and I think she's here, so I don't know if she's gonna speak during public comment, but I looked at her pictures and I don't know, |
| 03:13:14.94 | Joan Cox | That'd be great. |
| 03:13:20.31 | Jill Hoffman | Um, if you had a chance to look at them and you may have covered it already because I know that you talked about it, but some of the pictures she provided or pretty look pretty bad with regard to degraded you know, pavement and potholes. And I don't know if what you described is going to be resurfaced, covers that area or not. Do you know off the top of your head? |
| 03:13:47.93 | Kevin McGowan | So on the pictures, again, It's it's hard for me to remember exactly where they are. But on if you're looking at the pictures that were provided, The right-hand side, on the lower right-hand side, that is close to the intersection of Atwood and North Street. That should be replaced. Okay, thanks. There's water coming up from underneath it. Now, on some of the other ones, I... |
| 03:14:05.84 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thanks. Thank you. |
| 03:14:09.10 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:14:12.24 | Kevin McGowan | may not know exactly where they are, but I can see the one that is above on the right hand side that may need some treatment from us as well. But I'll take a look at it and be glad to work with whoever sent the email. Miss Thunen. |
| 03:14:30.49 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, she's right there. |
| 03:14:30.86 | Kevin McGowan | Yeah. |
| 03:14:32.30 | Jill Hoffman | Sorry. |
| 03:14:32.65 | Kevin McGowan | Thank you. |
| 03:14:32.69 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Yes. Thanks. Thanks, Kevin. |
| 03:14:35.71 | Steven Woodside | And we do have a speaker card from her. So after we're questioned, we go to public comments. We'll hear from her directly. |
| 03:14:39.22 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:14:39.32 | Kevin McGowan | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:14:42.83 | Kevin McGowan | Sounds good. |
| 03:14:44.53 | Steven Woodside | Just a couple questions, really a big picture question with respect to projects that are underway in addition to the list you put up now. We do have several projects that are either bids have been awarded or that are underway. correct? Yes, absolutely. So I think for the benefit of the public, it would be useful to have a place where they could reference what's currently been approved and underway, so they know what's happening, why it's happening, when it's happening, etc. And it's easy to get confused. Specific question for you is with respect to Edwards. I know there was a phase one and a phase two of Edwards Avenue. Phase two is not complete. Can you advise where you are with that? |
| 03:15:35.58 | Kevin McGowan | Yes. So phase one had to do with repairing the roadway, especially as it went down the hill towards Alexander that was completed more than a year ago. Phase two had to do with, um, putting in a retaining wall system or putting in a tie back wall system. I believe that is out to bid. We should get bids back in within two weeks. When Mr. Davidson comes back from his vacation, we should have bids in hand, and we'll bring it back to the council for award. All right. |
| 03:16:07.24 | Steven Woodside | I have no other questions. Thank you. |
| 03:16:09.77 | Melissa Blaustein | going to |
| 03:16:10.31 | Steven Woodside | Yes, go ahead. |
| 03:16:10.99 | Melissa Blaustein | You mentioned resurfacing Alexander. As a part of that, have you considered implementing additional safety measures for Alexander. So for example, the stretch of road between the road that goes down to the plant. And the... and the intersection with South Street. is very treacherous for pedestrians and bicyclists. And I'm wondering if you've considered striping or... you know, a slowdown You know, there's one stretch where there's just barely room to walk. on the sidewalk and it's so close to the street. that. And that's been an area of high accident rates in the past. So I'm wondering if it's possible to incorporate |
| 03:17:01.00 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:17:07.43 | Melissa Blaustein | some study and some potential implementation of safety measures as a part of that. resurfacing. |
| 03:17:13.88 | Kevin McGowan | So initially, no, this is just an original list that we start to look at. And to answer your question, yes, we can include a study of that. This is a tight area. The city limits don't go all the way to the plant. Yep. So we only go to our city limits, but you are correct. A lot of the properties in that area can crouch very close to the roadway. There's very little sidewalk. I haven't looked at trying to address that, but we can. It's the area between |
