| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:02:13.88 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:04:02.17 | Jill Hoffman | Great, jobs closed. No. |
| 00:04:04.58 | Bob Leff | Well, is there anything fun I want to do? I think it's all been to get to see. |
| 00:04:06.32 | Jill Hoffman | Oh my God. Thank you. |
| 00:04:08.13 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 00:04:08.14 | Joan Cox | Yes. |
| 00:04:08.57 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 00:04:10.00 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:04:10.07 | Joan Cox | I really appreciate it. It just ran wonderfully. |
| 00:04:10.20 | Jill Hoffman | I mean, I- |
| 00:04:13.68 | Bob Leff | Thank you. |
| 00:04:13.80 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:04:13.93 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:04:13.95 | Bob Leff | Thanks. Right. |
| 00:04:14.81 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 00:04:14.83 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:04:14.86 | Bob Leff | Thank you. |
| 00:04:14.96 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:04:14.98 | Unknown | you |
| 00:04:15.00 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 00:04:15.03 | Bob Leff | rest |
| 00:04:15.05 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Yes, yes, absolutely. |
| 00:04:18.50 | Bob Leff | Okay. Okay. Yeah, that's very fancy. |
| 00:04:21.14 | Katie Thao Garcia | Thank you. |
| 00:04:22.89 | Jill Hoffman | to do. |
| 00:04:22.91 | Katie Thao Garcia | It wasn't about. |
| 00:04:24.16 | Bob Leff | Yeah. Thank you. I love Very Fancy. That's great. |
| 00:04:24.53 | Katie Thao Garcia | I love it. |
| 00:04:29.90 | Bob Leff | Did they win? They won that game. I'd like to begin with. |
| 00:04:36.31 | Chris Zapata | that way. |
| 00:04:37.03 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:04:37.96 | Bob Leff | Nothing fancy. I did not watch The Warriors, unfortunately. Your wife was not. I know. I hate terrible. I hate. |
| 00:04:40.54 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. |
| 00:04:40.66 | Jill Hoffman | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:04:40.80 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. |
| 00:04:40.88 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. I know. But... |
| 00:04:43.68 | Steven Woodside | I hate to interrupt the wonderful conversations. but we'd like to start the meeting |
| 00:04:50.57 | Joan Cox | It looks like the mayor's wife is not coming to order. |
| 00:04:53.84 | Steven Woodside | Well, and then there's a certain pastor, and then there's Mr. Grover Deere, who's Thumbs up. Okay. Here we go. We're now back for our open business session. I'd like to... Call us to order and we'll start with the Pledge of Allegiance. And I'm going to ask Mr. Deer, would you please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance? |
| 00:05:26.73 | Melissa Blaustein | Allegiance to the flag. of the United States of America. and to the Republic for which it stands. Ignatian, under God. indivisible with liberty and justice. |
| 00:05:39.94 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:05:39.98 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 00:05:40.01 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:05:43.76 | Steven Woodside | So, Mr. Clerk, will you kindly call the roll? |
| 00:05:49.07 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Cox? Here. Councilmember Hoffman? |
| 00:05:50.32 | Jill Hoffman | here. here. |
| 00:05:53.76 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Sobieski. |
| 00:05:55.28 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 00:05:55.47 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Vice Mayor Blasthain. |
| 00:05:57.95 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:05:57.97 | Walfred Solorzano | you |
| 00:05:57.98 | Steven Woodside | here. |
| 00:05:58.13 | Jill Hoffman | I'm sorry. |
| 00:05:58.91 | Walfred Solorzano | And Mayor Woodside here. |
| 00:06:02.44 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. We just had a closed session on the seven items listed on the posted agenda. There was no action taken to report out at this time. |
| 00:06:15.70 | Steven Woodside | And we'll now turn to the rest of the agenda and take a look at it. And I'll ask if there are any proposed changes to the agenda, and if not, a motion to approve. So moved. |
| 00:06:24.48 | Melissa Blaustein | So moved. Second. Thank you. |
| 00:06:26.17 | Steven Woodside | Okay. Any objections? |
| 00:06:29.98 | Jill Hoffman | He has to call the little because he has a remote. |
| 00:06:32.31 | Steven Woodside | That's right. I'm sorry. We have a remote, so we need to call the roll. Thank you. |
| 00:06:35.83 | Walfred Solorzano | Okay. Councilmember Cox. |
| 00:06:38.90 | Joan Cox | Yes. |
| 00:06:39.31 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:06:39.80 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Huffman. |
| 00:06:41.05 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 00:06:41.06 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 00:06:41.91 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Sobieski? |
| 00:06:43.09 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 00:06:44.29 | Walfred Solorzano | Vice Mayor Blasin. Yes. And Marilita. |
| 00:06:46.16 | Jill Hoffman | . |
| 00:06:47.73 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes. |
| 00:06:50.01 | Steven Woodside | Okay, we can now move on to item number one, the special presentation. I think we have a report from the city manager and from the chief of police and a special |
| 00:06:53.49 | Walfred Solorzano | |
| 00:06:53.70 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:07:05.53 | Steven Woodside | presentation to follow that. So who wishes to start? |
| 00:07:09.21 | Chris Zapata | Mayor and council public, the police department and the update from the police department on their awards program is first. |
| 00:07:16.62 | Steven Woodside | Okay? |
| 00:07:21.95 | Jill Hoffman | all. Cheers. |
| 00:07:26.15 | Katie Thao Garcia | You can be there and those members. I'm excited to be here tonight to fire your shoes. |
| 00:07:41.44 | Unknown | I didn't. |
| 00:07:42.68 | Unknown | Okay. I'm excited to be here tonight to share an update on the police department, and specifically our annual department meeting that we held last Wednesday morning, which is also an award ceremony for the department. So during our meeting, the intent is to talk about the past year and kind of reflect on what we learned and what we did, and look at what's coming in 2026, and most importantly to recognize our members that have excelled. We have two awards that are strictly peer nominated, and then we have some superior performance awards. So those were all given on Wednesday morning. And so I'm excited to share them with you. I've really summarized them because they were quite lengthy as far as reading, but I am gonna read them. Yeah. And we're going to start with the Superior Performance Awards. There was three of them this year. This award is presented to the employee while serving in an official capacity and in the best interests of our department, distinguishes themselves through the accomplishment of an outstanding service. The first one I'm going to talk about is Sergeant Edgar Padilla. He was recognized for his extraordinary compassion, empathy, and professionalism during a particularly tragic event. He went above and beyond to provide comfort, support, and reassurance to those affected, demonstrating exceptional dedication, selflessness, and kindness. His integrity, patience, and genuine care for others exemplify the highest standards of character and serve as an inspiring example to his peers. So thank you, Edgar. Yeah. The next Superior Service Award was given to Julian Beyer. She was honored for 25 years of dedicated volunteer service to the Sausalito Police Department. A few of those years were even prior to there being in an official VIPs program. The VIPs program has been around for 21 years. Her commitment, professionalism, and generosity has enriched the department, staff, and community. Beyond her official duties, she has gone above and beyond, exemplifying kindness and setting a lasting standard for volunteerism. Thank you, Julian. our next Recognition was for Mike McKinley. He was recognized for his exceptional dedication and leadership in emergency preparedness and management for the city of Sausalito and its police department. Since 2012, he has strengthened the city's readiness by maintaining the emergency operations center, overseeing training and exercises, developing emergency plans, and coordinating with regional stakeholders. He's widely respected as a subject matter expert. He shares his knowledge with the community and has been instrumental in enhancing the city's emergency response capabilities. His expertise, commitment and impact have made him a value invaluable asset and deserving of this recognition. Okay, so the last two awards are our annual awards. Each year we ask for nominations. Everybody in the department nominates a particular person for a particular reason for these awards. The first is the Captain Mark Thomas Award, and Captain Mark Thomas died on duty here in Sausalito. I don't remember the year, but this award is in honor of him. It's presented to the employee who has a consistent positive attitude, exceptional work ethic, a dedication towards helping others succeed, and for providing exceptional customer service. This year, parking enforcement Officer Peter Flores was recognized by his colleagues for his professionalism. reliability and integrity. He consistently supports coworkers, assists the community with patience and courtesy, and demonstrates a positive attitude and strong work ethic. Being chosen by his peers highlights the trust and teamwork and respect he has earned. Peter Flores is this year's recipient of the Captain Mark Thomas Award for his dedication and commitment to excellence. And then our biggest award is our Employee of the Year. This award is presented to the employee whose performance is a role model for others to follow and who contributes to the department's policing mission throughout the year. Detective Bryce Mitchell was recognized for his exceptional performance, leadership, and ability to excel in the demanding hybrid detective patrol role. while fulfilling additional responsibilities as a field training officer and an officer in charge. He consistently demonstrates strong investigative skills, sound judgment, professionalism. Beyond his duties, he contributes as a defensive tactics and use of force instructors, supporting staff development. His dedication, accountability, and high-quality work set a standard for his peers, earning him this year's Employee of the Year Award. And I forgot to mention, the picture obviously up on the screen is, Those are the award recipients. So it was a pretty fantastic meeting. you know, having the opportunity. It's the only time of the year that we're all in the same room. you know, one single day. And so to celebrate each other was pretty great. And I appreciate the mayor and the vice mayor and council member Sobieski for attending, as well as the city manager and Kathy Nikitas from human resources. |
| 00:13:14.47 | Steven Woodside | Chief Gregory, thank you for what all that you do. all that your employees and volunteers and others do under your direction. We really appreciate it. So thank you very much. |
| 00:13:24.36 | Unknown | Thank you very much. And now Paul Mowry is going to come up and he's going to share... Something he shared with us at our department meeting, we always have him close. And so the mayor has asked him to come back and share it with you all. |
| 00:13:45.05 | Paul Mowry | Good evening, council. Thanks for inviting me. I've served as the Sausalito Police Chaplain for nearly 12 years, and I really enjoy being a law enforcement chaplain, but especially being a part of this department. This particular police department exemplifies what I think is the best in law enforcement. The work is top form, the commitment is solid, the respect for the community is self-evident. But there's more. The humanity they bring to their interactions elevates this department. In a world where kindness is waning in popularity, they managed to lift it up. In a world where people are growing more suspicious and alienated, they offer trust and connection. I've seen this up close. There are so many untold stories, quiet acts of kindness and tender mercies. There are so many stories where officers use their own money, give of their own time to lighten the load on someone else's shoulders, someone in the community, to brighten an otherwise dreary situation, to bring support or solace far beyond the call of duty. In one of last year's stories, it was a hug offered in the cold valley of the shadow of death that made a difference. when in the middle of the night, after delivering devastating news, An officer comforted a grieving mom with a spontaneous hug. Humanity is not taught in the police academy, nor in most schools for that matter. Many people would feel too cautious, be too hesitant, to offer such an act of the heart. But so many of our officers have an instinct rooted in care and compassion that they're willing to follow. On that particular night, hours after that hug, on the long night of terrible loss, disbelief, and profound grief, as the dark void of night began to give way to the first streaks of early morning light illuminating the bay and the sky, there came a gentle question from the mom. Who hugged me? And this comment. It was so humane. In every conversation I had with friends of this family, they spoke of the kindness of the Sausalito Police Department. They had a heartfelt appreciation for many things, and especially this hug. This moment of humanity, it moved them. Robert Kennedy Sr., you're probably all familiar, gave a speech to the black African students in Cape Town, South Africa, at the height of apartheid. And he said, each time someone stands up for an ideal or acts to improve the lot of others or strikes out against injustice, they send forth a tiny ripple of hope. and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring. Those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance. And I've been thinking about that vision of Bobby Kennedy's tiny ripples from a million different directions. I've been privileged to see the thoughtfulness, the sensitivity, and the humanity of our police department. That humane gesture of caring created ripples of hope, crossing each other from Marin County and states up and down the West Coast. Anyone who heard of it felt touched by it. In the Jewish and Christian traditions, it's said that there is a balm in Gilead. This balm is a healing compound symbolizing spiritual medicine for the broken heart and the aching soul. And I've seen up close how each one of us can be a practitioner of that balm in Gilead. Each one of us at any moment can choose to offer a balm in place of showing indifference. The work of our PD, their presence here, the heart that they bring to the very challenging mission they have is never visibly really appreciated enough, I think. But the difference they make sends forth ripples of hope in a time when many people feel hopeless. So I just thank them. I thank them last week for all they do, for keeping the peace, for lifting the spirit, for making a compassionate difference in people's lives. And I reassure them it makes a real difference, a true difference, more than probably any of us will really fully know. Thank you. |
| 00:18:49.09 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. That was beautiful. Thank you. |
| 00:18:58.16 | Steven Woodside | City manager, that's going to be a hard act to follow. |
| 00:19:00.82 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. |
| 00:19:01.12 | Unknown | you |
| 00:19:01.27 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. |
| 00:19:01.34 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:19:02.50 | Chris Zapata | It certainly, but I will do my best. It gives me great pleasure to be at the front of the agenda again to talk about things that really matter to the community, to the organization and to the city council. So one of the things I want to tell you is that 2025, which we reported on, was a monumental year. all of the work that was done, that was preloaded by work done the prior years, and it was completed, fantastic. Kudos to that, but we're past that now. We're in 2026, and so I wanted to talk a little bit about what is going on with city staff and city projects and city council work as well as the city attorney. So again, next slide, please. any time that the city gets together to build its budget, which reflects the values of the city, there has to be some type of planning done. Plan to fail, fail to plan. So on January 31st, there will be a city council priority planning session at the fire station on 333 Johnson. And that is going to inform the 26-27 budget process. What I am going to do tonight and what is in this report is to provide you an update on work that is continuing from last year and continues into this coming year. And not in a comprehensive way that involves 10 pages as a TATCH report shows, but a consolidation high level view of what I really want the, um, public and a council to hear. This should help inform your priority setting and your resource allocation. It should allow you the opportunity to understand the workloads in the department and align those priorities with those. And then also calibrate not only the work that the city staff does with the city council and the city attorney, but the work that you do with your volunteers, with your boards and commissions, with your working groups, with your ad hocs, and that's significant. And the reason it's important to bring this forward today, tonight, is because we need to practice what I call finishability. And that means things that we started, we need to finish. And I want to kind of talk a little bit about what we intend to finish in this coming year that's already in process. Next slide, please. |
