| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:00.03 | Walfred Solorzano | Good evening Mayor and City Council. This afternoon's meeting is being held in 420 Little Street Council Chamber. It's also being broadcast live on Marin TV cable TV channel 27 on Zoom and on our city's website. |
| 00:00:20.99 | Steven Woodside | Thank you, and would you call the roll, Mr. Clerk? |
| 00:00:25.12 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:26.04 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:00:26.05 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Cox. |
| 00:00:27.57 | Unknown | here. |
| 00:00:28.55 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Huffman. |
| 00:00:30.30 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:30.32 | Melissa Blaustein | Here's the first one. |
| 00:00:30.39 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:00:30.54 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 00:00:31.30 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Sobieski. Vice Mayor Blaustein. |
| 00:00:35.64 | Melissa Blaustein | I wanted to note for the council that I am participating via just cause due to illness and there is no one over 18 in the room with me. |
| 00:00:45.98 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:00:46.00 | Steven Woodside | And Mayor Woodside. I'm here. Is there any action that we need to take with respect to Ms. Blaustein's remote participation? |
| 00:00:54.84 | Jill Hoffman | I think we have to vote, don't we? Is the city attorney here? But I don't think so. |
| 00:00:58.66 | Walfred Solorzano | He's here, he's been promoted to a panelist |
| 00:01:01.98 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:01:02.01 | Sergio Rudin | I always have to. |
| 00:01:02.67 | Steven Woodside | I don't think so, but I just want to double check before we move on. And I'm sorry you're ill, and thank you for making the best effort to participate. |
| 00:01:02.70 | Sergio Rudin | I don't think so. |
| 00:01:11.85 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you for being remote while you're ill. |
| 00:01:13.88 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:01:13.99 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:01:14.03 | Unknown | Thanks. |
| 00:01:14.09 | Jill Hoffman | We appreciate that. |
| 00:01:16.58 | Unknown | To answer the question, Council members, no, there is no need for a vote for approval of just cause participation. The Council does need to approve emergency circumstances participation, which is not the case here. |
| 00:01:26.95 | Steven Woodside | OK, thank you. |
| 00:01:39.22 | Brandon Phipps | and the United States of America. |
| 00:01:41.08 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:01:41.33 | Brandon Phipps | to the Republicans. |
| 00:01:42.12 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:01:42.94 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:01:43.20 | Unknown | Amen. |
| 00:01:43.93 | Brandon Phipps | One nation. |
| 00:01:44.06 | Unknown | nation. under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. |
| 00:01:45.01 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:02:01.24 | Steven Woodside | Pardon me. We have two items on this agenda, and we have limited time. I recognize that some of you were participating in a previous workshop held down at Fire Station Number One just a few days ago. This is in effect, one item is in effect a continuation of the major topic of that meeting, which is setting priorities for this year. And having said that, we're gonna try to conclude that portion of the meeting by 5.30, if not earlier, because the second item shouldn't take too long and we have a hard stop at six o'clock. So keeping that in mind. Mr. City Manager, would you like to introduce item number one? |
| 00:02:48.70 | Joan Cox | May I make an announcement? |
| 00:02:51.18 | Steven Woodside | Oh, yes. |
| 00:02:51.51 | Joan Cox | So at the last meeting, I announced that our MCC MC meeting on February 25th would be held at the Spinnaker. That has changed. It will now not be held at the Spinnaker. It's going to be held at the Canal Alliance in San Rafael. And so I just didn't want people showing up to the Spinnaker And I wanted people to know we are not hosting it after all. So in these challenging times, it was not perceived as the best look to have this meeting at a fancy restaurant in Sausalito. So it's going to be held at the Canal Alliance instead. Thank you for allowing me to announce that. |
| 00:03:30.21 | Steven Woodside | All right, thank you. Mr. City Manager. |
| 00:03:33.45 | Chris Zapata | Thank you, members of the council, members of the public. I want to begin by saying thank you for your leadership and work that you did a bunch of on that Saturday afternoon and morning, January 31st. What I've done is taken the staff report that was submitted, the draft staff report that was submitted by the consultant, and try to analyze it and give you my thoughts and what it is and what it isn't. Essentially what you did that day is you did two things, and I'll boil them down for you. You took and reviewed the 2020 and 2026 societal strategic plan. You didn't review the whole plan with all the items on it. You reviewed the mission, the values, and the vision. And so so you did that and then you also did what you normally do once a year to kick off the budget processes you started to talk about your priorities for the day and for the year and that will