| 03:17:42.97 | Melissa Blaustein | between Block 303 and really 40 Alexander, that is really treacherous and has been the site of numerous accidents. So thanks. |
| 03:17:56.71 | Steven Woodside | Okay. One speaker card before me, Anna. |
| 03:18:10.19 | Unknown | Mayor, City Council and City Manager, the audience. I'm Anne Toonham and I do live on North Street. So I just wanted to make sure that the upper part of North Street from Central Avenue to Third Street is on the list. And in this budget year, I hear Third Street to Fourth Street and then Third Street down to Josephine, but I don't hear about the upper part or North Street. Neighbours tell me that the street has not been paved in 50 years. It has a PCI. like mentioned here, of 27. the limited 100 The goal for the city is 70, and we are on 27. The risk of accidents, the maintenance cost for our cars, service vehicles, Please put that part of North Street on the list. Thank you. |
| 03:19:19.87 | Steven Woodside | I have no other speaker cards, anyone online? |
| 03:19:22.62 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes, we have Babette McDougall. |
| 03:19:29.67 | Babette McDougall | Oh my goodness, thank you for allowing me to go first yet again. So I wanted to, first of all, acknowledge and thank our magnificent Director of Public Works, Kevin McGowan, I think he does a wonderful job. Thank you, Kevin. And tonight's presentation, I thought, gave us what I will call A teachable moment. because I love the way he approached this thing with Pine Street, for example. He takes one street that is within a specific neighborhood. And he says, you know what? Maybe we could do a little beta study here. Now I'm paraphrasing. He didn't use the phrase beta, but I'm paraphrasing. And I like the way he eases the public's mind. into a study, into what we call complete streets. This is really in stark contrast, really, to last summer. When, During July, we got the news that the roads in that entire neighborhood were about to be redone without contacting a single person that either lives, works, or otherwise goes along those streets. And yet, yes, last July, I remember the mayor saying, oh, my God, where did all these people come from? Who are you? Next time, please call ahead. And it was like they're there because you are threatening to remove their streets as they know them, summarily, without any input at all. So this is a teachable moment. I think taking Pine Street as Director McGowan did, |
| 03:20:43.58 | Unknown | It was like, |
| 03:20:57.07 | Babette McDougall | And says, let's just take this. I'm sorry that I'm boring you, Ms. Gox. Yes, you were mayor last year. This was one of your great works. And so I just want to say, that, um, Congratulations, Mr. McGowan, for being sensitive to the people for whom you were. That's exactly the right way to go. Thank you so much for that. And thank you both. for your attention. Ms. Blaustein, I appreciate you especially. You've been great tonight. First time out as vice mayor. In quite a while. and Ms. Hoffman, and Mr. Mayer. Not a bad try for the first time out the door, I've got to say. A little confusing. |
| 03:21:32.98 | Walfred Solorzano | Next speaker is Lorna Nealon. |
| 03:21:37.85 | Lorna Nealon | Hello again. I'd like to thank Director McGowan. I could tell that you heard some of my comments and thank you for assuring me that Coloma Street is on a future list and I really appreciate that. To be honest, I don't know all the streets in Sausalito, which is why I often Google them. But I and I just did Google. It is Josephine Street, so that's fine. It's not an avenue. I'm only looking them up because I don't know where some of these are on the southern end of town. But I actually want to publicly thank you for I'm remiss in sending a thank you note. Yeah. Boy, last year sometime, we had a Chamber of Commerce meeting with the Sausalito Police Force. And I mentioned at the end, after a great presentation, to Chief Gregory, that Leaving Whiskey Springs at Harbor and Bridgeway The light was interminably long. And you're waiting for cars exiting from, say, Molly Stones, and there's no cars there, so you're waiting for the lights. Well, within one week of telling the chief, the lights were switched. And I saw her and she said she went to Public Works and talked to you about that. So now that four ways works on the weight of the car and we can exit. And also Chief Gregory said that when she comes into town at six in the morning, she often was stopped there just waiting for a light. So I do appreciate it. And I have noticed also at coloma street that light works pretty well um actually sometimes southbound on spring street this is a new one uh there's no pedestrian no cross traffic and that often stops but anyway thank you for doing that and i will definitely send a proper thank you note thanks bye |