| 00:21:29.13 | Chris Zapata | Public Works was informed last year and the year before by what the city council approved and our staff did with the consultant, and that was an assessment of our facilities. It was also informed by prior work done to assess our streets. All of those things are what we did to build what we are doing now. And why are we doing what we're doing now? It's obviously deferred maintenance that we need to catch up on. There's public safety that we need to pay attention to, corridor safety, and then there's quality of life that public works and these projects are intended to address. And in order to do that, you allocated $17.7 million for capital projects. That is significant in and of itself. You also allocated two new contract positions, project managers, after adding two more the year before. So you have four people working on a lot of stuff, and that involves 54 projects, storm response, infrastructure maintenance, street resurfacing, facility upgrades. And so, again, all of these things matter and are the why. One of the other whys is obviously quality of life and infrastructure and deferred maintenance. The public safety is a key one, and so one of the things that really highlights that is the project and the agreement the commitment of the city council to allocate $700,000 to recommission the Spencer Firehouse, the work with the Southern Marin County Fire District to set up an agreement whereby that will be activated in a phase one approach this coming year. And that's big, and that's work. And we haven't done that work, but you've approved that work. Obviously, you know, we have a goal of becoming a smarter city, taking advantage of technology. And so there are some things happening that have happened that were not quite done yet. But EV charger stations, we're going to continue to do that. City facility improvements, we're going to continue to do that. And then in terms of just general safety that involves our terrain, besides streets and buildings, we're going to do work on slopes and there are going to be policy discussions that are going to follow up on the hillside or the landslide task force recommendation from a few years back and getting those done you know the whole conversation around geologic hazard abatement districts hillside ordinances those are all on the plate next slide please You know, we always say that Sausalito is, you know, a special place, you know, with its access to the bay, its location. But it's also a place where big things happen that are challenging. And we saw that last week with the confluence of the king tides and the atmospheric river that hit us. So we are not alone. And anything we do in resiliency and sustainability is tip-toe. truly a regional issue and a regional concern. So we have to always keep that in mind. So this year as we work, and you'll hear about more of it tonight, our shoreline adaptation plan, that's one of our agenda items on the business section. I spoke about the EV charging and the fleet electrification. Our police department went into the 21st century by... purchasing a parking enforcement buggy that was electrical. We'll do more of that. Ultimately, someday we'll have charging stations in potentially police cars that run off hybrid or electricity as well. The whole modernization program that was approved in 2024, which was Climatec and that agreement to modernize our facilities so that we're energy efficient. All of that is in play and we're working on continuously and we're doing that right now. Next slide, please. Community and economic development. There are 63 active projects in that department right now. There is a housing element program that involves significant work in terms of its implementation. There's work that we have to do to create opportunities at the MLK facility, the bus barn, and at the corporation yard. And those are all things that are involved in economic development and community development they're working on. And then there are... facility or the bus barn and at the corporation yard. And those are all things that are involved in economic development and community development they're working on. And then there are ordinances that the council has asked us to bring forward and up on the screen you see formula retail sign ordinance fee waiver density bonus and visitability. There are 14 of those that are in play right now, and they're all in the report. I won't go through every single one of them. We're working on making sure our permitting process is streamlined. We have hired a new code enforcement officer who you'll hear from tonight, and that's something that's created some excitement on my end. But there's a backlog that that code enforcement officer has to deal with because we haven't had that prior. The whole waterfront and industrial zones that the council has asked us to look at with this three step approach with this 90 day plan that we need to bring forward and develop a request for proposals to start to talk about what that ultimately turns into with the council's direction. That's all a lot of work in the Community and Economic Development Department. Next slide please. The police department, you know, you read in Currents this year, we hired just this past week, this past Friday, we hired two new officers. We're still too short. And that's a very competitive market. So the work to do that our HR department, our police department, all the team has to do to fill those bodies is an ongoing challenge. So we're not out of the woods, but we have to do that. And certainly, you know, disaster preparedness, emergency readiness, those types of efforts, you know, which are ongoing and constant have been given a kick by the council's approval and appointment of a disaster preparedness committee. You know, our waterfront enforcement, the city has been under a consent decree for years about what we need to do to maintain our waters and made significant progress in terms of the boats on the water. There are now none. The eelgrass study that we need to do, and we're in that process. And then in terms of technology and equipment, that's an ever-ending piece of work that we have to do because it's forever changing and we have to stay a step ahead of all of that to be secure. And I'm really happy to say that last year, that $500,000 allocation of funds you did for our parking system upgrades, we're gonna put that into place. We're gonna follow the Dixon study, but we're also gonna add a $500,000 grant to that as well. So in a year, there's a million dollars that are gonna be put into your parking systems, which is a nice revenue stream for the city. So it's important to stay on top of that. Next slide, please. Obviously, in finance and information technology, we have an audit that we're bringing forward in February and we'll finalize shortly thereafter. We're bringing back the OpenGov transparency tool so the public can see the city's finances just as we can. We're working on a 10-year financial forecasting tool, which you've approved, and we're working on with the Finance Committee. We have our mid-year assessment that we need to work on in terms of our budget, and we have to finish the 26-27 budget by June 30th this coming year. And then one of the IT improvements that's in play and in process that we'll bring forward is a security camera system for Sausalito. Next slide, please. Community services, there's lots of work going on there that is really important. Quality of life is what makes Sausalito special. Certainly our event calendar and the work that our team does to try to keep those events current and relevant is important to assess and analyze them. One of the things that Community Service Director Vitaly told me was, we're going to do a month of Jazz by the Bay in September. Not two weeks, not three weeks, but a month. So that's important. That's an improvement, but that's more work that we're going to do. And we're trying to survey the community so we can do better long-term planning. Next slide, please. Administration and Human Resources, the big lift there is making sure that we're solid with our insurance coverage. We just became new members of the Public Risk Innovation Solutions Management, we call PRISM, after being in Bay Cities for 20-plus years. And so we are working really hard to be a member in good standing, to be their best member, and I think we are achieving that. And Administration and Human Resources, we are absolutely working on a bargaining process with SEIU and their bargaining unit in Sausalito. Thank you. You know, you are talking about a city manager recruitment, which is work to be done. Thank you. Overhauling our employee handbook, which has been the same since 1999, is work that needs to be done. Payroll processing and integrating our payroll systems with our technology platforms is really important. And obviously, we have things that we don't foresee. And the city clerk and administration as well, you know, the digitization of all of our records, you know, making the fire station at Spencer our predominant and first priority so we can get that place ready for fire services and emergency services going on. And then our cleanup of our public-facing websites, making sure that they're current, that they're interactive, and so on, is really important in the 21st century because so many people rely on the website and technology to get their information from the government. And that's the end of my presentation, but I'm not going to close with that. I'm going to tell you that the city attorney. also has a portfolio of work that the city council needs to involve itself in. And the city council has asked for work to be done in the future and have, you know, approximately 30 items that they want. to see us work on with the council and with the community. So all in all, this is an amazing amount of work that we already are committed to. The question is, how do we finish that? When do we finish that? How do we finish that? So I wanted to make sure that the city council and the public had a sense of all the activities in the department. And that's, again, the 10-page report that I referenced. I just went over some high-level parts of it, but it gives you a sense of the work in front of Sausalito and the city staff and the city council at this time. Thank you. |
| 00:32:13.62 | Steven Woodside | Thank you, Mr. City Manager. For these kind of presentations, we don't usually comment or have discussion. But in this case, I just want to make sure everyone understands this is good information that we'll all be considering in public, and the public will have a chance to comment on the 31st, a Saturday. We'll be meeting from approximately 9 a.m. till early afternoon. And we'll be trying to set priorities. And obviously, the information you've provided us tonight is now out there in the public to take a look at. And we'll be making some decisions and giving direction on the 31st. So thank you very much. |
| 00:33:09.95 | Steven Woodside | Sorry, I turned my mic off. So now's the time for public comment on matters that are not on the agenda. These are matters that we can hear from you. We're not at liberty to discuss or make decisions. We might on occasion refer things to departments to follow up on. But this is devoted to hearing from the public on issues and matters that are not on tonight's agenda. So are there any communications of that sort? |
| 00:33:39.75 | Walfred Solorzano | Seeing none in the house, but we do have some online. Very well. We'll start with Matthew Hartsell. |
| 00:33:53.32 | Matthew Hartsell | Thank you. Good evening, Council. I'm Matt Hartzell, Director of Planning at WTBTAM, and these comments are in follow-up to the letter I sent you last week. First off, I want to acknowledge that my letter last week was written in ignorance of some new developments, and I want to thank both Director McGowan and Chief Gregory for responding to my letter and helping to fill me in on those new developments. I now recognize that several of the next steps for Bridgeway, that is the segment between Princess and Richardson, that Council requested at the special meeting in March last last year are in fact in the process of being addressed right now and that's really great. Those include micro-ceiling, striping modifications, and mid-block crossings. Chief Gregor. We explained that enforcement of illegally parked cars in the center turn lane has been ramped up. but that her department has deferred doing the same for delivery trucks that park in the center turn lane until such time as the city is able to provide them with an official legal designated place to park their delivery trucks would make deliveries to Sausalito businesses and residents. A director McGowan followed up and explained that with the ownership of the Trident restaurant in recent flux, the city has not yet moved forward with plans to build a delivery truck parking area there as suggested in the parametric study. However, now that that's right in his clothes, there may no longer be a need for deliveries on the northbound side, but there is still a need for them on the southbound side. And in fact, the parametric study that the city commissioned last year. did show proposed solutions on the southbound side. The current use of the center turn lane for delivery trucks is dangerous for all road users, for the delivery truck drivers themselves, and it blocks emergency vehicle access. WTB TAM urges the council to do everything in your power to prioritize a solution to parking delivery trucks safely on the curb on the southbound side of Bridgeway. Thank you. |
| 00:35:57.50 | Steven Woodside | Your timing was excellent. Thank you, Mr. Hartzell. |
| 00:35:59.69 | Walfred Solorzano | Next speaker we have is Fred. |
| 00:36:07.14 | Fred | Good morning, good evening, Council. Just a couple quick items. I would like to ask that you prohibit any additional installation of the out-of-scale pedestrian signals along Bridgeway or in any other area of the city. I also would ask if you would have the size of those horrifically yellow signs verified. It appears that the actual signage for those are larger than what's shown on the plans. A third item would be if you would consider changing the council's procedure so that any capital improvement plans be presented first to the planning commission before it goes on your consent calendar. A fourth item would be for those heavily aesthetic, robust capital improvement projects like signage, buildings, et cetera, that you first have them design by design professionals such as landscape architects and then verified by the engineers versus what appears to be going on, having the engineers prepare the plan first and oftentimes putting aside very significant aesthetics. And I think a perfect example of that is the litany of pedestrian crossing signs, which appears to have taken a sledgehammer to resolve a problem when an ice pick may have been more appropriate. Appreciate again all the effort and time that you guys put in for the city and having our best interest at heart. |
| 00:36:07.36 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:37:35.97 | Fred | you |
| 00:37:35.98 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Good evening. |
| 00:37:36.76 | Fred | Thank you. |
| 00:37:36.78 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Thank you. No further public comment. |
| 00:37:43.51 | Steven Woodside | Very well. We'll now go on to our consent calendar. We have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Nine items on consent, items 3A through... Bye. |
| 00:38:00.92 | Steven Woodside | So we've already approved the agenda. Are there any... or all of these. |
| 00:38:08.43 | Walfred Solorzano | I think no public comments. |
| 00:38:09.70 | Steven Woodside | Okay, no public comments. at a, |
| 00:38:23.35 | Unknown | Thank you. Sorry, there is one public comment. I wanted to comment on the item for the Bridgeway crosswalks. And, you know, to kind of echo what the previous caller or the previous speaker mentioned, you know, this is another area where we're putting forward a safety improvement project, which is definitely needed. and absolutely crosswalks are definitely needed there. This is a really beautiful stretch of our town. And if we go in with a design-led mindset, we can probably make it safe and look pretty good, as opposed to the kind of visual clutter that we've got in the interest of safety on the part of Bridgeway that we were recently working on. So definitely just want to reiterate that, that the design of this is going to be very important. And I didn't see anything in the project documentation about that. And I think that would be something that we should consider. Thank you very much. |
| 00:39:16.62 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:39:16.69 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. I've seen no comments for the content calendar. |
| 00:39:23.31 | Joan Cox | I'll move approval of the consent calendar. I can |
| 00:39:26.97 | Steven Woodside | Okay, moved and seconded. Will you call the roll? |
| 00:39:31.04 | Walfred Solorzano | Cox Thank you. |
| 00:39:31.88 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 00:39:31.90 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Yeah. Councilmember Hoffman? |
| 00:39:34.26 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 00:39:34.65 | Walfred Solorzano | you Councilmember Sobieski. Thank you. |
| 00:39:36.74 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:39:36.91 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. ice cream blast team Thank you. |
| 00:39:39.42 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:39:39.44 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes. And we're able to. Yes. |
| 00:39:42.05 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. So we do have several business items. One will be conducted as a hearing. But we do not have public hearing items. We'll go now to the first business item, 5A. And it's to receive and file a Shoreline Adaptation Report. García, welcome. |