allow us to help to build our budget this coming year which is the beginning July 1st the ending June 30th but that's July 1st 2026 and the budget will end on June 30th 2027 so you did two things you looked at the old strategic plan which is winding down and you looked at what you should be doing for this upcoming budget year regarding the five-year strategic plan which was done in 2019 and 2020 you looked at some things that you believe are important. Obviously mission, values, vision, drive your priorities and your strategies. And I believe there was strong agreement that you want to update and enter into a new five-year strategic plan. Thank you. That was pretty clear in the comments. Regarding the mission, I believe there was some discussion about needing to update that to match with the current city council. The current vision needed some slight tweaking You said we need to spend some time on values to make sure that they are what we want them to be. And you were open-ended about when you would start this process. |
| 00:05:43.30 | Chris Zapata | Regarding the current year priority discussion, which is the genesis for tonight's meeting and the continuation of that Saturday meeting, you did some things that I thought were really valuable in terms of the pending agenda list. You took and you winnowed it down into let's talk about these 15 items. They're in the strategic report, which is attached as a draft. And you took six items and said these are probably not as important as the prior 15 so let's put them in a parking lot so i'd like to thank walford and council member cox for doing work to help our consultant consolidate that information and and get that in a way which i think is extremely helpful so um what i did now is i looked at what you submitted on Monday Tuesday and Wednesday you were asked to meet today to follow up on that 31st Saturday and to make this productive you were asked to provide some your thoughts on what your priorities are for the upcoming budget year. And so I looked at them and you know, you're gonna talk about them later this afternoon, but I'll take a stab at what I saw. Okay? And what I saw was very strong alignment on revenue. very strong alignment on infrastructure and the tools needed for infrastructure. Economic vitality and maritime and waterfront planning in the Marin ship, that was clear that that was council, all council people had interest in that. There was also some alignment, not all, but some alignment on housing and quality of life. That to me was pretty clear in what you submitted. And then there were some priorities that were individual council members submitted that relate but weren't specific, so I'll list them for you. Environmental risk in terms of slides, fires in our shoreline. our business licenses in that program our codes and how we attack those and consolidate those, potentially looking at a vacancy tax, and certainly looking at downtown revitalization as a continued effort. So that was what you've taken from that Saturday and brought forward individually, which I believe you'll discuss today, and the mayor will guide that discussion. But I try to take a stab at it so you wouldn't have to start from scratch and I thank you all for submitting what you believe to be important to discuss today and I look forward to consensus coming out of today as to what of all of that is that what you want us to focus on in building our budget for this coming year which ones matter most to you but it really is helpful because if you recall you received in that January 31st packet and at your January 24th council meeting a listing of all the city work that's in process and some of that aligns with some of your goals not all of it but there is work in process that we started last year that you funded in this year's budget that is ongoing. And so it really boils down to what you believe matters most to you and how we build our budget is going to depend on that, and only to say that some of the things that are in your priorities are things that certainly staff sees. There are some basic understandings that I think I want to make sure the community knows that you know and we know public safety, public safety, public safety. I mean, you fund your budget and you fund a lot in public safety. And certainly, you know, the operation of the city, whether it's permitting, whether it's balancing your books, all of the internal functions are also ongoing. And there's a lot of work to do there, but in terms of big ideas, this is your time to continue that conversation, and I look forward to hearing from you as does our staff in our community. |
| 00:09:44.24 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Now's the time we'll ask a few questions. Ms. Cox. |
| 00:09:49.54 | Joan Cox | Thank you, Mayor. So we are identifying priorities for which we will be seeking some staff support and so we are being in the numerosity of those priorities so as not to overwhelm staff with the comprehensive list of projects already underway. But if we were to want to, on our own, Um, to undertake. advancement of something that is perhaps in the parking lot. Our identification today of priorities would not preclude For example, the mayor and me, from putting together a charter for the city of Sausalito. If that was something that was important to us, that we could then bring to the council without involving a lot of staff time. Would you agree with that approach? |
| 00:10:40.20 | Chris Zapata | you |