| 03:23:36.96 | Walfred Solorzano | No further public comment. |
| 03:23:38.95 | Steven Woodside | Okay, let's bring it back for discussion. |
| 03:23:43.13 | Melissa Blaustein | I'll I'll lead off. Thank you. I'm thrilled to hear about being to be reminded that Coloma is being resurfaced. I bottomed out literally on my way home. The other day, So I don't know. It was right in the middle of the road, just a huge pothole. So just before you get to the MLK Park as you're heading down, away from Bridgeway. I completely endorse studying complete streets, as you referenced, as I think it's important to study and as Lorna Newland reminded us tonight to really Give us a heads up of where we're going to utilize or implement complete streets to ensure that we're not having unintended consequences, as was pointed out by some of the residents last year. I completely endorse your approach to not necessarily focus on PCI over function. So I understand that there are some of our concrete streets that have a low PCI but still function. I think it's more important to address potholes and streets that are not functioning than, you know, obviously raising our PCI is important, but I think function is important. and utility for our residents has to override PCI. I endorse the micro-surfacing of Bridgeway, although I do respectfully disagree. I utilize the the reach from Um, the northern reach of Bridgeway, Every day. less so the Johnson to Princess. The Johnson to Princess, in my opinion, is more to the It's also what serves our tourists more than the Northern reach. I don't experience issues in my little putt-putt car in the Northern reach of Bridgeway. So that's just one opinion. with respect. And then I also endorse your proposal to study Pine Street as an alternative. Thank you. |
| 03:26:00.48 | Steven Woodside | Comments? |
| 03:26:03.35 | Jill Hoffman | With regard to North Street and... We're doing Lower North Street. Is that concrete or is that micro seal? Is that a different process? |
| 03:26:15.94 | Kevin McGowan | I think we're going to take the concrete out and put asphalt in. |
| 03:26:19.14 | Jill Hoffman | Oh, okay. So because the reason I ask is if we're doing the same process on lower north, just to extend that same process up upper north. So now I understand why you're calling that out as concrete on upper north. So it'd be different because I was thinking if we have the same trucks out there just to extend them up. Okay. So now I get it. So it's a different process and different material on upper north. Is that the issue? |
| 03:26:41.77 | Kevin McGowan | Yeah, but we can take a closer look at it and see if we can work it in. |
| 03:26:45.72 | Jill Hoffman | If the cost differential, if you have the trucks and equipment out there and we can just do upper north, I mean, I think that might be, I mean, if we can do it and it's within the cost, right? then yeah we can make a look at it okay i think thank you and i i have the opposite of of then then um councilmember cox on on northern bridgeway um i have the same opinion as director mcgowan i see there's much rougher on the northern part and i can see the i can see the um uh the tracks. right, that you're talking about, like you can see the, next time you drive up there, you can see the divots, the track divots, right, in the lanes as you're going north, just because I think people travel, there's so much more, it's four lanes, and there's just much more traffic going up out through there because of all the people that live and the volume of people that go out in that direction, I think, must be. So anyway, I endorse doing it up there as opposed to down, but. you know, great minds can differ. So anyway, otherwise, great job, Kevin. And I know you guys have been working hard on all the streets and thank you for all the work you've been doing. Appreciate it. And all the challenges. It's so complicated. I know it's like squeezing a balloon. You fix one thing, just when you fix one thing, then water starts spouting up through the street. So thanks for all your hard work. |
| 03:28:10.82 | Unknown | Vice Mayor. |