| 00:40:12.43 | Katie Thao Garcia | Good evening, Mayor Woodside, Vice Mayor Blaustein, Councilmembers and members of the public. My name is Katie Thao Garcia, the city's Resiliency and Sustainability Manager. Tonight, I will be presenting an update on the shoreline adaptation plan following council direction received by staff on November 18th, 2025. Importantly, tonight, I would just like to reiterate that staff are not asking council to formally accept the shoreline adaptation plan, only to accept the update on it tonight, which was presented with the staff report in attachments. Staff will continue to work on the shoreline adaptation plan following tonight's direction. Next slide, please. So I probably don't need to remind you, but Sausalito has around 7,500 residents with 2.5 miles of shoreline that is vulnerable to sea level rise, which also faces compending threats to infrastructure, housing, transportation, and economic activity. The draft shoreline adaptation plan aims to understand our sea level rise vulnerability, document community visions, and create a Sausalito specific adaptation recommendations. Next slide, please. In December 2023 Council approved a professional services agreement with WRT and rainwater consulting to cover a grant that the city received for community informed sea level rise planning, which was received under SB 179. Next slide please. Since contract approval, the project team, which includes myself, has been working to update our C-level rise vulnerability assessment, conduct broad community engagement, and create near-term and long-term adaptation framework in a Sausalito context, which contains adaptation visions. Throughout this process, we conducted several community-wide meetings, presented updates to City Council, and regularly published updates in the Currents and are in our project website at Sausalito.gov slash Shoreline Plan. Next slide, please. On November 18th, 2025, the draft shoreline adaptation plan was presented to city council. During the meeting, staff received direction to continue working on the plan, with explicit direction to focus on engineered and natural shoreline protection. Focus on protecting the existing shoreline and associated economic activity. develop further develop cost estimates explore enhanced infrastructure financing districts and increase engagement with waterfront owners next slide please Following council direction received on November 18th, 2025, city staff met with WRT, the consultants working on this, Tim Rogers from the Sausalito Sustainable Waterfront Association, and other members of the waterfront community previously engaged with. The purpose of these meetings was to confirm the desire to work together on future updates to the draft shoreline adaptation plan. Following this confirmation and these conversations, staff drafted a scope of work, which reflected the November 18th city council direction, followed by including the community need which was received in those conversations and expressed at public comment during the November 18th meeting. Next slide, please. Attached to tonight's agenda is a revised draft scope of work, which includes expanded engagement with the waterfront businesses, particularly those in the marineship. refined adaptation recommendations with an emphasis on the existing shoreline and cost estimates. I'll just note that this also includes updates to the draft recommendations not previously vetted in in detail with property owners, tenants, and neighbors. And additionally, public and stakeholder updates. And finally, definitions of an enhanced infrastructure financing district in Sausalito context. Next slide, please. To prevent misunderstanding, I'd like to be very clear about what is not included in the proposed draft scope of work tonight. However, this could be amended by city council tonight on future direction. So anything beyond a vision for the shoreline adaptation and associated approaches for future projects to call upon. proposal of individual adaptation projects on individual properties. Conceptual designs, 30% designs or feasibility assessments and in-depth infrastructure financing districts, including proposed boundaries or revenue projections, those kinds of things that would go really in depth on the formation of an EIFD. scope elements like those mentioned on the slide should be addressed on really a project by project basis coming out of the shoreline adaptation plan. As a reminder, the purpose of the shoreline adaptation plan is a broad vision for recommendations in a Sausalito context, not individual project by project, property by property recommendations. such things would be appropriate next steps on a project by project basis. Next slide, please. For example, the gate five area drainage management study has been identified as an area of concern by city council. And the city has secured funding to do in-depth analyses like those mentioned on the previous slide. in this very specific area, which includes the creation of conceptual designs, 30% designs and includes direct engagement with adjacent property owners and tenants. And following this, we'll explore the funding mechanisms, like the formation of an EIFD. Such project by project approach is the anticipated next step coming out of city council adopting a shoreline adaptation plan in the future. So next slide please. So after council direction tonight, city staff could present future contract amendments to continue working with WRT, as outlined in the draft scope of work, at some point in time in February or whenever you wish. And following this, say in March or after, staff would be prepared to begin work on that contract amendment. Just to be very clear, this would include further modifications, updates, presentations, engagement. work on that contract amendment. Just to be very clear, this would include further modifications, updates, presentations, engagement sessions with property owners to get to ultimately a council adopted shoreline adaptation plan or consideration of one at some point in the future. Next slide, please. So that is the end of my presentation. I'm happy to answer any of your questions. |
| 00:47:57.98 | Steven Woodside | So just as a reminder to my colleagues here at the dais and Mr. Sobieski, this is question time, not time for in-depth discussion. We'll get to that later after we've heard from the public. So I see, Member Cox, you have a question. |
| 00:48:11.88 | Joan Cox | Thank you. Thank you for that presentation. I just want to clarify, the staff report says, receive and file the Shoreline Adaptation Plan report. So what you're asking us to receive and file tonight is this update. It's an update, yes. Nothing to do with what we heard in November. |
| 00:48:29.86 | Katie Thao Garcia | Correct. Yeah. Always for the clerical error. No worries. I just communication. |
| 00:48:30.85 | Joan Cox | A POLL. This is huge. Thank you. |
| 00:48:34.56 | Katie Thao Garcia | Thank you. |
| 00:48:34.58 | Joan Cox | you were very clear during your presentation. So I just want to be clear, you have attached to this a scope of work outline And then an update that talks about a planning process, future steps, including focusing on the gate five area drainage management study that you just went through. So that's the update you're asking us to receive and file tonight. And then you'll come back to us with updates. related to the scope of work you're enunciating tonight. Absolutely. All right. Thank you so much. Sorry. No, I'm actually. there was some concern expressed by members of the public So I just want to be clear, we're only receiving and filing this update. And thank you for the update and for the work. Since November 18th. |
| 00:49:25.32 | Steven Woodside | Other questions? |
| 00:49:31.67 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:49:32.24 | Melissa Blaustein | Oh, what comes more happen. Go, I'll go after it's fine. |
| 00:49:34.54 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:49:35.38 | Steven Woodside | Okay. |
| 00:49:36.22 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you for our conversation earlier today and thank you for your update. And I think just to be clear, the draft report, the draft shoreline adaptation plan that we've referenced tonight, and thank you for making it very clear, it's a draft plan, it's not the final plan. And it goes back also to the agenda title, the confusion I think that council member Cox just addressed. |
| 00:49:59.01 | Chris Zapata | you know, that, |
| 00:50:02.97 | Jill Hoffman | And my request and ask going forward is that whenever we reference it, that it's we include the word draft in front of it. Can we also put a watermark on it as it's listed on. on the website as draft. I mean, I think we know that most of our other reports that we have is it so that it's clearly called out that it's a draft plan and there's no confusion anymore going forward or anybody else that goes on. that'd clear up any angst. Thank you. |
| 00:50:29.48 | Jill Hoffman | Yes, absolutely. |
| 00:50:29.50 | Jill Hoffman | Yes, absolutely. Thank you so much for that, Katie. And I think, I had one other question. but, Um, Anyway, let's have Council Member Blassey go. Yeah, we were still clear up. |
| 00:50:39.07 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah. We received some correspondence from the SSWI and also from some property owners just asking for potential diversification of the firms that are addressing the sea level rise adaptation plan or the shoreline adaptation plan. Is that something within the scope of work that we are able to consider? At this point, |
| 00:51:01.49 | Katie Thao Garcia | Yeah, I would say, you know, most things are under your purview to consider tonight. I will say WRT is the main consulting firm that we have been using, but they have sub-consultants. Arup. one ESA, one architecture, Shoff and Wheeler, who are engineering firms who do consult on this plan. They're not the they're not the lead. WRT is the lead, but they certainly have been vetting this work throughout throughout the process. Thank you. |
| 00:51:36.04 | Jill Hoffman | . |
| 00:51:36.24 | Katie Thao Garcia | Thank you. |
| 00:51:36.61 | Jill Hoffman | I may follow up on that real quick. |
| 00:51:39.58 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:51:39.65 | Jill Hoffman | I'm not sure. |
| 00:51:39.78 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:51:40.00 | Jill Hoffman | Did you have a time to, did you have time to see the sustainable, Sausalito Sustainable Waterfront Association letter that they sent in? |
| 00:51:47.11 | Katie Thao Garcia | I was not sent it directly. So I received it probably about 15 minutes before council meeting. So I haven't really had time to digest it in fully. But yes, I have skipped it. |
| 00:51:58.16 | Jill Hoffman | So let me run down, just let me get to the four points, I think, at the end of the Overall, it was a great letter. It was three pages long and at on the third page they sort of summarize overall it's hey there's a lot of things that we need to look at not just um sort of not just sort of theoretical or not theoretical, but, you know, not just sea level rise issues, but also we need to look at the engineering part of it, especially if we're talking about real world sort of thing. So we need to get actual engineers in here, not just C-level rise experts, which you're an expert in and so is WRT, right? And so some of the things that they recommend, here's the four recommendations. Don't sole source the engineering scope to WRT. Let's scope it out a little bit more or let's do Um, that's their number one that that's their first one. Um, and let's bring in either FNL and a Miller Pacific, or let's, let's, let's scope out, you know, um, the RF, uh, RF, uh, Q or RFA. or RFP. The second one is engage at least two firms experience in the EIFD and infrastructure bond financing to provide preliminary feasibility analysis with engineering to understand the financing constraints before finalizing the scope, not after. So that might not be a bad exercise. Reframe the gate five as phase one of a comprehensive waterfront plan, not a standalone. EIFD, Part of their thing of the EIFD is also that there's not enough businesses to finance it. And so they're concerned that it needs to be scoped out. broader than just that one area of the marineship. So these are just things to think about. Their fourth bullet down there on page three is prioritize constructible financeable solutions over additional visioning. Um, Um, so in other words, to try to sort of get these things in the scope, right, of the whole exercise. So anyway, that's on page three, and we can sort of talk about that in our discussion too, and I'm sure they're going to speak about it during public comment. Yes. |
| 00:54:09.16 | Katie Thao Garcia | Thank you. |
| 00:54:09.63 | Katie Thao Garcia | Thank you. |
| 00:54:13.75 | Unknown | of |
| 00:54:16.32 | Katie Thao Garcia | Thank you. |
| 00:54:19.25 | Steven Woodside | Okay. Are any of the sub consultants that you mentioned, have they done work elsewhere in the San Francisco Bay area and specifically do you know if any of them have worked on Treasure Island, because I know that that may be an analysis, an analogy to some of the issues we face on Richardson Bay. |
| 00:54:40.78 | Katie Thao Garcia | I don't know the full depth of their profiles if they've worked on Treasure Island. I mean, I would say a lot of the sea level rise planning work, there is a lot of overlap within the Bay Area. For example, you know, WRT will be working. Um, WRT and, you know, several of their sub consultants on the Sausalito plan will also be working on the mill Valley plan. The Tiburon plan will be led, I think, by Schaff and Wheeler, um, with, you know, very similar sub consultants. So I can't speak specifically to treasure Island, but I know there is a lot of overlap within, um. The seal of arise planning, you know, whether it's led by an engineer or engineers on the team. |
| 00:55:27.90 | Steven Woodside | I see Mr. Sobieski has a question. |
| 00:55:31.26 | Ian Sobieski | Yes, thank you, Mayor. Hi, Katie. Thanks a lot for the update. Feeding off of Council Member Hoffman's questions, It definitely was late mail. And I guess one quick question for city clerk. Walford, can you post those letters still to the agenda, even though they came in this afternoon? |
| 00:55:50.93 | Walfred Solorzano | Yeah, I'll pull something out. |
| 00:55:53.23 | Ian Sobieski | So Katie, So feeding off of Councilmember Hoffman's questions, there is a fair bit of feedback that came in late. It seems that, you know, you very much are following the City Council direction to engage with those property owners. |
| 00:56:08.80 | Steven Woodside | having a little difficulty hearing you. Can you speak up a little more? |
| 00:56:11.49 | Ian Sobieski | I'll speak up. Sounds like you are doing a great job reaching out to the property owners and they are engaging with you, but it seems like They've sent you some substantive material feedback here at a very late hour, and I'm wondering if you're still able to incorporate that feedback in the evolution of your work. |
| 00:56:31.15 | Katie Thao Garcia | I'm certainly able to, um, you know, continue working on that draft scope of work and bring it back to council with, with further consideration. I will say, you know, in my, own opinion of council member hoffman the four points that she summarized um you know those those points are extremely valid um to me they seem appropriate next steps coming out of an adopted shoreline adaptation plan again the purpose of the shoreline adaptation plan is a large vision a suite of adaptation approaches that could be relevant for the Sausalito shoreline, but doesn't go specifically in depth into, you know, any single one engineering approach or any single one funding mechanism like an EIFD. Further information will be needed to... |
| 00:57:23.49 | Chris Zapata | Yeah. |
| 00:57:27.53 | Katie Thao Garcia | really consider that on a project by project basis, like the Gate 5 Road project. I'm happy to keep working on that for sure. But I would like to caution, you know, what we said we were going into this funding with was a broad vision of shoreline adaptation approaches in Sausalito, not things very specific, like council member Hoffman mentioned. |
| 00:57:54.20 | Ian Sobieski | So following up on that, and I think your response helps clarify maybe some direction for our discussion, Katie, so thank you. But going back to the motion we made on November 18th, for instance, and you quoted it in the staff report, it was to specify an engineered infrastructure solution that protects today's existing shoreline and economic activity. Thank you. and that such an exploration should include a cost estimate of all solutions. It goes on. But just picking up on that, A cost estimate of a solution is an engineering exercise, so wouldn't it be within the scope of the direction to actually take the visioning a step further, which is for the solutions that have already been articulated in your report, some of the retreat and mitigation measures, the creation of wetlands and whatnot, there should be a cost number attached to it, both in terms of Implementing that engineering wise and perhaps economically in terms of implications. And so too with a, let's say a seawall, if it was to preserve the existing shoreline, what would that cost just as a first estimate? Um, I think that was at least, I thought that was our intention there. Could we use the remaining part of the remaining three to 400 K on this grant to come up with an order of magnitude estimate of the cost costs of implementing and the economic costs of the various solutions? |
| 00:59:28.93 | Katie Thao Garcia | Yes, yes. The short answer is yes. I mean, that was included in the draft scope of work presented tonight. But, you know, again, I would like to stress that it's rough order of magnitude cost estimates. That's, you know, saying a seawall per foot costs roughly this much, you know, not going into exactly the fine detail of the complexities of some areas in the Sausalito shoreline that could, you know, potentially make costs higher or lower But yes, WRT, you know, is, is preparing to work with, um, cost estimators and engineers to provide us those numbers. Um, if a. contract is amended. |
| 01:00:18.77 | Ian Sobieski | So it might be a question that you actually can't answer right now, because it might be a question you want to in turn ask either the SSWA members or perhaps the engineering firms themselves. But I think that might be at the heart of the matter. Uh, our order of magnitude is always great, but if it's wildly wrong, uh, it can influence a decision. The wildly wrong part depends on the engineering answer. So I think we're, some of us might be asking is, it's not a 30% design maybe, that we need to explore, but different engineering solutions can have wildly different costs. So if you do no engineering design, and that's where maybe a firm like Miller Pacific, the council member Hoffman or FNL that has done, work in the Bay, and I think the city's already working with one of them, might be able to help with the cost estimate at the order of magnitude level. by doing more than just saying a seawall costs x dollars per linear foot. by saying, well, that's true, but you can do one that's cheaper, or one that's more expensive. that might be appropriate. Is there, would you need direction from us to do that? or if we wanted to be sure that that's the kind of answer we're getting. Like how do we make sure in discussion time that we give you what you need to make sure you're not being you know misled about what we want to see. Can you help us out? |