| 00:10:42.82 | Joan Cox | Yes. I love short and sweet answers. Thank you. |
| 00:10:48.92 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. |
| 00:10:49.75 | Jill Hoffman | Chris I was happy that you listed out the areas of consensus that we had amongst the council and so it sounds like we had maybe four areas of strong consensus and maybe two areas of pretty strong consensus so That, to me, make sex. Did you happen to do a slide on that? Or do we have that? Would you mind repeating that? Because I was trying to take some. But to me, that sets our pretty great goal, at least for the first, half of the year, if not the full year. the bandwidth of our staff I think that pretty much |
| 00:11:30.40 | Steven Woodside | So for the public, we will make sure that this- |
| 00:11:31.48 | Jill Hoffman | Oh, okay. . |
| 00:11:33.19 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 00:11:33.22 | Jill Hoffman | make sure that this is |
| 00:11:33.97 | Melissa Blaustein | Thanks. |
| 00:11:34.52 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. that this is. |
| 00:11:35.62 | Melissa Blaustein | But you... |
| 00:11:37.00 | Steven Woodside | Excuse me. |
| 00:11:37.31 | Melissa Blaustein | Did Walford email it to me, Mayor? Thank you. |
| 00:11:39.80 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:11:39.85 | Melissa Blaustein | Because I don't have it. Is it possible for Walford to email that to make sure? |
| 00:11:42.32 | Joan Cox | The handout that we got from the city manager, can you email that to council member? |
| 00:11:44.54 | Melissa Blaustein | or key. |
| 00:11:47.23 | Chris Zapata | Blalstein or Vice Mayor Blalstein. Let me help with that. I'll make sure it gets to the Vice Mayor right now. And let me go over them verbally and so that the public can hear them again. I believe there was strong alignment on revenue, |
| 00:11:48.05 | Joan Cox | Yeah. |
| 00:12:01.57 | Chris Zapata | strong alignment on infrastructure and tools to finance infrastructure. There was strong alignment on economic vitality. There was strong alignment on maritime and waterfront, marinship planning. and there was some alignment on housing some alignment on quality of life and arts, and then there were many other priorities, or not many other, but other priorities that were submitted that were important to maybe one council people, but not two, three, or four. So the strong alignment essentially pertains to everybody. |
| 00:12:33.90 | Sergio Rudin | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:12:33.99 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. The sum alignment pertains to some of you, and then the other priorities submitted are more individual council members that have thoughts and ideas about what should be a priority. So let me take a minute and make sure I get that to the vice mayor so she has that. |
| 00:12:48.75 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. So we're done. Excellent. |
| 00:12:53.46 | Steven Woodside | Well, that's one way of looking at it, and you may be right. Done but not done. In other words, it's a lot of work, no matter how many we identify today, because we're talking today, as Member Cox mentioned, about things that we know will involve staff time. And as to several others, we may be working on them individually. I know Ms. Blaustein has a particular interest in the arts and is more or less volunteering to take the lead on that outside of a lot of staff time until we get something worked up that might come back. So in the meantime, Mr. Sobieski, do you have any questions? No, okay. And Melissa, do you have questions now or do you wanna hold off a bit? We're gonna take public comment. Amen. |
| 00:13:46.87 | Melissa Blaustein | I'm happy to wait. I think the questions were answered and we can discuss together. Okay. |
| 00:13:50.65 | Steven Woodside | Okay, so now's the time for public comment on this and I would just mention that we've heard from some of you before with respect to very specific suggestions. We do appreciate that. Certainly have every opportunity now if you wanna add on to that or say something. Then we're going to deliberate and hopefully conclude this part of our planning fairly properly. Anyone wishing to speak? I have no speaker cards. We have somebody online, Megan. |
| 00:14:24.57 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Or we do have some. We'll take the people in here first. |
| 00:14:31.36 | Steven Woodside | So I think we have people in the room, I see. |
| 00:14:33.63 | Walfred Solorzano | Yeah. |
| 00:14:35.35 | Steven Woodside | Couple walking up. |
| 00:14:51.72 | Steven Woodside | So first we have Andy Greer. Welcome. |
| 00:15:01.39 | Andy Greer | Hello, Mayor, Council. I think it's important to clarify that ordinance 1022 does not prohibit economic activity It establishes guardrails around land use so that the marine ship remains a maritime industrial district. rather than gradually converting to higher yield uses, like residential. general, commercial, or hospitality. Industrial waterfront land is scarce and essentially irreplaceable. Once converted, it is almost impossible to bring back. We've heard that the downtown retail district is struggling. Tax based concerns, restaurant closures, storefront vacancies, Ideas like business tax holidays and other incentives have surfaced to stimulate activity That suggests the traditional retail heavy model is under pressure. If that is the case, why would we carry that same pattern into the marine ship rather than strengthen what makes it economically different? Instead of viewing the Marin ship primarily as a redevelopment opportunity, why not recognize it as diversification, as a strategic economic asset that provides balance and resilience? I would encourage the city and the council to rally behind this area for what it represents, Sausalito's maritime routes, It's working waterfront. |