| 03:28:12.37 | Joan Cox | Thank you, Director McGowan, for all of your hard work on this. I know how much time and effort your team has been putting into getting us to a better pavement index while keeping in mind functionality and the needs of the community. And I think this is a great example of that. So I agree with my fellow council members in terms of course of action. I just would really like us to consider Second Street in the repaving of Alexander to have that crosswalk right by where Golden Gate Market is. It's just wildly unsafe right now. So if we could include that in the direction around this, I would really think there would be a lot of benefits. |
| 03:28:53.01 | Steven Woodside | One overall comment, we simply don't have sufficient resources to bring our pavement up to an index that we would like, number one. Number two, I think what you've done in the past year that I am impressed by is consider not simply things like index, not simply how a road looks, but what its purpose is. So if it's an emergency access point and a critical one, we pay closer attention to that than perhaps the other factors. So I really appreciate that. Similarly, the complete streets concept, I think we need to take a serious look at it where it may be appropriate and useful. And Pine Street is a good example. Ana raised the question of North Street. I think you're talking about the steep portion between Central and... Kent? Yeah, so I would add as a factor, those concrete streets are not just used by cars. They're used by lots of pedestrians. There are no sidewalks there. And having slipped there once myself, I can tell you that... That is a factor. We have pedestrians who are using our surfaces that you would ordinarily think are used by bicycles and cars, but Lots of our streets are used by pedestrians, and I think that's a factor that you might want to take a second look at from time to time, depending on the steepness. the nature of the cracks, et cetera. So those are my comments. I'm really reluctant for us to rearrange things significantly without hearing from the experts, without knowing exactly what the costs are, making sure we can balance our budget and all of that, which is forthcoming. And I want to say that I think this is a good exercise to get a list out there early so the public can see it. You can hear from all of us in the community, everyone. And do the proper studies to make sure that when we get to budget time and authorization time, we have a much better handle on what's needed. So thank you very much. Oh, I'm sorry, Ian. You were not visible a moment ago, and now you are. Thank you. |
| 03:31:10.30 | Ian Sobieski | Hey, that's okay. So just one quick question for director McGowan sunshine Avenue. It was that is that on the list or is that not? |
| 03:31:19.94 | Kevin McGowan | It is on the list as an alternative. |
| 03:31:22.74 | Ian Sobieski | Can you tell us what that means? I've gotten lots of letters from people from Sunshine lamenting much like North Street that it hasn't been paved in forever and it is in pretty rough shape. |
| 03:31:32.78 | Kevin McGowan | Yes, what it means is that it wasn't on the initial list developed by the pavement management program, but we took a look at it based off of some comments from the public and have added it as a bit alternative. What it means is that we can move these roads around before we get to actually getting this project out to bid. If we keep it as a bid alternative, it allows the council to go ahead and award it. at the time of when the base bid is awarded, And you can add it at that point as well. |
| 03:32:06.41 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you, Dr. McAllen. So my only other comments is to echo at least in one detail what Councilmember Blaustein asked for around 2nd Street. I agree with that. and then just at the highest level, We accomplished a lot of our goals, our strategic goals last year under Mayor Cox's Direction, one that we didn't move the needle on a lot is the New $3 million of annual recurring revenue. a business model. ambition. And the reason it matters is exactly what you said, Mayor. which is we don't have the money to make our PCI 90 or 80. in our current budget structure. And so when we think about revenue generating possibilities. in terms of economic development or otherwise. benefit of that. is that we would be able to, have more, improve our PCI. So this discussion here is very much connected with that strategic goal. I just wanna underline it here, so that when we talk about any other ideas in the future about revenue generation, economic growth, we know what we're talking about ultimately is improving the roads and improving them a lot. So we're doing what we can with the money that's been saved over the last decade. but we don't have a recurring business model to keep this up. and get to 70. unless we do some economic development. |