| 01:01:43.76 | Katie Thao Garcia | Yes, what I'm hearing from you is that you do want to see, you want rough order of magnitude... price estimates, but you also want them. in a, you know, very geographically organized context within the Sausalito shoreline. To me, that is an appropriate next step coming out of The shoreline adaptation plan is to, you know, roughly what you're talking about is a feasibility assessment of saying, um, feasibility of a seawall or of, sheet piles along this section of the shoreline we want to know um, what is feasible and what exactly those costs. The purpose of the shoreline adaptation plan is just a broad suite of options. And, um, hopefully, you know, the rough estimate of how much those costs, um, |
| 01:02:44.35 | Ian Sobieski | Well, I guess my last question, then I'll let it go. That is, we've spent roughly a little bit more than half the grant. So I was just curious within the $300,000 to $400,000, whether we can do any element of what you're calling next steps as part of this step. and have this step be a bit, maybe a step and a half instead of just one step. |
| 01:03:02.51 | Katie Thao Garcia | I mean, possibly. I'm not sure how much that would cost. You know, geographic scope would probably help rather than just the entire Sausalito shoreline. Yeah. You know, some of that will be provided through the gate five area drainage management study, you know, for roughly gate five to Harbor Drive general area and is currently being considered. Um, so if we wanted to take it further than that for a different portion of the shoreline, potentially we could, um, or continue the Gate 5 Road work. Thank you. |
| 01:03:43.91 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:03:47.01 | Steven Woodside | What I'm hearing you say is that to go much further than a rough order of magnitude is not likely, given the budget, the amount that we have. Am I reading too much into your answer? |
| 01:04:02.99 | Katie Thao Garcia | No, no, I think that's the nice way to put it. Yes. Um, And to take it even further... I think that's a good thing. would go beyond the scope of what we initially got the funding to do. Thank you. under that was given to us for this grant. |
| 01:04:27.21 | Steven Woodside | I think we're ready for public comments at this point. Thank you, Katie, very much. Are there public comments on this item? |
| 01:04:41.75 | Steven Woodside | Oh, I'm sorry. I see him in the audience. Mr. Madden, would you like to come forward? Jim Madden. |
| 01:04:56.18 | Jim Madden | Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Jim Madden. I'm a waterfront property owner. Operator directly impacted by the short line adaptation plan. My family's been here over 115 years. I support developing a sea level rise plan. However, I have serious concerns about this plan and how it was developed. Pages 95 through 100 outline concept proposals for Newtown that directly affect private properties, access, elevation, and long-term use. Page 134 introduces a live with water approach that effectively assumes existing property will be regularly flooded, even in areas where practical, simple solutions exist, such as raising parking lots. Despite the magnitude of these impacts, a consultant did not meet with major stakeholders, including myself, whose properties and operations are clearly affected. That lack of engagement is evident in the recommendation and raising concerns that future outreach could become little more than a box-checking exercise. One example is a proposal for floating parking lot and offshore levee at Johnson Street. That approach is complex, extremely expensive, and in my view, unlikely to work as intended. In contrast, raising the existing Johnson Street parking lot, the parking lot behind the arts would be more realistic, more durable, significantly less costly, while also providing effective flood control. Concept A, shoreline levee, concept B, bridgeway elevated are both unrealistic. We need a real concept that protects the existing shoreline. There's also a factual error. SeaDoc is an adaptive pier, even though it's already a floating pier. If existing conditions are wrong, the city resists pursuing the wrong solutions and not at unnecessary risk cost. Finally, with construction equipment already in place at next phase, Dunphy park, there's an immediate opportunity to coordinate elevation and flood protection for bridgeway and surrounding properties, but only if stakeholder is included now. I respectfully ask the council to pause for finalizing direction and require targeted, well, |
| 01:07:00.60 | Steven Woodside | I don't think we have too many public comments tonight, so if you want to finish, please do. |
| 01:07:04.77 | Jim Madden | Okay, one last sentence. Require targeted stakeholder engagement, incorporate that input into their plan, a realistic concept preserving the existing shoreline needs to be presented in that plan. Ultimately needs to be a public and private sector cooperation. This will lead to a more practical cost-effective outcome. Thank you. |
| 01:07:24.29 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Again, this is a little unusual because we don't have many public comments. Do you have some online? Please have a microphone, Mr. Madden. I think Ms. Cox has a question for you. |
| 01:07:30.86 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes, we have a Thank you. |
| 01:07:41.66 | Joan Cox | You mentioned economies of scale involving Dunphy Park, that we could do work now or add work now to the work we're already doing at Dunphy Park. |
| 01:07:49.91 | Jim Madden | Well, I'm looking at all that equipment, and you could raise the level there to help protect Bridgeway. Ultimately, Bridgeway has got to be protected. |
| 01:07:59.28 | Joan Cox | When you're talking about raising the level, raising the level of what at Dunnett? |
| 01:08:02.90 | Jim Madden | The park could conceivably be, you know, a study would have to be done, but it could be. that land could be raised, which would protect the park, which would save you money. 15 years from now from building something else in London or whatever. |
| 01:08:19.78 | Joan Cox | Okay. Thank you so much. |
| 01:08:25.33 | Steven Woodside | Other public comments? |
| 01:08:26.97 | Walfred Solorzano | We have the Bet MacDougall online. |
| 01:08:31.93 | Babette McDougall | Thank you very much for including me. Can you hear me all right? |
| 01:08:35.12 | Steven Woodside | Yes, we can. Thank you. |
| 01:08:36.65 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. So, first of all, I want to applaud each of our council members. I especially appreciate it. First, you knocked my socks off, Joan Cox. I was delighted with the specific questions that you tendered. And then that was quickly followed by Hoffman, who knocked my other sock off. And then Ian Sobieski. Ann, I think this is the first time I've heard the engineer and you come through in the council meetings. I was thrilled. And we need more of that from you, especially in this area. So thank you for looking at these things from the engineering perspective. We're lucky to have an engineer. on the council. Bring it on. And I want to say I can't imagine if we're talking about adding new money to WRT after they lost the confidence of all the citizens at workshops one, two, and three, myself included, and also by the city council last meeting, lost all the confidence of all the shoreline businesses as item two. I don't understand why you would want to throw money, good money. after bad. I think have they refunded the money for doing a lousy job at the first place about being humiliated by Jill Hoffman because she read them their own contract and failing to fulfill their own. financial and fiduciary obligations by signing that contract. I mean, why would we throw good money after bad by staying with WRT? I'm sorry. I have no knowledge of who they are as people. I'm sure they're fine people. I'm not saying that there's a problem with them individually. I'm saying as an entity, they have already failed us. Why would we want to stay with them? If you have other alternatives that are probably more capable, and we'll read the contract next time and remember it. I say, why stay with a failed model? I don't get it. Thank you. |
| 01:10:32.57 | Walfred Solorzano | No further public comments. |
| 01:10:34.93 | Steven Woodside | Very well, I'll bring it back for discussion. I know you're seeking some direction. I think given some of the comments we've already heard, it's going to be hard for us to be all that specific tonight. That's just my preliminary comment, but let's try. Want to start? |
| 01:10:56.36 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah, I'm happy to start. I appreciate that we're revisiting this item. I know we got a lot of public feedback and that many of the property owners were, you know... Fairly concerned about not being consulted with regards to the outcome of the plan, and I think that the scope here or the updated scope clearly indicates for meetings with stakeholders and specific meetings with city council, so the idea of the revised scope is right, in my opinion. I, I. would like to take into consideration and really appreciate the suggestions from the sustainable waterfront association, especially as it relates to things like the, the F E I F D district and how we determine that. So I'd like us to, as a council, figure out how we give direction to follow some of those recommendations, because I think they made, quite a bit of sense. The place where I'm struggling to figure out how we would best um, take into consideration their concerns is around the option four, or sorry, comment four, which speaks specifically to instead of getting advising essentially actually constructionable outcomes. And I believe that the million dollar grant was specifically for a plan. So I think we need to figure out how we address that together. And I would really like to see us. I appreciate WRT. I think that they're they're obviously the lead consultant, but I think there are recommendations for engineering firms that have specifically already worked on sea level rise in the Bay Area. And if we could consider how we might engage further with them. I would encourage us to do that as well. But I think that the idea of revisiting it to update the scope makes sense here. So I'd like to see us figure out how we work with the SWA's suggestions and recommendations while being aware of what the purpose of the million-dollar grant is. So I would welcome my colleagues' comments. And thank you so much to Katie for her hard work on this. I know that you have spent hours and hours thinking about how we best prepare our waterfront. And again, I want to remind folks that this is not the plan itself as a discussion about updating the scope. And so I appreciate your comments, Mr. Madden, very much. And we will be revisiting this specifications of the plan as you suggested and laid out. And that will be an ongoing conversation as well. |
| 01:13:13.28 | Joan Cox | We'll be, |
| 01:13:13.76 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. |
| 01:13:17.03 | Melissa Blaustein | Amber Cox. |
| 01:13:17.66 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:13:19.70 | Joan Cox | I endorse what the vice mayor said. I really liked the phrase in the SWWA letter that said visioning must be bounded by engineering reality and the encouragement that our process involves. you know, developing a better understanding of existing conditions. But then engaging engineers and financial experts in order to identify feasible solutions in the short term, not just in the long term. I also would like to encourage that we engage with regional stakeholders. This is not Sausalito's problem alone. This is a county issue. There are other cities on the bay affected by this. we can We already are engaging with Bay Wave and other agencies, I just want to encourage this process to do the same thing so that We take advantage of economies of scale some examples of which were given by Mr. Madden. Thank you. |
| 01:14:25.78 | Steven Woodside | office? |
| 01:14:27.40 | Jill Hoffman | Thanks. Yes, thank you. So just to recap for just a second, you know, we received the funds, a million dollars from the state under SB 179 for sea level rise planning. And we had two You know, iterations of the draft plan on our consent calendar from in October 29th of 2024 on May 20th of 2025, which was a 25 page draft report. And we only saw the finalized 168 plan on November 18th. So, and that's when it came as a bit of a surprise, all these different plans and the plan for inundation and basically that are our working waterfront areas, we're going to be, um, basically flooded and our, that's what caught the, that was, that's what caught the attention of our businesses along those areas and that they were not particularly engaged with this plan of inundation. And so That was why at our November 19th, Sorry, our November 18, 2025 meeting, we decided specifically not to accept the plan as complete. And that's why it's important that when we talk about this plan. we, uh, think of it as a draft plan and that we're going to continue to and we're going to finalize this draft plan and now we're going to finalize it with input from our businesses along that. Karen Hollweg, Northern waterfront area and I see them here tonight in our audience, so thank you to them for coming down and giving us their input, I think that it is. Karen Hollweg, It is for sea level rise and so. and our reaction to that. And this is going to be a reference document from now for the next, 30 years. And this is a document that we're going to submit to the state. that we're going to rely on Probably none of us will be on the dais anymore when this thing is going to be continued. This plan is going to be continued to be relied upon by us, by staff, none of whom are going to be. none of whom are in the room now will still be on the council on staff, none of us on the council will still be on the council. And so it's very important that we get this right. and that we have stakeholders. And so I completely agree, actually. with some of the recommendations that were put forth by the Sausalito Sustainable Waterfront Association that we include some engineering plans and, and realistically look at this and that those references also be included in a shoreline adaptation plan. Now, do they need to be the actual plans that we're gonna carry out? to a finished degree. I don't know because I'm not an engineer and I'm not one of the experts down there on the working areas. I'm not one of those stakeholders, but that's what this iterative process is supposed to be about. So anyway, I'll finish my comments. Come back to me. Or I can finish it now. I'm almost wrapping up. |
| 01:17:40.94 | Steven Woodside | If you promise to wrap up, yes. |
| 01:17:41.40 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you, Mayor. Yes, sure. So what I would suggest is that we let them work on this. They're supposed to be part of this process. So I would suggest that we move forward with these, include these four things that they've got in their letter. the four things that I read off with Katie, we include that in our direction. And they try to come up with this with the money that we have left in the grant. So it's with WRT. I don't know how much we have left in the in the contract that we have with WRT. but that we include that and somehow reference that. And that's... additional chapters in the plan and however that comes to be, that comes to be. Um, And then it comes back to us for further discussion. |
| 01:18:33.23 | Steven Woodside | Thank you, Mr. Sobieski. |
| 01:18:36.91 | Ian Sobieski | My comments align with Council Member Hoffman and actually everyone who said everything here this evening. But let me just underline it. And Katie, thank you so much. This is an evolving document and And there's an evolving sensibility. And as we get smarter, we give you feedback, which might seem like it's changing direction, but it's really just because we're understanding it better where we're at. So thank you for the work you and the team and everyone else is doing. But I think what came out of November 18th, Katie, was really a direction like Councilmember Hoffman said, to do, a, to use the remaining three to 400K as much as we can to do what I think I referred to during question time as something like a step and a half. So it's not just a visioning, of, preserving the existing waterfront? but it's kind of doing some preliminary engineering. It's a first order engineering investigation to the extent you can. And that means... And I would, you know, I think I take it for face value, this recommendation from the SSWA to maybe do an RFQ for some extra help. They mentioned FNL and Miller Pacific as having experience on these issues. It's up to you. You're the staff member, but Why not, if that's their recommendation, tap them as a resource and then take a page from Mr. Madden's comment. and look at targeted solutions at different sections of the waterfront using these two engineering firms as advisors to come up with a first order magnitude cost estimate for what they might consider to be a straightforward solution, the solution that the property owners have in mind. I think the report that you gave a first draft of back in November, has done a, a very comprehensive job at introducing newer ideas of Natural adaptation to sea level rise, probably where I think you're getting some feedback is the council and the community would like to see some. more detail in concrete analysis of solutions that some of the property owners have in mind and that engineering firms might have for this task. So that would be my encouragement, underlining what my colleagues have said. which is to try to take a step and a half with the remaining three or 400K Get some engineering firms. to do a targeted first order We call it rough design, not even 30%, just back in the envelope and and a kind of economic analysis of that as well. If you get that number, the colary work is what was in the November 18 motion. motion, which is what's the funding mechanism of that? We said, including an EIFD, but that's not the only tool in the toolbox. if it's beyond the scope of what an AIFD can pay for it. And that, of course, will require some economic analysis. So you might need to add an economic person to your, advisor set. then maybe there is some other financing tool that we need to also be apprised of. So we'd like to get that as part of the report. |