| 00:16:44.92 | Andy Greer | its waterfront identity an industrial backbone. Keep Marin ship commercial. Keep it industrial. and keep it maritime. Thank you. |
| 00:16:57.31 | Steven Woodside | Thank you, Mr. Greer. Next, Craig Merrily. |
| 00:17:06.45 | Craig Merrily | Thank you, Mr. Mayor and members of the council. Sausalito's working waterfront in the Maritime District is a valuable resource that requires careful planning and protection so we don't suffer the same fate as most working waterfronts. have been gentrified, redeveloped, and transformed out of existence. It begins with recognizing the valuable benefits that we all enjoy, thanks to our marineship as it stands today, even with the few warts. An important degree of economic diversity is one. It provides its worth for years during the COVID recession, when tourism crashed, downtown tax revenues plummeted, but maritime and industrial businesses, like in the marmeted, but maritime and industrial businesses like in the marineship hummed and generated tax revenue. Second, our working waterfront provides essential services for thousands of vessels owners, both large and small, docking in multiple prospering marinas that house hundreds of vessels, plus visitors who arrive on their own in everything from kayaks to super yachts. A variety of boatyards thrive on the business. Third, we're going toyards thrive on the business. Third, we're blessed with all manner of 400 floating homes that attract tourists far and wide. The owners of these floating homes desperately need boatyards with special skills to build, repair, and upgrade, providing Sausalito with another valuable source of waterfront tax revenue. The fourth is the Marinship District neighbors and businesses who deserve recognition for housing the bulk of Sausalito's State of California housing mandate at over 500 units, including many affordable. The Marins ship now carries more than its fair share of new housing, most located on transit corridors, and will include mixed-use development with small businesses. The working waterfront does have two areas that have been manipulated by disgruntled landowners who are exerting pressure to secure a zoning upgrade from the council and huge windfall profits that would result. I guess I'll leave it with that. And thank you very much for your attention. |
| 00:19:13.54 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Thank you. Alice Merrill. |
| 00:19:22.08 | Alice Merrill | . I just want to reiterate what both of them said. I don't need to say it all again, but it is so important, so, so important. Don't let glitter and, I don't know, get in the way. Keep it the way they said, really, thank you. |
| 00:19:45.16 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Peter Streetman. |
| 00:19:51.10 | Steven Woodside | Welcome. |
| 00:19:51.54 | Peter Streetman | Thank you. Good to be here. The Marin Ship District is a diamond in the rough that always flourishes and will never be new investment to an updated business plan. When developers and their allies talk about fixing Sausalito's Marin ship, they almost always point to the piles of shipping containers and vintage waterfront within the old Arquez shipyard or the old World War II building known as the machine shop. The sad fact is that both areas have been starved for financial resources. It really doesn't matter to the decision to withhold funds was in, intentional, accidental, are the result of a benign neglect. What matters now is the city council needs to take leadership by declaring both areas be essential parts of the Marineship District's working waterfront to serve the community of 400-plus houseboats who desperately need the old shipways to repair, service, and build houseboats, hulls, and complete vessels to improve and diversify Sausalito's local economy with a thriving maritime industrial sector that has already proven an ability to perform well Thank you. Los Angeles local economy with a thriving maritime industrial sector. And has already proven an ability to perform well during downtimes like COVID. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? |
| 00:21:23.96 | Steven Woodside | online. |
| 00:21:24.72 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes, we have speakers online. |
| 00:21:25.99 | Peter Streetman | Thank you. |
| 00:21:26.01 | Steven Woodside | Can we start with Megan? |