| 03:33:33.47 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Anything else? Um, we're okay. Okay. Thank you. Time to move on to the last business item, and this is to introduce by title only and weigh first reading of Ordinance No. 1-2026, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Sausalito, B. amending Sausalito Municipal Code sections 3.30.120, 3.30.310, 3.30.420 to provide for Assistant City Manager Spending Authority. Mr. City Manager, do you want to take the lead on this? |
| 03:34:16.00 | Chris Zapata | Our finance director, Angelina R. |
| 03:34:16.99 | Steven Woodside | I'm sorry. We'll handle this one. Please proceed. Thank you. |
| 03:34:22.46 | Angeline Loeffler | Good evening, the mayor and council members. So here tonight, the staff is introducing for your considerations for the proposed amendments to the South Salud Municipal Codes on the 330-20, 330-310, and 330-420 to provide the assistance city manager spending authorities. And in 2024, the The City Council adopted the amendments to Chapter 330, to clarify some of those languages and the uh the typographical errors and ambiguity on this chapter And building on those updates that we're proposing, the ordinance formally established the purchasing authorities for the assistant city managers to improve the administrative efficiency while maintaining the appropriate fiscal controls. And this proposal, the action will authorize assistant city managers to approve the purchase of the contract for the supplies, services, and equipment, public works projects, and professional service up to one half of the negotiated purchase amounts established under the California Public Contract, the ECO Section 22033. 328 and currently that amount is equated to the 37,500 and this changes will the will not make any changes on the city managers retain authorizations for the up to full negotiated purchase amount of the 75,000 for the goods and services and up to informal bidding limit of 220 for the public works projects with the City Council's approval requires for any contracts exceeding those the amount. And this delegation is intended to enhance the operation efficiencies by reducing the administrative bottlenecks and allowing the routine purchases decisions to be made more expeditiously. You're doing fine. Thank you. And the changes does not increase overall spending the authority or modify the procurement requirements. |
| 03:36:39.42 | Steven Woodside | You're doing fine. |
| 03:36:49.48 | Angeline Loeffler | All purchase will continue to comply with the applicable state laws and municipal code provisions and adaptive purchasing policies. And if they introduce, the second meeting and adoption will be introduced at the next regular city council meetings. And if you have any questions, I'm here to answer any of the questions you may have pertaining to clarification. |
| 03:37:10.85 | Steven Woodside | So let me first apologize for not introducing you by name, Angeline Loeffler, our Director of Finance. I was looking in that direction where you had been seating, and I didn't see you. I was quietly. |
| 03:37:22.87 | Angeline Loeffler | I was quietly approaching to the audience. |
| 03:37:24.62 | Steven Woodside | Okay, thank you. So questions from the dais on this item? |
| 03:37:32.29 | Steven Woodside | Well, great. No questions. They're public comments. |
| 03:37:35.80 | Walfred Solorzano | Amen. |
| 03:37:35.85 | Steven Woodside | Amen. That's great. We have emotions. |
| 03:37:39.63 | Melissa Blaustein | I move approval. Thank you. |
| 03:37:42.09 | Steven Woodside | Second. Okay. Roll call. |
| 03:37:47.64 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Cox. |
| 03:37:49.13 | Melissa Blaustein | I. |
| 03:37:50.26 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 03:37:51.31 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes. |
| 03:37:52.67 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Sobieski. |
| 03:37:54.00 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes. |
| 03:37:55.44 | Walfred Solorzano | Vice Mayor Blaustein? Yes. And Mayor Woodside. |
| 03:37:57.13 | Steven Woodside | Yes. |
| 03:37:57.19 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah. |
| 03:37:57.26 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 03:37:57.30 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes. |