| 01:21:44.53 | Steven Woodside | So I'm gonna... suggests again that we sometimes get confused by the titles. And this is called a plan when I don't think it was ever intended to be the plan. It was more an analysis and a process. So from my perspective, the most important direction I think we want to give tonight is to make sure the consultant and the subconsultants work directly with the owners and businesses at the waterfront, because many of them have already done some of that engineering analysis. Many of them have access to and can draw in information that I think will inform, and it will solve two things. We should always include the people who are most affected directly by sea level rise. We have only to look back a couple of weeks to the high tides to know that many, even some people in this room, might have been surprised by, even though the numbers were there and the predictions were there, it affected some property owners right along the waterfront more than they probably anticipated and more than the city anticipated. I'll make one more detailed comment because I don't think now is the time to try to undertake the economic analysis for an EIFD. My own perspective. view is we should probably consider an EIFD for the entire shoreline. entire shoreline. Why? Because it's all affected, and an EIFD, Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District, is one mechanism that can help pay without raising tax rates and without putting the entire burden on the property owners at the shoreline. And the reason I think this is going to be viable for our town is because we all know, for example, Bridgeway serves everyone in town. It's not just the adjacent property owners or, let's say, someone who owns a home on Bridgeway or a business on Bridgeway. It's our major route through town It's extremely important from a public safety point of view, et cetera. So I'm just saying that let's be more modest in our expectation what this analysis can bring to us, recognizing that we are a long way from a real plan that shows that we can adapt successfully to sea level rise. It's costly, time-consuming. It'll be controversial, but I think we're ready for it. |
| 01:24:29.42 | Steven Woodside | So often we try to have a motion to give specific direction or... This one is a challenge because I think from my point of view, the real direction is make sure you work with the property owners and bring in relevant consultants to the best of your ability. That would be my direction. |
| 01:24:50.14 | Jill Hoffman | You know what, Mayor? Can I do it? If I look back at the motion we did back in November, you know, it's almost there. It says work with the property owners, you know, um, should include a cost estimate of all solutions and make recommendations how to Enhanced economic activity area, well, except for the EIFD, right? So do we want to set that aside for now? |
| 01:25:13.95 | Steven Woodside | Well, I just think we need to recognize that there's that and there may be other financing mechanism. And it's too early to engage in that. But it's not too early, in my view, to consider and start the conversation. Is an EIFD relevant? And how would we start to establish the district? |
| 01:25:32.81 | Ian Sobieski | Okay. |
| 01:25:37.49 | Ian Sobieski | My only thought, Mary said- |
| 01:25:38.57 | Steven Woodside | That doesn't have to happen as part of this consultant's work and the work of our staff at this moment. |
| 01:25:47.50 | Ian Sobieski | So I only thought, Mayor, and it ties into- I would say- |
| 01:25:52.68 | Steven Woodside | be done on a parallel track. |
| 01:25:53.81 | Jill Hoffman | So I think the direction is go back and work with the stakeholders, which we've already directed that back in November. Yeah. We've got input now we've got direct impact now this for this update right here we are. This is where we're at with the draft, um, with the draft. And now we have more input. She's met with the stakeholders. That's the update I've met with the stakeholders. We have input from the stakeholders. Now she's ready to go back with, okay, we're going to, here's the scope of what you want us to do. And I think the scope is we think we need to do a little bit more Not a little bit more, but also think about the engineering part of it. and council member sobiasky and i have said we're comfortable with doing, bringing in, if you, you know, Tell us what this looks like if we pursue And I think that's a really good thing. you know if we can do it let's do it and i think that covers the scope of the grant that we got and i think that our consultants the wrt consultants should be able to fold that into the plan and that's just building on and i talked to katie about this this morning or this afternoon, sorry, those chapters, right? It's just 5.2, 0.3, 0.4, and then it's just going to be 0.42 or something. It's going to build on those chapters that are already there. I think that's what that looks like maybe. So I think that's the direction and they're gonna come come back and Katie's going to come back to us with all these guys. And they're going to say, yeah, this is what we've come up with. And we want to issue the RFP. Right. Or the more funding. |
| 01:27:35.24 | Steven Woodside | You do want. I understand. Ian? Thank you. |
| 01:27:38.60 | Ian Sobieski | Just echoing what Jill said, I think the starting point is the November 18 motion, which we haven't really changed direction on. The question is how much Remember, there's still $300,000 to $400,000 left on this grant. So my notion is I think you're right, the EIFD maybe is at the bottom of that list versus the top. The engineering solutions are at the top. They ask if Katie is being be creative and try to see how far you can go with the money you have left within the to Jill's point. the recommendation of going beyond WRT to other engineering firms. Sorry about the beeping. is, you know, F&L, Miller Pacific, Those are two firms that were mentioned in the SSWA letter. I don't know the process of considering but we should add in, we're asking for some other firm to do some of this engineering work. Thank you. someone who has some experience I'm not sure. you know, as vetted by our own property owners and who our property owners have some confidence in. So I think that's part of it. Part of our direction is find one of those kind of firms. |
| 01:28:41.60 | Jill Hoffman | That's what we're asking. And we had another, I think in the first iteration of the plan, we had another consultant weigh in on something. I can't remember who it was, but even in the short line adaptation plan, we had someone else weighing in. |
| 01:28:53.24 | Steven Woodside | So, Member Cox. |
| 01:28:57.09 | Joan Cox | Something Councilmember Hoffman said concerned me. You said she's already done her outreach. I don't think the outreach is done. |
| 01:29:03.57 | Unknown | No. |
| 01:29:04.33 | Joan Cox | You're right. So I want to make sure. Because they had preliminary meetings. She already. She did some preliminary, but the outreach is not done. Agreed. The key component of this work in front of us is outreach. And I would like to just ask a nod or a raise of the hand if Katie Tho Garcia is clear in her own mind about our direction. She's back in the very corner, back corner of the room. |
| 01:29:04.44 | Unknown | You're right. No, no, no. Yeah. She did. |
| 01:29:11.14 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 01:29:11.19 | Katie Thao Garcia | I agree. |
| 01:29:11.43 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:29:11.45 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:29:11.47 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. And I'll see you next time. |
| 01:29:14.45 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:29:28.37 | Joan Cox | If that's all right. |
| 01:29:28.93 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:29:29.76 | Steven Woodside | It's quite all right. Good luck on understanding how five members think concisely, right? |
| 01:29:36.29 | Katie Thao Garcia | Thank you. Yes. So what I'm hearing is that you would like more engineering solutions. You would like more financing solutions. Those were included in the draft scope of work that I attached tonight. But perhaps you would like to see a little bit more that a little bit more robust included in a future contract amendment with WRT, with potential engineering sub consultants to be included in addition to engagement and all of the other things also mentioned in the draft scope of work. Is that correct? |
| 01:30:21.44 | Steven Woodside | I'm seeing nodding heads and I'll I'll ask you and if you agree. |
| 01:30:25.01 | Ian Sobieski | All I do, I'll just say that, I can't figure out how to turn that beeping off, I was just going to say Katie, but I think |
| 01:30:31.45 | Steven Woodside | But we didn't want to call you out. |
| 01:30:33.06 | Ian Sobieski | I think the confidence of our property owners and the engineering firms matter or should influence your Selection, I think there are a range of firms, so we don't have to direct you which one, but do factor in. the confidence and experience of our property owners about which engineering subcontractor to potentially use. |
| 01:30:54.84 | Steven Woodside | And lastly, just from my point of view, I think we do have an expert on staff. We are looking at the EIFD concept on a parallel track. And it may be more broad than the work that you've done so far in terms of analyzing. It may be the entire shoreline. It may even go up into the hills in terms of stormwater control and things, landslide issues that we potentially face. So we're going to have to think through that. |
| 01:31:12.53 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. |
| 01:31:12.56 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:31:12.59 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. |
| 01:31:27.83 | Steven Woodside | on its own terms, I think, eventually. And I think we can run a parallel track. Assistant city manager has done some work already on that. We'll all talk to each other and try to move these forward as quickly as we can. |
| 01:31:44.37 | Melissa Blaustein | I was just going to point out that in the scope of, because of the feedback we received last time, just reiterating that the main change in the scope of work draft that you shared, Katie, is the making updates throughout the plan with the hold the line option being more explicit. So I think that that's a really key component here, since what was the most concerning to many of the property owners at our November 18th meeting was that some of the photos and imagery essentially showed a significant pushback and giving back of large portions of our coastline. So I think whichever engineering firm we work with should obviously adhere to that scope of work and prioritize that feedback as well. And I think being open to engaging with the Waterfront Association around whom we decide to subcontract with will also be helpful in this process. But I'm aligned with colleagues on everything else. |
| 01:32:36.12 | Steven Woodside | Okay, I think it's pretty clear. Thank you, Katie, for all the work. This is a work in progress, and I want to thank the Sustainable Waterfront working waterfront, sustainable waterfront coalition, whatever the title is. |
| 01:32:53.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:32:53.88 | Steven Woodside | Okay. Thank you and all your members and all the others who are very concerned about this and are working hard to bring creative solutions to us so that we can try to move forward. |
| 01:33:09.67 | Melissa Blaustein | And if you want to meet them, you could go to the crab feed that they're hosting on February 21st on our waterfront. |
| 01:33:14.92 | Steven Woodside | That's a good plug. Just a little plug. All right. Thank you very much. I think that concludes this item. And we now have another business item, which is an administrative hearing. It's item 5B. So I'm going to look to staff to outline the process. |
| 01:33:50.85 | Brandon Phipps | Good evening, Mayor Woodside. Welcome, Vice Mayor Blaustein, City Council, and city staff members, and all of the public here in the room and at home. Thank you all for being a part of this process. I know this is sort of a unique hearing to have in a public meeting. And so just to sort of lay some of the groundwork for this. Essentially, we're doing an administrative hearing to review four citations that were issued for maintaining illegal construction and for, um, Failing to comply with the terms of the city council decision which overturned staff's decision to approve a zoning permit for an expansion of a deck and what we're doing today is reviewing the administrative citations that have been issued and we are looking to. Um, review the process for those, what they were issued for. And it's important to note that we're not here tonight to go through the Sorry. |
| 01:35:03.66 | Unknown | Thank you. Mm-hmm. |
| 01:35:04.88 | Brandon Phipps | We're not looking to go through the entire administrative record, as you can see, I've got a stack over here, which is just a tiny little bit of it. A lot of folks in the room have been through this before, so our goal tonight isn't to start from the beginning and to look at every little bit we've gone through. We're essentially going to be looking at the appeal of the four administrative citations. It's a limited... administrative scope and the preponderance of the evidence is the standard for coming to a conclusion tonight as their other process information that you would like mayor that I could provide. |
| 01:35:45.36 | Steven Woodside | So if I can just ask you, tonight we have before us the issue of the fines? That is correct. We do not have before us the underlying issues that have been before this council twice, before the Planning Commission twice, maybe more, on the underlying code violations. |
| 01:36:07.40 | Brandon Phipps | I think you've nailed it perfectly. That scope is limited. We're limited to the administrative citations, whether the violations that resulted in those citations being issued, whether those violations occurred and whether the administrative citations were properly issued in terms of giving proper notice and in terms of citing the code that was originally the instigator of all of this. And that code was heard by both city council and the planning commission back in 2017 and 2018. As we ramped up, it was heard then four more times in 2019. And then just recently before city council in April of last year. |
| 01:36:54.70 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. I'm going to ask the city attorney if he could comment on how we should proceed into taking presentations from |
| 01:37:02.24 | Brandon Phipps | and, |
| 01:37:06.11 | Steven Woodside | the property owner, as well as staff. |
| 01:37:09.89 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, so I... I agree that the proper question for the council tonight is, are the citations properly issued? and does the violation that appears on the face of each citation exist. So that is really what the council is being asked to decide. Do you think that staff properly issued these citations for the violations that are cited? and if so, then you should uphold the citations. If not, then you should overturn the citations and the city should refund the money that has been cited. With regards to the format, the agenda says staff report 10 minutes, city council questions 10 minutes, public comments. and then council decision and discussion. This is an administrative hearing, so I do think it's within the discretion of the council to set the format. my recommendation here would be you give equal time to the staff to present their enforcement case. and equal time to the appellant, Michele Stefani, to respond. I would recommend providing equal time for rebuttal. So I would probably suggest You know, five to 10 minutes for staff, five to 10 minutes for Miss Stefani, two minutes each for rebuttal, public comment before rebuttal. and then at that point the council can discuss and deliver it. |
| 01:38:41.86 | Steven Woodside | Cox, you had a question. |
| 01:38:43.41 | Joan Cox | Yes, thank you. City Attorney, we received... This afternoon, 87 pages of documents from Ms. Stefani that focused on the underlying planning commission decision and did not focus on the enforcement actions and I just want to confirm that really the underlying Planning Commission and City Council decision is not relevant to what we're deciding tonight. We're focusing on the propriety of the noticing and enforcement of the code enforcement, the four code enforcement citations. Do I have that right? |
| 01:39:26.96 | Sergio Rudin | Um, I think that the council is entitled to consider those documents, but the key issues here are The citations were issued for violations of Municipal Code 10504050B requirement for design review permit. and California Residential Code commencing construction without obtaining required building permits. So to the extent that these documents review... decisions that were made by the council in 2017, 2018. You know, certainly they would be relevant to the issue of whether a design permit review permit is required. Um, and so they should be considered to that aspect. Um, But obviously, the timeframe to challenge the city council decision. as to whether or not a design review permit is governed by government code 65009, which sets a 90-day statute of limitations, and that is also something relevant to the proceeding before you think. |
| 01:40:32.47 | Joan Cox | Thank you for that clarification. |
| 01:40:34.51 | Steven Woodside | And I think if I may, I think the process that you outlined in terms of procedurally how we'll conduct this administrative hearing sounds fine. Is that okay with the rest? |
| 01:40:45.80 | Joan Cox | Yeah, great. |