| 00:21:32.35 | Megan Roll | Hi, my name is Megan and I would like to speak on behalf of myself and my boyfriend, Albert Streeman. who could not make comment as he is commercial crabbing this evening. We would like to offer comment regarding number 5B. economic liberalization of the marine ship First, we find this title to be somewhat presumptive, As it implies that the marine ship requires liberation from its current state, In reality, the Marin ship is a vibrant and well-established, artistic, light, industrial, and maritime community that is deeply valued by those who live and work there. That said, we do agree that certain areas of the marine ship could benefit from thoughtful modernization, provided it remains consistent with the area's artistic, industrial, and maritime character. Discussions about Marineship's future should be inclusive and representative of the full community. Decisions of this magnitude should not be shaped primarily by those with the greatest financial interests or the loudest voices. but instead with a process that ensures broad and equitable participation. Finally, we want to emphasize the critical importance of preserving Ordinance 1022. This ordinance safeguards Sausalito's residents by requiring a public vote on proposed zoning changes in the Marinship. The residents of Sausalito deserve the opportunity to vote on significant changes that will shape the future of their community. Are you kidding? Thank you. |
| 00:23:15.85 | Steven Woodside | Megan, would you mind giving us your last name for the record? |
| 00:23:20.44 | Megan Roll | R O L L L. |
| 00:23:22.43 | Steven Woodside | Thank you very much. Anyone else? Yes, we have John. |
| 00:23:28.08 | Walfred Solorzano | you |
| 00:23:29.97 | John DeRay | right? Hello, this is John DeRay. Thank you. Thank you for letting me talk the narrative about the marine ship being underutilized and an eyesore is a well worn strategy. However, it's not reality. Over 93% of the marine ship is economically sound and active. One property is purposely blighted another office property purposely sets unattractive lease terms, both vying for zoning changes. Marinship needs change. Changes to the marineship should be done delicately like a surgeon with a scalpel. Unfortunately, many waterfronts are dismantled like a venture capitalist coming into an established company. removing all inefficiencies, sterilizing the culture in the name of greatest and best financial return. The marineship is already filled with hedge funds marketing firms law offices financial services real estate company sports medicine saunas massage business advertising firms. doctors offices and more what liberalization are you referring to keep in mind that last year, several acres of the marine ship rezone for over 500 new residential units with density bonus, including low and very low income. worker housing. Also, several of those newly zoned parcels being mixed use can accommodate additional uses to your heart's content. Let's see what happens in those areas first. Let's not wholesale remove ordinance 1022 zoning protection, but we can make changes. Higher far shorter setbacks and second floor offices have done right can increase economic output in our 1220 changes that should be considered without dismantling what makes Sausalito salty. In an effort to bring mixed use and tourists to the area, lease rates become unaffordable for light industry, artisan maritime use. Sausalito industrial lease rate is already 64% higher than anywhere else in Marin. Industrial affordability is the key to economic growth growth. Both in boats and industrial equipment sell for a lot more than ice cream and t-shirts. Maritime services in Sausalito should be dramatically expanded and free of incompatible neighbors. |
| 00:25:18.01 | Chris Zapata | Road. |
| 00:25:29.16 | John DeRay | Sausalito is the only city in the world that has world-class tourism business and a thriving working waterfront. Let's keep it that way. Thank you. |
| 00:25:37.60 | Steven Woodside | Thank you, Mr. DeRay. It's been suggested by Member Cox that we would very much appreciate if you wouldn't mind any of you who spoke, if you can put some of your comments in writing and send them to us. That way we have them in ready access rather than having to try and go back and listen to the tape. But we appreciate your comments. |
| 00:26:00.19 | Joan Cox | Yeah, I had a hard time hearing Mr. DeRay for whatever reason, so I would appreciate seeing those comments. |
| 00:26:06.94 | Steven Woodside | Okay, any others? We have Senator Bushmaker. |
| 00:26:14.86 | Sandra Bushmaker | Good evening, counsel. I'm opposed to the removal of 10-22. As previous speakers have said, it could be tweaked. to help us, but we have 2000 boats in Sausalito. I don't wanna take my boat over to Richmond or Alameda, what's left of Alameda for services. I don't understand why you would even threaten to change the revenue stream that comes from the partnership and the industrial arts and maritime uses there. It is highly offensive to the heritage of Sausalito to think about turning it into high rises and housing that is built on landfill. This makes no sense to me. I don't understand why this quote rebranding or expanding or polishing up the marineship is even necessary when we have something that works there, works for our our maritime people, of which I am one, And the 2,000 other vessels plus the house votes as was mentioned earlier. I'm not going to recite, but I want to highly endorse the comments that have been made so far with regard to the preservation and enhancement of the maritime artistic and light industrial uses of the Marin ship. I'm very much opposed, uh, uh, abrogating. 10-22. Thank you. |
| 00:27:48.85 | Walfred Solorzano | Anyone else? Yes, we have Tracy Kessler. |
| 00:27:58.70 | Tracy Kessler | Oh, hi. I don't know if you can see me. I'm actually at Schoonermacher on my phone. Can you hear me? |
| 00:28:04.38 | Steven Woodside | We can certainly hear you, yes. We can't see you. |