| 03:37:58.63 | Steven Woodside | Yes. Great. That gets through the business items. We do have item six, council member reports and other council business. I'm not aware that there's quite a bit to be reported at this point, but I'll look to others to see. |
| 03:38:13.72 | Melissa Blaustein | I will say that we will be having our first of the year MCC MC meeting, mayors and council members at the end of January. It will be a zoom meeting. And one of the issues that has been raised is whether the MCC MC legislative committee is a Brown Act committee that must be open to the public or whether it's an ad hoc committee. So that's something that the general membership will be considering. at that meeting. |
| 03:38:46.25 | Steven Woodside | My recollection is that you serve on that. |
| 03:38:48.66 | Melissa Blaustein | I do serve on that. And the chair and others have taken the position that it's an ad hoc meeting. not a Brown Act committee meeting. So we'll see. We'll see what the county Council has to say and what the membership decides. |
| 03:39:03.65 | Steven Woodside | And we won't offer our own opinions at this time. At this time. Okay. Thank you. |
| 03:39:07.48 | Melissa Blaustein | Oh, interesting. |
| 03:39:09.89 | Steven Woodside | All right. Any other... Council member reports, committee reports at this point. I just want to mention that in the process of making appointments, et cetera, we do have vacancies and things to adjust going forward, and we'll do so. I'll try to do my best to have discussions with each council member about desired appointments, et cetera, so that we can have a more or less complete list hopefully by our next meeting. So I had that in mind. I was really hopeful I could work over the holidays. And I found that to be challenging to make sure Had a few storms. Yes, that's true. So I'm looking forward to that. Let's talk for a moment. First of all, is there any public comment on these reports? |
| 03:40:07.70 | Walfred Solorzano | Same. And I think we have public comment for items 6A, B, C, and D at 6E. |
| 03:40:14.61 | Steven Woodside | We'll do that all at once. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. |
| 03:40:15.94 | Walfred Solorzano | Yeah. |
| 03:40:18.17 | Steven Woodside | Future agenda items. Again, just an overall comment. There is a long list holdover from last year. Some of the items on it may well be either obsolete or no longer priorities. we need to sort that out and certainly by the end of the month as we set priorities for next year let's keep in mind that we want to make sure we very thoughtfully decide what we think we can accomplish at various points during the year what our schedule let's keep in mind that we want to make sure we very thoughtfully decide what we think we can accomplish at various points during the year, what our schedule looks like, and try to make sure that we can meet our goals as we set them. |
| 03:40:57.32 | Joan Cox | Can I add one item to where to get to future agenda items? |
| 03:41:00.22 | Steven Woodside | We're still on it. |
| 03:41:01.05 | Joan Cox | Oh. I just, I, as mentioned in the reports on the flooding, I would love to add some form of after action report to the agenda. It's okay if it's just on consent, but I want to make sure that the public is aware of steps that are being taken and et cetera. |
| 03:41:16.30 | Steven Woodside | All right. Okay. |
| 03:41:17.11 | Jill Hoffman | I'd like to add something for Future Dinner. And it's something along the lines of, |
| 03:41:17.48 | Steven Woodside | I like that. |
| 03:41:26.70 | Jill Hoffman | incentives or a program for a comprehensive plan or incentives for measure J building sites or to incentivize a comprehensive plan for incentivizing Builders for Measure J sites. I love that. I'm not entirely sure what that looks like. Maybe implementation of Measure J. Or incentives for the city for building on Measure J sites. |
| 03:41:47.08 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah. |
| 03:41:53.26 | Jill Hoffman | That's not worth, you know, |
| 03:41:55.01 | Steven Woodside | So, for example, and I don't want to... |
| 03:41:57.90 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 03:41:58.15 | Steven Woodside | Go into D. Thank you. |
| 03:41:59.74 | Jill Hoffman | No, but that's the issue, |
| 03:41:59.79 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Thank you. It may be incentives such as reduced fees for certain things, streamlined processes. |
| 03:42:04.09 | Jill Hoffman | idea for the agenda item. |
| 03:42:04.72 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Yeah. I would say consider potential reduced fees for affordable well. |