| 01:40:47.47 | Steven Woodside | So I think then we shall proceed. So we start with a presentation. |
| 01:40:54.78 | Brandon Phipps | Sure. I'm going to essentially just take a quick little run through the timeline since the last time we all met here for the appeal process. This would have been back in April of 2025. |
| 01:41:11.98 | Steven Woodside | And if I may interrupt briefly, we should probably have a clock. Oh, I see. |
| 01:41:16.79 | Joan Cox | And are we doing ex parte communication? Are we revealing any communications and opening a public hearing? Should we do that now? This is not a public hearing. It's not on our agenda. |
| 01:41:29.66 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, I would disclose any ex parte communications because this is an adversarial process, but I don't think you need to open a public hearing. |
| 01:41:38.82 | Steven Woodside | Okay. Are there any ex parte communications that need to be disclosed at this time? |
| 01:41:44.51 | Jill Hoffman | I have none. I don't have any. |
| 01:41:48.80 | Steven Woodside | I have none. |
| 01:41:49.57 | Jill Hoffman | Totally. |
| 01:41:50.69 | Ian Sobieski | No. |
| 01:41:52.06 | Steven Woodside | And, I heard none from Mr. Sobieski. |
| 01:41:54.67 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes. |
| 01:41:55.40 | Steven Woodside | you And then I think the clock, I think the outline was, Five minutes? Five to ten. So we've got a ten-minute clock, and if you take all ten minutes, you're going to have a hard time saving some time for rebuttal. So please proceed. |
| 01:42:13.11 | Brandon Phipps | Sure. So in April of last year, the city council considered an appeal of the planning commission decision to issue a retroactive design permit, which would have approved the already completed deck that was finished, according to the records that we have back in August of 2017. So That deck, in the condition it was in in 2017, had gone through a series of appeals and those appeals led to a point where it was determined that a design review permit was needed. This is above and beyond a zoning permit, which was the initial permit that was given for this deck construction. When a zoning permit goes out, a zoning permit gets posted for 10 days, and there's a chance for people to appeal that permit. After litigating this through several different iterations of planning commission and city council, we ended up where we were in April of last year, where... The Planning Commission had approved a new design review permit. It was a retroactive permit and it had certain conditions of approval that were required in order to meet the terms of that permit and to have a building permit issued based on that design review permit and the approved plans. The... design permit, design review permit was never completed. There were some missteps along the way where a revision to the initial planning commission decision was submitted and that application ended up going incomplete. Eventually, completely expiring during the pandemic. And just at this moment, knowing that we have an issue that's been going back so many years pre-pandemic. I just wanted to take a moment to just thank everybody for their patience with this. It's been a long road. I know that it's been confusing and there's been a lot of, um, Ah. I guess, difficult moments for everyone trying to understand the material. It's a lot to grasp. And I just wanted to, at this moment, also just say, I appreciate the engagement with the process from the applicants and just really continuing to try to work this out. It's a lot of energy on everybody's part, and I'm hoping that we'll still be able to work this out eventually, but there's been a lot of disruptions with COVID and a lot of disruptions with staff turnover, and so there are moments in the record where this has all gone quiet and it's roared back into life again when either a new code enforcement officer was hired or the record of building permit applications was brought to the surface. And recently we've had a new building permit application submitted by Joseph and Miki Stefani in order to put some windows onto the deck in the area that the planning commission has ruled needs to be modified in order to meet the terms of the design review permit and to actually have a building permit issued. So, This year after city council's decision in April, The request was to have a design review permit completed, a building permit issued based on a fully compliant and complete application for design review permit Or apply for a permit to do demolition and remove the portion of the deck that was subject of the Planning Commission's ruling. And in... October of this year. That had still not happened. And the timeline given for getting that done by the planning commission was expired at that point. Community Development Department decided that we would try to get the deck into compliance and we started with a courtesy letter. Simple reminder that you have to apply based on the planning commissions ruling to get your building permits and to complete your design review permit process. We then move to a compliance order, which is a slightly elevated step, which then says you have... this many days to complete the work. And when that time limit is not hit, we then move on to the next step in enforcement, which would be issuing a citation. And in October of 2025, October 2nd to be specific, we issued our first citation for $100. That citation had a period of seven days to correct the correctable violation to apply for the design review permit, have it be completed to get a building permit or to apply for a demolition permit to remove the illegal construction. On October 9th, the... Uh, deadline was not met. And so we issued a second citation in the amount of $200. On that date, we also received an appeal from the Stefanis asking to appeal that citation. And |
| 01:48:07.24 | Brandon Phipps | We repeated that process four times. So there's a total of four citations that we're looking at today. It was the exact same violations every time, those same violations of the not meeting the standards of the design review section of the municipal code, and for not having a building permit issued, which now because the design review permit was not acquired, could not be had because you need that permit for design review in order to get a building permit. We received successful appeal forms and a total of $1,300 in citation deposit money. That deposit is to cover the cost of these citations if city council were to uphold the citations. If the city council does not uphold the citations, then that deposit will be returned to the Stephanias. So what we're looking at right now is we have four administrative citations, the enforcement processes on hold while an appeal is in place and at a higher level, we have a deck with some roof cover plexiglass windows that have been partially replaced with glass windows so it's. building on top of illegal construction as well. One of those permits for the glass windows was issued in error by the community development department. And They had a couple of glass windows installed. We've just received another permit to do another replacement of some of the plexiglass with two more glass windows. All of this is. illegal construction on top of illegal construction. And what we're looking for today is for city council to uphold the four citations and to allow the process to continue where we can hopefully have the applicants follow the planning commission ruling, which would either provide for demolition or for a design review permit or a building permit to be issued. And right now, as of today, No removals have been completed. No building permit has been filed or issued. The conditions remain unmet. resolution. Number 2325 included three clear conditions of approval from the planning commission. And condition one required removal of the deck hasn't happened condition to required submission of a building permit within two months. And that hasn't happened and condition three. Um, required that all conditions of approval be clearly restated and documented on the building permit plans. And so staff today would recommend meant that Since the violations remain uncorrected, citations were properly issued and noticed. issued letters, we posted on site, and we also mailed to the Stefani's home address. |
| 01:51:10.87 | Steven Woodside | Okay, I think you have about one minute reserved for later rebuttal. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you very much. |
| 01:51:24.12 | Thomas Maher | Is it rebuttal time or direct time? |
| 01:51:26.58 | Steven Woodside | It's you will put 10 minutes up there. You can choose to use all 10 minutes now and make your presentation. And I would advise you perhaps to reserve a couple of minutes for rebuttal. |
| 01:51:40.98 | Thomas Maher | Thank you. I'm Thomas Maher. I represent Miss Stefani. And I thought I was busy to work with the Girl Scouts, but I see that this is your commitment to community services off the charts. We'll just say at the top, when they said they wanted to work this out, we agree. The whole reason I'm here is to work it out. I mean, I'm more of a business person and not a litigator. We will say, though, there was no – there's no illegal construction. We have had four permits on this. We have the original permit. And we have a renewed permit, and then we have another permit in 2021 and another permit in 2023. So a lot of permits. I know a legal construction. So, you know, instead of going down this, I mean, there's so much documentation and so much. Let's just, I'd love to take your brain, just your inside of your brain. We have somebody really happy here who issues, part of your staff who issues a permit 2017. And then we have a contractor, some people that you admire. who actually completely finishes for the building permit issued, completely done. And then you have a little more kind of a murky event where you have a of a complaint filed by a neighbor And I think that that's kind of a smudged experience, a little bit tainted. And that rolls into that particular person. getting their Tesla and driving off down Bridgeway because they're moved to Sonoma. So no longer there. And the next owner comes in, Eric. And Eric says, this is a beautiful place. I have no complaints whatsoever. And that kind of job to breathe, I think, passes on to your building and planning staff and they issue these additional permits. And we're here where we are. I would like to go back and talk about the original. kind of murky part of this. which is? the complaint. You know? You can't do any of this. if the original complaint is corrupt. And the original complaint is corrupt. We know this one. Let's refer you got a letter from a really nice law firm. Back in 20... 2018. It was, I'll refer to it, it was posted July the 23rd, 2018, and that was from Keegan Harrison. They went through everything. And they go through and they just say, hey, You. This person got notice. And you have in that attachment, very, very detailed thing And it is. a counter- Chekhov. And that counter check off has the name of the complainant. And the date of that counter checkoff is May the 16th, 2017. 17. So the person who said they didn't get notice had notice. Her neighbor, in addition, signed on the very same day They had notice. So it is absolutely not true. for them to base a a complaint to you saying, oh, I didn't get notice. See, God knows. So in addition to that, the person, you can't file a complaint with dishonesty. In addition to that, that very person signed a settlement agreement, which is in the records, with my client. She signed a settlement agreement. It had a drawing of what she was going to do, and there was an offer of, deliverables that my client was going to do to satisfy that complaint. And she did the deliverables. Now I understand some of your staff has said, well, that wasn't directed to us. True. but it undermines the credibility of the complainant. She's not honest. She settled this. We have it in writing. You have it in your records. Then she says an untrue thing that she didn't get noticed. in the Kagan letter You got the evidence. She got the notice. You cannot base complaints on this on a a fraud, a corruption. The person has to file the complaint, has to have an actual complaint. She doesn't. Then there's a little bit of, Our evidence is that she knew she didn't have a complaint that was valid. So she worked simultaneously to get appointed to Historical Preservation Society, which gives her unique access to the board and the ability to put a thumb on the scale. We think the unique, unbelievably unique solution that my client had a repost a notice on a bill that already had occurred. And basically that's a kick me sign she puts on her back. She puts it in in November and December, the you accept this. late, tardy, fraudulent complaint, and all this continues forward. It just... You can't live You can't have any of these violations at the very start was her up. And the further part of this is you know, If they really thought it was corrupt, you know, illegitimate. I don't think your staff would have approved Building permits. Now, the reason why we're here is We believe that we've had some litigation, we prevail. And we believe that we prevail on the number one side that you have a corrupt start of it. Um, And the second reason we think Rupert for L is you have you have, you're making my client do something you that no other citizen in this town has to do. So it's an equal protect violation equal protection violation in our opinion. You know, she, She did her notice. That's required. And then it's not required of any other citizens to do a second notice. It's not required of any other citizen to have on-site visits with the party opponent without notice and she's not invited which occurred here That's another kind of, that doesn't follow the standard procedure for the city, which you're supposed to do. And that's, That's a bias that my client has to live with. What is it? It's a corruption of the process which we believe It takes you out of the protection of the Tort Claims Act. They're not protected for gross negligence, like issuing permits on top of permits when you say they're illegal. Don't have protection for that. You don't have protection for corruption. And I understand there's another defense somebody wanted to raise, like the statute of limitations that the that the the original Um, what I call, settlement agreement was somehow outside the statute of limitations. No, it is in the statute of limitations because all this process really looks like a de novo review of this entire case and the records never been closed. We're going to argue we can tack back the very beginning filing if we ever had to go to court. I would like to bring your attention, you know, also my client, no other citizen in this town I believe it has to divine who speaks authoritatively for the city. You have, in this Keegan letter, Thank you. You have David Chernoff, and this is dated August the 4th, 2017. He says, after an in-depth review of city procedure, the Community Development Department has determined that because the building permit has already been issued for the project, Staff cannot forward the project to the planning commission for discretionary view of the design review permit. The 10 day appeal period for the project zoning permit, which is approved May the 5th has passed. So there is no procedure for the Planning Commission to remove receive it or review it. We encourage you, this is directed to my client, we encourage you, to work with your neighbor as best as possible in order to mitigate any view impacts of the San Francisco skyline. The stop work order for B2017293 is rescinded as of Monday, August 7th, and construction may resume. I'm going to go to court. |
| 02:00:20.27 | Steven Woodside | What year is that? |
| 02:00:22.16 | Thomas Maher | That is August the 4th, 2017. So I'm going to go to court maybe and I'm going to produce that. I don't think you win. I think you lose. By the way, we filed a suit. And this gives you a unique opportunity because, you know, we don't want to I mean, whoa, you guys got a lot to work on. We can come to terms. And just as he said, we want to work it out. or work it out would be positive, You're going to get money. and we'll work it out by mitigating the view that people think are constructed. We're not going to want to cut down our building, but there's trees and other things we can improve the view for the neighbors. I just believe you, you have some real struggles. If you go to and we're not going to have a civil setting to dispute this. But there is one filed now and you can agree, we can, to settle that lawsuit, And, settle this problem. in a mediation or counsel to counsel. We talked to Sergio Rubin and myself, because I think that you don't have no legal bill, and you don't have a you have a corrupt start to this. Thank you. So. |
| 02:01:34.62 | Steven Woodside | You've got about 15 seconds for rebuttal. |
| 02:01:40.97 | Steven Woodside | We'll now take public comment. |
| 02:01:46.77 | Steven Woodside | Is there any public comment? |
| 02:02:05.16 | Steven Woodside | Anil Savim? |
| 02:02:06.24 | Anil Savim | Yes, good evening, Mayor and the Council. Um, So I'm probably going to talk a little bit about the history of the last 10 years and then touchpoint that. versus the citations, which They're just citations, but So I'm a tenant at 27 Central Avenue with my wife, Catherine. She couldn't make it tonight. But we've come to love to us over the last 15, 16 months we've been here. And we've been looking into purchasing a home here. Right. I've made this clear to my landlord as well. But however, watching the developments regarding the property at 27 Central has given us significant pause. It's difficult to reconcile the idea of making a long-term investment in the city when building permit is issued, inspected, and finalized eight years ago. can still be called into question. We have observed several points in this case that feel inconsistent. with the standard of stability that we have expected here. The acceptance of an appeal six months past a typical deadline creates a sense of uncertainty for any resident. The fact that city issued new permits as recently as 2023. for this very edition makes it confusing to understand how it can now be labeled as illegal construction. It's been permitted multiple times. Furthermore, it seems the current neighbor who bought their home with the view as is, are not the ones seeking this demolition. So these observations have moved beyond just our household, in conversations with friends and family, who are also looking to settle in Solzhenitsyn, An investment social, this case has become a cautionary tale. It's hard for us to recommend the city as a place for major home renovations when the final sign-off from the building department feels like it might not actually be final. So our hope is that the council can use this hearing to restore the sense of predictability within public. We believe. that when a resident follows every rule, and receives every permit They should be able to rely on that appeal for years to come. Thank you. |