| 00:28:05.83 | Tracy Kessler | Okay, great. So yes, I'm I'm opposed. I'm an artist that is down on Gate Five Road in a commercial building on Varda Landing. And I'm sure everybody obviously was aware of just what happened with the King Tides. Luckily, I did not have any water come into my building, but I think I'm the only one because we have nine pumps on the property. So before any of this is going on, 1022, it just makes no sense at all. I've been in this, following these politics for the last, I've lived here 11 years. I understand we met all of the housing needs for, I think it was what, 749. So I'm confused as well as. why this is going forward. We've met the housing needs. So what is going on here? Completely confused. As you know, I feel like I may be one of the only artists that lives down in the Marin ship. I think there's only a handful of us in this town. I also volunteer down at the historical society. And when I'm there, the first thing people ask, they come in the door and they're like, where are the artists? And you can't just go to the ICB and show up. You have to have an appointment there. So where are the artists? That's kind of the situation here. So let alone all the maritime that's there. So again, I'm pretty confused on why this is going on. and why city council is pushing for this. I think we're at what, three to two? Was that what we were at right now? So again, I'm just voicing for all the artists community and the maritime. Thank you. |
| 00:29:41.42 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:29:43.62 | Walfred Solorzano | Next speaker is Adrian. Thank you. |
| 00:29:47.72 | Steven Woodside | Adrian. |
| 00:29:49.57 | Adrian Brinton | Hello. Can you hear me? |
| 00:29:51.09 | Steven Woodside | Yes. |
| 00:29:52.71 | Adrian Brinton | Great, thank you for taking my comment. I'm really confused too. You know, I think when I look around the Marin show, um, You know, I see a place where I think 1022 made sense at some point in the past. I'm You know, it stopped the office buildings in the 80s. You know, now it's protecting the office building Now we can't change the office buildings down there Because of 10-22. and you know, there is, Artists down there for sure, and there's maritime down there. And, you know, a lot of the maritime that we say we value so much, is rotting into the bay. BAYSIDE BOW WORKS DOWN THERE, THEY'RE STILL Hanging on. There's been no investment. love to lay blame for those things. But the reality is, 10-22 is keeping... our town. from doing what it needs to do to basically live in the 21st century. AND PART OF THAT IS TO |
| 00:30:49.03 | Chris Zapata | And part of that, |
| 00:30:50.88 | Adrian Brinton | allows them more development down there. that can pay. to actually support some of the uses that we're supporting now through benign neglect. supported by 10-22. And, you know, it's time. It's time to do something. So we're hearing a lot of support for that. |
| 00:31:05.98 | Chris Zapata | Sure. |
| 00:31:08.19 | Adrian Brinton | in the community and when we look around and we see our infrastructure crumbling, |
| 00:31:08.31 | Chris Zapata | community. |
| 00:31:12.08 | Adrian Brinton | and the lack of investment and what that's led to in the last 40 years. We have to do something. I KNOW THAT'S SCARY. people have their situation that are being supported through this. We have a lot of people who are and come up with a solution that actually supports the artistic and the maritime uses. and doesn't allow them to keep rotting into the Bay. Thank you so much for taking up this important issue. It's going to be a hard one, but if not now, then when? Thank you. |
| 00:31:37.24 | Chris Zapata | It's going to be a hard |
| 00:31:43.13 | Walfred Solorzano | No further public speakers. |
| 00:31:44.49 | Steven Woodside | you Okay, thank you. We do appreciate these comments, and if I just may add one thought quickly. The idea of taking a look at it does not forecast what the result is gonna be. I think we all have learned more recently in light of king tides and other factors that we have some big issues to solve, and it's gonna take some investment in order to solve solve those how to go about it without adversely affecting those who already live and work there is going to be the challenge with I just want to say it that way taking it up doesn't mean a particular result at this point and we're certainly listening to all the comments and we take it seriously thank you back to our priorities I think Miss Hoffman may have said it very simply we might be done in the sense that we do have it looks like we do have agreement on four items that are priorities that will involve staff time. I'm looking at the city manager. I don't think he believes that he can't accommodate those. And as to the others that are some alignment, similarly, it does not appear that that's going to interfere too much with your work between now and the end of the fiscal year. Having said that, I'll open it to others and I know Ms. Blaustein now that you've had a chance to take a look at it perhaps you want to |
| 00:33:19.36 | Ian Sobieski | Oh, yes, sir. Yeah, this is just open comments time. NOW, |
| 00:33:24.04 | Steven Woodside | here. Well, we're discussing it now. |