| 03:42:13.66 | Jill Hoffman | And it could be a comprehensive plan for, because those sites, especially from FedEx site going north, are sort of contiguous. So it could be a contiguous plan. |
| 03:42:27.31 | Steven Woodside | So I think we're in agreement, without drilling down to details at this point, we want to take a look at that and Assistant city manager, those kind of issues. I think you're familiar with those that are done elsewhere. Maybe we can really address that. And it might fall to the housing committee. Initially meet with you and staff and discuss what some of those might be. |
| 03:42:57.65 | Brandon Phipps | That sounds like an excellent approach, Mayor, and I'm very happy to provide my feedback and thoughts on that. We do also... call exactly those types of actions out in our housing elements. So this discussion, these actions would also be a complement to housing element implementation. |
| 03:43:14.56 | Steven Woodside | Okay? Thank you. We're in agreement on that. |
| 03:43:16.59 | Jack Burrows | Thank you. |
| 03:43:18.95 | Steven Woodside | Okay. Are there any minutes or anything else to discuss? Correct. Thank you for attending. |
| 03:43:26.92 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you for attaching Sustainability Commission Minutes. |
| 03:43:30.04 | Steven Woodside | and I did read them. |
| 03:43:32.50 | Melissa Blaustein | May I also say I noticed a great improvement in our minutes. So I don't know what the new software is or what's being done, but our city council minutes were amazing. So thank you to the city clerk's office for that. |
| 03:43:50.52 | Steven Woodside | You're welcome. Thank you. Great. Any other reports of significance? I'm seeing none. Any public comment on those items 6A through 6? Well, there are no appointments to be made tonight. |
| 03:44:05.52 | Walfred Solorzano | We do have Babette McDougall. |
| 03:44:08.21 | Steven Woodside | Very well. |
| 03:44:11.40 | Walfred Solorzano | Ms. McDougall? |
| 03:44:12.07 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 03:44:14.49 | Babette McDougall | Yes, thank you. Just waiting for the unmute cue. So thank you. With regard to these items we were just discussing, under future agenda, items, I would really like for us to consider, I'm not exactly sure how it would, in terms of the wording. But we should be looking at the fiscal health of our community. The business community, I know you often hear me speak on behalf of resident registered voters. And in fact, I am one such person. But I also believe very strongly in our local business community and have, over the years, consistently supported it. And I wonder what the city can do. Like, we have the PBID. We should be evaluating by sector, like hospitality, food and beverage, others. You know, we really should be evaluating the fiscal health and solvency of our town. |
| 03:45:01.72 | Unknown | you know, |
| 03:45:07.19 | Babette McDougall | And we should be looking at how we, as a city, spending the city's money, because the fiduciary side of your duties is not immediately apparent to most of us. However, you should consider yourselves as fiduciary agents in this regard. So we need to ask ourselves, is the city spending its best money in the best way to really facilitate success? And success equals increased tax receipts, obviously. So when we're talking about revenue streams, we should be taking a very critical look at how well we're doing. with supporting the businesses that we have And that deserve to be doing better if there's a way that we can help. better than what we're doing now versus maybe not enough. Maybe it's overkill in some places. I don't know. I think that's what the study could help address. I hope you'll consider that for future agenda. Finally, I'd like to see you. Secondarily, also revisit the city's ethics and empirical standards of conduct. according to ethics and legality. Yes, I don't have a clock that's on me, so I have no idea what the timing is. All right, well, thank you for that cue, Ms. Cox. I appreciate it. All right. |
| 03:46:20.36 | Steven Woodside | Um, |
| 03:46:21.00 | Walfred Solorzano | No further public comment. |
| 03:46:22.06 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. And no further business. I think we are adjourned at two minutes after nine. |
Babette McDougall — Neutral: Urged consideration of environmental and wildlife impacts, specifically mentioning the Marine Mammal Center, and asked the council to be gentle in future planning to account for all mammals affected by flooding and pollutants. ▶ 📄