| 02:04:14.56 | Walfred Solorzano | We have a couple people online. The first one we have is Jack |
| 02:04:21.19 | Jack Carlson | Yes, this is Jack Carlson. Thank you for your time. I am the neighbor whose view is obstructed. I've made public comment the past. four or five times this has been heard by the planning commission and the city council. I mean, it's getting ridiculous how many times how many more bites of the apple. uh, is this Um, resident going to get to maintain their illegal, uh, illegal construction. the previous public commenter, was, totally wrong in saying that, you know, I'm not bothered by it. I'm very bothered by it. It perfectly directly, impedes a view from my living room to the San Francisco city skyline. It couldn't be any more perfectly placed to impede the view. Um, And I think The previous commenter was correct, though, in saying that this is like a cautionary tale and it's very discouraging. for someone potentially looking to purchase property in Sausalito, that they can purchase property in Sausalito. Basically, The message right now is that Anyone can get away with illegal construction that blocks your neighbor's view with total impunity for years and years and years with basically no consequences. And that's what this. hearing is about today is about are there consequences? Does this person have to pay the fines? Or can they just go on and on and on? and getting away with it with no real consequences. That's really what this is about. And it's, As the code enforcement officer for the city said, this is illegal construction on illegal construction. How many more times is city council going to have to deal with this in a planning commission? It could go on forever at this rate. So please take some action on this. Thank you. |
| 02:06:19.84 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:06:19.86 | Walfred Solorzano | you |
| 02:06:19.88 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:06:20.03 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. others online? Yes, we have Babette McDougall. |
| 02:06:25.85 | Steven Woodside | And I do have once a speaker card from Bob Leff. So we'll hear from Ms. McDougal, and then we'll hear from Mr. Leff. |
| 02:06:35.70 | Babette McDougall | Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate it. I just wanted to say that it's really unfortunate that neighbors are somehow driven to these these extremes, these economic, emotional extremes. And yet it seems to be rather typical of our town, not in every single neighborhood, but in many. And it's no fun reading in the San Francisco Chronicle that Sausalito was famous for warring neighbors. That doesn't help our image, reputation, or property values. And ultimately, at the end of the day, I think it has to do with Really, how you treat this issue tonight will probably reflect on how we resolve matters for other neighborhoods going forward. I mean, just read the Chronicle. There's a list of them. Now, in my own case, I have not made a public issue except to from time to time say, hey, we've got one neighbor in my neighborhood That seems to have combined a home-based business as a contractor, whether or not there's also a permit for a home-based business as a used car salesman. Thank you. But instead of using a corporation yard, he parks them all over in front of my house. Now, this has been going on for 25 years. Neighbors have been claiming for 25 years, complaining to this very household. How long are we supposed to put up with this mess? You've turned us into a slum. I'm not the one who said that. I've observed others confronting these neighbors with those very questions. So I just want to ask you to think within the big picture of, as well as the narrow frame as you go forward. We really need to find a way to mitigate these problems in general. And I would love to encourage thought in that regard, maybe under future agenda items, If that comes up tonight. I will circle back and suggest that we look about how do we find a way to resolve this short of taking up Council's time in such an antagonistic manner. And let's face it, when we have plaintiffs and respondent, then what we've got is an antagonistic situation. And I look to |
| 02:08:40.56 | Walfred Solorzano | All right, no more speakers online. |
| 02:08:43.31 | Steven Woodside | Mr. Leff? |
| 02:08:51.78 | Bob Leff | Thank you. |
| 02:08:51.82 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:08:51.87 | Bob Leff | Thank you. |
| 02:08:51.99 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:08:52.44 | Bob Leff | Hello, my name is Bob Leff. I'm a neighbor. I'm 21, and I actually was brought. I was asked to go by Parrish Chan, who owns the property next door and happens to live right next to this illegal structure in the sense that this was something that was built. And its mass and scale affects not just the other neighbor, but their next door neighbors, too. And the method that it was done was illegal. And I feel from the last speaker that this is where, this is the council, this is we pay for the government to work out situations when neighbors can't work them out. And that's what's happening tonight. And I don't understand why this neighbor can't accept what was given by the court and by the board and by everybody else and just carry on with what was asked. And this is in the neighbor. This just keeps it going. And so to ask to appeal and go back to 2017, when there's been so much litigation since then, is absolutely ridiculous and it is wasting my time to have to appeal and go back to 2017 when there's been so much litigation since then is absolutely ridiculous and it is wasting my time to have to come here again and because I was asked by my 80-year-old neighbor to come and deal with this one more time. So that's all I have to say. |
| 02:10:12.31 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else online? See none. OK, that concludes the public comment. There isn't much time left for either one of you to wish to say anything. I think, sir, you have 13 seconds. OK. |
| 02:10:32.68 | Jill Hoffman | Is there an opportunity for us to ask questions? Will that happen before or after rebuttal? |
| 02:10:40.44 | Steven Woodside | I think I think we'll do that after rebuttal. please. |
| 02:10:47.77 | Thomas Maher | This is the notice of the hearing. It says on this line under SMC design review, this, your decision, this decision did permit the existing improvement in their present form. We agree. |
| 02:11:20.84 | Steven Woodside | Steve, you have about a minute. |
| 02:11:23.29 | Brandon Phipps | So just wanted to respond to this for pretty much everything that's come up, whether it's the sign-in sheet, which doesn't show that the Stefanis picked up a different permit that day for a repair deck. It was a 2016 permit, and there's every state there's a legal basis for. No one has to go through this was another comment. Literally, 27 Central, the previous owners had the exact same deck. That deck was overbuilt and was ripped out before the Stefanis owned the house. Um, And yes, it's a complicated case. So the terminology on the compliance order is correct because City Council. does not determine whether the building was legal or not. City Council was only considering whether the planning Commission's decision. was... accurate and to be upheld. So at the time, The city council was not ruling on whether there was legal or not, and so it did permit them the way they were at the time. |
| 02:12:29.44 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Member Cox, comments or questions? |
| 02:12:35.50 | Joan Cox | I actually that answered my question. So I do have comments. I'm happy to make some comments. |
| 02:12:43.39 | Walfred Solorzano | Please. |
| 02:12:44.44 | Joan Cox | So first of all, I'll say we are here to evaluate enforcement citations. We. And so we are limited to my understanding. To the record, regarding these enforcement citations we cannot be influenced by an article in the newspaper. We cannot be influenced by wanting to try to do better for the entire city of Sausalito. We have to confine our decision tonight to whether these four citations were properly issued and enforced. Um, I do want to address a couple of comments made by the initial applicant. I take umbrage to the accusation of corruption. I take umbrage to being threatened regarding an existing lawsuit and how that should influence our decision tonight. I cannot be influenced by another lawsuit regarding a matter that's not before us tonight. Tonight, we are considering... these four citations, whether they were properly noticed and properly enforced. There was also an accusation regarding an on-site visit with the party opponent. I was a planning commissioner when this matter came to the planning commission, and it is very important that planning commissioners visit the sites that are the subject of their decision. You cannot possibly understand all of the circumstances of a project unless you can see it with your eyes. Simply looking at two dimensional plans does not do the trick. We have a policy in place that precludes us from discussing the merits of an application. Instead, we are confined to asking questions about geography and spatial relationships, et cetera. And so I'm sure that there were site visits with both the applicant and the applicant. their neighbors, that's entirely appropriate to suggest otherwise is inappropriate. I have reviewed the record and the regarding the notifications. I believe the citations were properly noticed and are properly enforced. And I believe that there is a basis for the citations in terms of the activity that they, criticized. And for that reason, I'm prepared to uphold the citations. Thank you. |
| 02:15:26.39 | Steven Woodside | or comment. That's, |
| 02:15:28.70 | Melissa Blaustein | I always turn to our former planning commissioner, council member Cox for clarity whenever we're, hearing something as at this level and an appeal, but I am someone who is consistently aware of the importance of of following through on our enforcement and on and on making sure we do what we say. and responding to citations. We've seen similar cases where when a citation is made and not responded to We have to be consistent with our city processes. So I am inclined in the same. I appreciate everyone's feedback and time. And I understand this has been an almost decades long saga. And that must be frustrating for the neighbors and the residents. But we're here tonight to hear the issue of these citations. And I believe that given our code, it's consistent with our code to uphold the citations. Thank you. |
| 02:16:22.16 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. based on all of the documents and testimony provided tonight and all of my years on the council. In prior hearings of this property, I'm ready to adopt the resolution. that the council adopts, the draft resolution upholding the administrative citation for the failure to comply with conditions of approval and the failure to obtain the required building permits. And that's the attachment 20 to our record. |
| 02:16:56.08 | Steven Woodside | That's a motion. |
| 02:16:57.09 | Jill Hoffman | Sure, I can make the motion to adopt attachment 20, the resolution. of the city council upholding the administrative citation for failure to obtain the required design review permit. Building permits the failure to comply with conditions of approval and maintaining illegal construction at 27 central parentheses APN. 065-231-02 project ID 2024-00049. slash CE1A-0088. |
| 02:17:34.40 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 02:17:34.42 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:17:34.44 | Joan Cox | SECOND. |
| 02:17:34.71 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:17:34.74 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 02:17:35.65 | Steven Woodside | So there's a motion and second. |
| 02:17:37.76 | Jill Hoffman | And I don't know if Ian and Steve |
| 02:17:39.06 | Steven Woodside | I don't see Ian or Ann. |
| 02:17:40.76 | Ian Sobieski | I have nothing further to add. |
| 02:17:41.34 | Joan Cox | Yeah. |
| 02:17:41.41 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:17:41.42 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 02:17:41.44 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Okay? I have nothing further to add. I'll say we should have a roll call on the motion. |
| 02:17:51.14 | Walfred Solorzano | All right. Council member Cox. |
| 02:17:53.86 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:17:54.23 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 02:17:54.62 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 02:17:56.44 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 02:17:56.81 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Councilmember Sabieski. |
| 02:17:58.81 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 02:17:58.82 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes. Vice Mayor Blaustein? |
| 02:17:59.04 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:18:01.25 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:18:01.30 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. |
| 02:18:01.45 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:18:01.49 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:18:01.98 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 02:18:02.09 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:18:02.16 | Walfred Solorzano | And Mary will tell you. |
| 02:18:02.85 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Yes. That concludes this matter. We'll now move on to various reports and other council business. And we will have public comment at the end of these next items, 6A, 6B, 6C, 6D, and E. It's the public comments. So, Okay, thank you. |
| 02:18:33.74 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:18:36.33 | Steven Woodside | Council member committee reports. |
| 02:18:39.37 | Melissa Blaustein | have a few um today the pbid had a meeting um and we there were two things that we meant to discuss the first was we heard from alex from edec on some of their new priorities for the year ahead and gave some feedback a couple of those were around an emphasis on business vitality and health um of the businesses downtown the marinship and working waterfront doing more aggressive data collection so that we're aware of the progress being made there um and then we also had the to hear from SWA regarding recommendations for our downtown, which included things like, you know, how can we improve our sidewalks? What can we do? Something that came up that I thought was rather interesting was garbage cans and improving and switching out our garbage cans. But it was essentially a listening session from both EDAC and SWA about the downtown and also about priorities. So going forward, there was also discussion regarding the formula retail ordinance, and we should expect to be hearing from the PBID on that. |
| 02:19:42.87 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Other reports? |
| 02:19:45.25 | Melissa Blaustein | the MLK, yeah, right. Also, we, Do you want to give the report? You can go ahead. Okay. So Councilmember Cox and I had our first posted on Instagram. So she gets to talk about it. |
| 02:19:51.16 | Katie Thao Garcia | Yeah. |
| 02:19:51.29 | Steven Woodside | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:19:51.36 | Katie Thao Garcia | Thank you. |
| 02:19:58.01 | Melissa Blaustein | I didn't post the MLK thing. Well, Oh, the MLK day. Yeah. Oh, I was going to, yes. Yesterday, the mayor Woodside council member Cox, and I attended the MLK birthday celebrations in Marin city. Chris Zapata was also there. It was a really beautiful event with performances by Marin city's youth and a lot of different important Marin County nonprofits tabling, which was fantastic. Um, I also wanted to give a report on the MLK housing or the public, public to public property to affordable housing committee and task force. So, um, council member Cox and I met on Wednesday and reviewed the initial DOA. Is that what it's NOA? Yes. The initial NOA for the MLK. Um, and then on Friday we had the first meeting of the task force, um, and reviewed that NOA and talked about the plans for a joint rfp and we should have a draft of that joint rfp to review together on friday the plan is to post that on the website for folks to be able to give initial feedback and hopefully we will be scheduling the first public workshop soon so work has already begun with that committee as well |
| 02:20:36.70 | Joan Cox | I know. |
| 02:20:36.97 | Chris Zapata | of it. |
| 02:20:38.22 | Chris Zapata | that's what we're doing. |
| 02:21:04.77 | Steven Woodside | Thank you very much for that. |
| 02:21:06.98 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:21:07.00 | Joan Cox | And then I will remind us that there is a mayors and council members Zoom meeting January 28th, Wednesday, Um, evening. It's only via Zoom, not in person. We will take up the question of whether the MCCMC Legislative Committee is a Brown Act committee or not. So, and the issue was actually now hit the newspapers. Thank you. It'll be an interesting discussion. |
| 02:21:37.24 | Steven Woodside | And member Cox, you are a member of that committee. |
| 02:21:40.75 | Joan Cox | I am and have been since 2017, except for two years. |
| 02:21:46.97 | Steven Woodside | All right. Thank you. |