| 00:33:25.74 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, so just discussion. I'd love to address some of the public commenters because at the strategic planning meeting I proffered repealing Ordinance 1022 on the ballot as one measure, among many, to try to help fix our town. And I'll just go over the budget really quick, because all of you may not have seen it. I know Andy was there, but Craig wasn't there. I don't think Tracy was here. Each one of these M&Ms represents $1 million. This cup represents our annual budget in Sausalito. So one of these M&Ms is $1 million. I think everyone can see it. just to make our roads. increase from grade D to grade B, that currently they're 60 roughly after we've invested $17 million this year in them. Just to make them be a score of 80 takes this much money over 10 years. Compare those two. That's more than our annual budget. just to fix our buildings, just to fix our buildings, takes this much money. That's approximately the same amount. Just to fix our storing grains and our stairs takes this much money over 10 years. You put it there. Like this is not even adding one single employee. If you want to add some level of service or permits go faster so that we can increase permits in the marine ship or anywhere in town, we need to hire more people. That takes more money. So Sausalito has had consistent balanced budgets, but we've set our acceptable level at mediocrity. Our city manager has tried to engage in keeping excellence, but he's had his hands tied behind his back because we don't have a revenue model. Thank you. The revenue per resident in Sausalito is roughly $2,700. The revenue per resident in Carmel, for instance, is $8,000. That's tax revenue. Right? So almost three and a half times as much. Why is that? It's because Carmel approached their tax base as a thoughtful integrated plan. They emphasize hotel tax, which is very lucrative, and they emphasize other portions of economic development. So at the strategic planning meeting, we talked about what are the ideas we have to try to add $10 million a year to our budget. That's increasing this by 50%. That's not easy. Our current surpluses have been one M&M out of this, just one, and we need a surplus of 10 if we're gonna fix the town. So where are we gonna get that from? we could have a whole range of ideas, and I hope we will, and this will come back around to that, pursue some articulation of what those ideas are. But I want to put, because Tracy Kessler asked, where did this come from? And Sandra Bushmaker immediately went to housing, This is not about housing or some arbitrary mix, and it's not a criticism of the Marinership or in any way wanting to change its character. I would encourage everyone who talks about 1022 to actually read 1022. The beginning paragraph says, to preserve the maritime character, of the area, we will reduce, reduce permissible density in the commercial and industrial areas. It's not even about increasing commercial and industrial entities. Read that last sentence of that paragraph. We are reducing permissible density in the commercial industrial areas. The bottom of the paragraph down here says when a parcel's already developed, no change of use or conversion to another use that's permitted, that's from commercial to industrial, or from commercial of one kind, let's say, a studio space to a restaurant will be permitted if that change in use increases the commercial usage or density. It's actually illegal because of 1022 to increase our commercial activity. So I ask you, my friends, if this is the bill for our to fix our town. and we need to generate tax revenue without raising taxes, How are we going to do that? I ask you. you've, of course stood up proudly to defend our great maritime character, I have two boats, a little whaler, a Boston whaler, and a 26-foot sailboat. I want those marine services to exist as well. But when I walk around the marine ship, I see both vacant lots and single-story buildings. How would you add a second story if 1022 prevents the increased prohibits, makes it illegal to increase the intensity of commercial and industrial use. not even changing the zoning. Council Mayor Hoffman and others have talked about the need to be agile. How can we be agile if every change requires going to a ballot initiative? Prefeeling 1022 doesn't change a single square foot of zoning. It doesn't change a single FAR. All it does is increase our nimbleness and is one step toward and one idea toward generating the tax revenue we need to fix our city, without raising tax rates on the residents. So I wanted to give that feedback to those kind people like Andy and others who commented here tonight. |
| 00:38:34.44 | Steven Woodside | I'll go to Ms. Cox first. |
| 00:38:37.19 | Joan Cox | Thank you. I have to say, I so always appreciate the creativity of our rocket scientist city council member. But I bristled at the term mediocrity. I am very proud of what our city has accomplished ever since I've been a volunteer since 2008. And I don't believe that we are mediocre in fact last year by way of example We approved an over 17 million dollar budget to address deferred maintenance We are way ahead of the curve when it comes to our pension debt because we implemented a 115 trust way back before it was popular to do so so we are a small town And we gave away 40% of our property tax revenue in a very misguided financial action, we also increased, unreasonably in my view, our employee benefits decades ago. And so both of those things have cost us enormously. That being said, we are still in very good shape. We are in the black and we are continuing to be in the black. We were able to put $17 million towards deferred maintenance because