| 02:21:50.68 | Jill Hoffman | Let's see. The Cal City's mayors and council members starts tomorrow. I'm going. I don't know if anybody else is going. Let me know if you anybody has certain things they want to look at. I'm on the governance policy committee. So which should be interesting. Um, uh, So anyway, let me know if you have certain things or, um, meetings you want me to drop in on, I'm still on the executive North Bay Executive Committee as the former president of that. So I'll be going to those breakouts as well. So that's coming up. That's starts tomorrow and three days in Sacramento. For MCE, the Marine Clean Energy, we had our board of directors meeting last week. of interest, a finance committee was subcommittee was formed. So that was a good move forward. And that was a unanimous decision by the board of directors. There was also a governance review subcommittee form to, to develop an RFP on that. And that's four county supervisors, three county supervisors, Matt Napa,, Marin, and Solano County, as well as a representative board of director member from Solano County. So those are the two significant things that happened at the MCE board of directors meeting. So those are the two highlights. Can I ask on League of Cities, |
| 02:23:21.98 | Melissa Blaustein | Since there was a transition of president, do you still get to be on the exec committee and represent us as an emeritus president for North Bay? For North Bay. Sure. Luckily, we had you serving as our – it was great to have the president be from Sausalito. So I'm wondering if we still get perks somehow. Yeah, as an emeritus president. Great. |
| 02:23:38.89 | Jill Hoffman | How? I'm the executive. OK, great. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:23:44.14 | Steven Woodside | Well, I have no report per se. Ian, do you have anything? No. Okay, I think I heard you say no. Okay. Future agenda items. |
| 02:24:00.22 | Melissa Blaustein | I wonder if we're allowed, per Sergio, just because this is the last time we'll meet prior to the 31st, if there are folks that aren't on agenda setting that just want to say things they might like to see on the 31st, this might be our only opportunity to discuss that prior to the meeting. |
| 02:24:17.80 | Joan Cox | I'm thrilled. I have shared with the mayor that I would love, you know, because of all the pending work, we're not going to, you know, per se. prepare a new six-year strategic plan on the 31st, is my understanding. But I would love us to look at the mission, vision, that was enunciated six years ago. And... at least communicate whether we're still aligned with that or whether we would like to see some tweaks to that, because it talked a lot about you know, values that are important to the council at that time, and I hope are still important to the council at this time, even if we can't get into the meat of strategic planning at this time, I'd love to all be on the same page in terms of our overall mission, vision for the city. |
| 02:25:05.29 | Steven Woodside | I appreciate that comment. And I think from my point of view, since the six year plan that was adopted before expires on June 30th, Thank you. Clearly, one of the items we will consider on the 31st is um, will we have another strategic planning process will we have another strategic plan how long should it last when should we undertake to start that process those will be items for discussion among the five of us and of course we'll hear from the public both at the outset of the meeting on the 31st and then at the end |
| 02:25:42.77 | Joan Cox | Thank you, I appreciate that greatly. |
| 02:25:46.09 | Jill Hoffman | So I have a huge agenda, and this is from something that we've talked about, or I don't think we have not talked about, but I've talked about what the with our Sausalito sustainable waterfront association and also the working waterfront for a long time. And that is, um, a fresh catch ordinance. So that's where the guys, they want to, you know, the fishermen, they want to sell their love this. And I'm thinking that maybe they do that anyway. I don't know. Um, |
| 02:26:08.58 | Chris Zapata | I love you. |
| 02:26:13.48 | Unknown | Oh, oh. Oh. |
| 02:26:15.52 | Jill Hoffman | But I know that they do that at Fisherman's Wharf. They've done that since 2021. And so... And I'm wondering if we could do it by the crab fest. And so, which is February 21st. So we have two meetings before that. I'm happy to work on a draft ordinance. I've already looked at. preliminarily at the ordinance that they have in San Francisco because they do it at Fisherman's Wharf. So, I'm happy to work on that and look at what San Francisco has and work with Sergio on that. And maybe we can get something together. I don't know if it's possible or not. It's a city and county of San Francisco together. So God only knows what we would have to do with the county of Marin. Just saying. Well, definitely. |
| 02:26:54.15 | Steven Woodside | Well, there might be CEQA and there might be first reading, second reading, wait time, all that fun. |
| 02:26:57.88 | Jill Hoffman | No doubt fast track during during but let me let me take a look at it. I'll work with you mayor and you know and see what we need to do but let me just throw that out there and give us give us a goal of a lofty goal of crab fest and see what we can do but it's something okay we have consensus that would be a good thing from the council. |
| 02:27:19.38 | Steven Woodside | certainly be a good thing and it may also be in the context of some other ancillary if you will um retail um in the area. And I know that also could be something that we will be probably looking at inevitably as we look ahead. We've got sea level rise issues there. I mean, it's complicated, but it's something that if we can take some of these things off the table and get them done sooner than later, I'd be. |
| 02:27:50.34 | Jill Hoffman | Let me see. Okay. Let me see how far I can get. |
| 02:27:50.81 | Steven Woodside | that. Okay, Mr. Sobieski, I see your hand. |
| 02:27:57.70 | Ian Sobieski | Yes, thank you. So Fred Moore from our planning commission gave public comment tonight. |
| 02:28:02.44 | Jack Carlson | Yeah. |
| 02:28:02.80 | Ian Sobieski | And what he said resonated with me and it has to do with I'm not sure. was sort of falling a little bit short excellence and that is, as you see in the beautiful work that's going on on Bridgeway, some of the finishing details, matter. The signage that's there has provoked a fair bit of feedback from our community And The notion is, can we, Can we? add to our public works process. a mechanism whereby there's a design review step. Fred Moore suggested a planning commission. We could also have a design review board. We had this local professional group For the ferry project, what if we had a standing group of architects that reviewed things to try to catch Stuff. like the signage issue, before it gets deployed from a design point of view. design review board or something like that. I would love to have a future agenda. |
| 02:29:03.56 | Steven Woodside | I take your point, fundamental point, is how do we integrate, and I don't want to juxtapose engineers with landscape architects and place planners, but often they seem to be on different tracks. And bringing them together so that when something is built as a public works, it also meets our goals in terms of our plans. It looks as nice as we can make it, et cetera, et cetera. |
| 02:29:04.37 | Ian Sobieski | to have one. |
| 02:29:34.92 | Steven Woodside | I think in public works all over the country. Some hit the mark beautifully and some miss the mark in terms of aesthetics and maybe even functionality. And how do you, how do you have a perfect plan so that when we approve these projects now I'm, I'm a little skeptical in about having design review boards and a lot of bureaucracy associated with it to the extent we can integrate these concepts as the staff proceeds to bring something to our attention. I'd love to find a nice, simple way to do that. I don't have an answer, but I think it's a future agenda item, a discussion. It's very important. We hear a lot of that lately, and it's not just in the context of Bridgeway. We heard it with the Ferry Landside project. We hear it with Tracy Way. We hear it with every public project practically we've done, the curbs up on 2nd Street. I'm hearing a lot of comments about that. So I think we can, to use a phrase, creeping excellence, continuous improvement, those kind of phrases, city manager, we're open to it and and we do have you mentioned SWA we have some exceptional design world-class design firms right here in our own community and they've been here for a long time and they'd have worked on many of our projects and I think to the extent we've incorporated their work it's come out very nicely so Sure. We have two more comments. And Ian, I didn't want to cut you off. Did you have anything else? |
| 02:31:10.43 | Ian Sobieski | for. |
| 02:31:10.92 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:31:14.31 | Steven Woodside | Okay. |
| 02:31:17.51 | Joan Cox | Mine has to do with Gate 5 Road. |
| 02:31:20.79 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:31:20.81 | Joan Cox | So I don't know if this council recalls, but maybe... Eight years ago, we adopted a permit streamlining ordinance for seniors who needed to have gained better access to their homes. Um, Marcelle Houtziger from the Marin Ship Studios reached out to me as well as another property owner down there and asked about permit streamlining for repairs. Marcel's studios were flooded. I'm sure you all saw in The Currents the publication of another woman whose studio that she just started renting was flooded. while she was in Tahoe Um, And there has been inquiry whether there's an ability to streamline the permits necessary to repair and or to mitigate those types of damages. There's precedent for this. Daniel Lurie in San Francisco adopted permit SF. I mentioned this to the assistant city manager a year or two ago. But we have too many things to, you know, emulate good work done by other cities sometimes. But I wonder if it's an opportunity to revisit. Some... mechanism that we could adopt to assist these really adversely affected property owners in repairing and preventing quickly. Um, future issues without having to go through a one or two year planning process. |
| 02:33:07.81 | Steven Woodside | Yes, and I know there are many jurisdictions in the wake of big disasters like earthquakes and major fires who've done exactly that. And probably we can search and find some good examples that might be relevant here. |
| 02:33:15.00 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:33:20.67 | Joan Cox | Yeah. |
| 02:33:20.92 | Steven Woodside | could easily be adopted, I think. |
| 02:33:23.28 | Joan Cox | Thank you. So that's my future agenda item. Okay. |
| 02:33:25.87 | Steven Woodside | We're getting a long list. |
| 02:33:26.34 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 02:33:27.69 | Jill Hoffman | No, this is, I don't know if this is an agenda item or if this is just, I don't know what this is, but something that we've, talked about in the past. And it's like an annual ethics brief to, we have to do it anyway, right? We have to do it every two years for our ethics. Okay. |
| 02:33:44.82 | Steven Woodside | You have to take the class and go through it. |
| 02:33:46.24 | Jill Hoffman | Bye. But for our boards and commissions, right? Because sometimes our boards and commissions don't understand because they're also subject to ethics, right? Where they're not supposed to steer assets to themselves, right? And sometimes they don't quite understand that. And they're not supposed to like, they're not supposed to have conflicts of interest with city assets. And sometimes they forget that or they don't quite understand the lines. And so I think. That's just a, Um, We need to figure out how to brief people that are incoming. to our boards and commissions. Hey, by the way, you're also held to ethical standards as you serve on this board and commission. Here are the lines. And then also just an annual refresher to everybody on the boards and commissions. and how to do that, like how and who does that. And maybe it's just a video. Hey, you guys have to watch this annual ethics. |
| 02:34:32.42 | Steven Woodside | I think maybe some of our commissioners may be legally required to take the same course that we do, and some maybe not. So, yeah, it would be important for planning commissioners, for example, are subject to the same rules and same requirements. |
| 02:34:46.87 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:34:48.77 | Steven Woodside | But there are others, and it would be nice to have something that we could introduce to incoming members of those bodies that they could look at and learn. |
| 02:34:58.92 | Jill Hoffman | Maybe that's maybe then that's a an engine item for our city attorney that we can then just hang of it or, you know, put a video link on our. on our website and say, okay, as incoming person on this new board of commission, you have to watch this video link, and then there's just a 15-minute presentation from our city attorney annually or something. I don't know. |
| 02:35:22.07 | Steven Woodside | Let's explore that. |
| 02:35:23.35 | Joan Cox | I'm going to add a comment to that, which is that effective the beginning of this year, anyone who has to take that ethics training every two years now also under SB 827 must undertake a mandatory baseline fiscal competency training for local agencies. |
| 02:35:24.70 | Steven Woodside | Sure. |
| 02:35:25.07 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:35:40.28 | Jill Hoffman | Brilliant. And so, |
| 02:35:42.28 | Joan Cox | Yeah. Great. And so so boards. Yeah. Boards. So that includes us. We have two years to accomplish ours since we were not just elected last year. |
| 02:35:44.39 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you for that. |
| 02:35:53.94 | Joan Cox | But that's going to be part of our ethics training. |
| 02:35:56.90 | Steven Woodside | And so the on-the-job training, such as adopting budgets, reading audits, et cetera, might help us. |
| 02:36:04.29 | Joan Cox | Wow. What do you think? There's a concern that public officials actually know how to manage an agency's finances. |
| 02:36:05.86 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:36:11.29 | Steven Woodside | fiduciary obligation. |
| 02:36:12.10 | Joan Cox | Yeah. |
| 02:36:13.79 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. Okay, any other future agenda items? Seeing none. |
| 02:36:21.11 | Chris Zapata | No, Mayor, there's not from the staff side. We don't do that. But one thing that I think was missed in the conversation about updates by the council was the listening session on January 29th for the lot one redesign. That's a public meeting that we want to make sure that there's information about and folks are aware of it. |
| 02:36:41.55 | Steven Woodside | Can you just explain what a listening session means? |
| 02:36:44.28 | Chris Zapata | Yes, the city council charged the city staff with hiring a design person to look at the lot one redo added budget to it. Part of that budget involves, you know, getting public input. And so on January 29th that listening session, which was put in the current this past week will be put again in the currents, but I wanted to just take the opportunity to make sure it's not missed again. |
| 02:37:08.60 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Thank you for that reminder. |
| 02:37:14.20 | Jill Hoffman | No, this is a follow-up question. So the public forums on the MLK project, the Measure K, those are going to be in the current's? |
| 02:37:23.94 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah. And we're hopefully going to pick the date for the first one this Friday. So we'll figure it out. |
| 02:37:29.64 | Steven Woodside | OK, I did not see any attached minutes from boards and commissions this time. OK, any other reports of significance from anyone? Okay, do we have public comment, final public comment? |
| 02:37:45.73 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes, we do. We have a standard Bushmaker. |
| 02:37:55.26 | Steven Woodside | Sandra, you may proceed. |
| 02:37:56.86 | Sandra Bushmaker | Yeah, good evening, counsel. Ah, Just wanted to remind you that the landslide task force, one of the recommendations was an abbreviated permit, permitting process for repairs from landslides. So this would be something that probably could be looked at. I feel that that report has not been fully vetted and implemented, but the permitting process was we recommended And two of the council members sat on that along with me. recommended and abbreviated uh, permitting process to do repairs in that instance. So just wanted to tell you that it's been on the radar for quite some time. Thanks. |
| 02:38:44.20 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. And it reminds me that one of the things that we need to do is to perhaps have a task force on these implementation, some of these implementation steps from the landslide task force. For example, Well, it's... Specifically, and I'll just mention, it might be very helpful because one of the recommendations was to consider a hillside ordinance. It's been specifically in the idea phase for many years. But now is the time. I think both sea level rise, storms, the landslide that we had really should compel us to get on with it on these issues and move them forward. So I. then mayor hoffman created the landslide task force and it was a very effective way to rather quickly bring people in the community community together some real experts and put together some proposals which the council could adopt or not and some of them have been adopted so It's an effective means of moving forward without establishing an elaborate commission or something that requires a lot of staff time up front. So I intend to do that. Yes. Okay. Um, I think. Is there any more public comment? Okay, I'm not making any appointments tonight myself. I'm contemplating several. I've talked to council members about things, so we'll have those sorted out. It's pretty much status quo in terms of assignments at this point, so members are proceeding as if holding over. But we'll formalize if we need to in the short run. Okay, with that, I think it is 7, is that correct? 740. And we are adjourned, 742. Thank you for that reminder. Okay. |
| 02:40:41.27 | Chris Zapata | Yeah. Thank you. |
Fred — Against: Requested prohibition of additional out-of-scale pedestrian signals on Bridgeway, verification of sign sizes, changes to council procedure for capital improvement plans to involve planning commission first, and use of design professionals for aesthetic projects. ▶ 📄