we have, on top of a very robust 25% reserve policy, because we have been so fiscally responsible over time. I also want to address some data regarding 1022. So. You know, I very much appreciate the goal of $10 million, and I am here ready and able to collaborate with my fellow council members about how best to generate that revenue. But 1022 alone is not the way to do it, in my view. Um, our California parcel tax rate is 1%. the proportion of parcel tax that goes to Sausalito is 11.5% of that 1%. Therefore, in order to generate this $10 million desired revenue, Um, If you take 10 million and you apply 11.5% of the 1%, that requires an $8.7 billion parcel value in order to accomplish that. So you can eliminate 1022 throughout town, allow our historic district to just explode with high rise. complexes and you still won't generate $8.7 billion in parcel Value I think any Um, examination of how best to tweak 1022 has to be very thoughtfully done. And I believe the council member and I agree on this. We've discussed this in the past. I believe any tweaks to 1022 have to be thoughtfully undertaken so that we don't become victim to unintended consequences. rather than wholesale focusing only on 10-22. I was so pleased. Okay, I'll circle back. |
| 00:41:44.25 | Steven Woodside | Um, Ms. Blaustein, I don't know if you want to say anything at this point or ask questions because, um, I think you've had a chance now to see what, uh, in writing what the city manager. Okay, great. |
| 00:41:55.16 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah. Yeah, I'm happy to make a few comments in response to public comment and what my colleagues have said. I think that the purpose of this exercise is about finding where we build consensus and setting our strategies together as a council on the things that we agree as a council we want to provide direction to staff on. And of course, any conversation |
| 00:42:15.14 | Chris Zapata | and it's very important. |
| 00:42:17.56 | Melissa Blaustein | regarding the future of the Marin ship and 1022 or any discussion whatsoever about larger zoning changes is going to inhibit a very intense conversation, a lot of input, a lot of discussion about what's best and what makes the most sense. What I think is kind of remarkable, though, coming into this is that what we heard is there is indeed consensus on a need for a conversation about revitalization of that area of our town. And so what I'd like to see us get to is what are we all comfortable having a discussion about and how do we do that? Because doing nothing is clearly not an option anymore. So I really like to hear from my colleagues about what we think the best approach is, but council member Sobieski and I voted together a long time ago in favor of a plan that would have given us more necessary data to take a closer look to answer some of these very serious questions. about what is the best approach to zoning there to generate revenue and also take into account perspectives from very well-respected organizations like the Working Waterfront Association. And I appreciated hearing the comments from Craig and from John. And I think that everyone does deserve to be at the table in these discussions. But what we're trying to achieve now And what I see that we're all on the same page about is that we do need to spend some staff time looking into this so that we can get to the bottom of it and have those conversations. And I think that that was what the goal of this session is. And I think that we're all on the same page there. And when we get more data, we can figure out what the best approach is and how each person would like to tackle it and what that looks like for them. But I think we also agree that doing nothing with regards to the situation there and the maritime, doing nothing with maritime and waterfront planning, given sea level rise, given the failing infrastructure, is just not an option. So we need to have some sort of discussion about that We need further data. I just wanted to circle back on some of the other topics that were mentioned by the city manager. Again, I think it's really exciting that we have so much consensus on critical things that we otherwise weren't necessarily on the same page about. I'm really excited about working with Council Member Hoffman on the downtown revitalization and seeing what that might look like. I think We really can consider revenue generating options through not only a business license tax holiday, but through a hotel. Councilmember Sobieski and I had talked about where can we start zoning more for a hotel? Could we reignite the conversation about a hotel zoning, you said the Valhalla, for example. Are there places downtown where we can create more waterfront hotel that would generate up to a million dollars in revenue annually. So I'm really curious about the revenue discussion, but I think we also really need to commit to being bold and having a conversation about visioning for our waterfront as well. |
| 00:44:59.73 | Steven Woodside | is happening. |
| 00:45:02.71 | Jill Hoffman | So I think we might have created, or Council Member Sobieski, might have created a new drinking game at our strategic planning, which is every time someone mentions 1022, somebody takes a drink. Um, that feedback was not given to me after our planning. So it was not on our agenda last time. 1022 wasn't on our agenda today, but it keeps surfacing. And I think to say that we're not doing I mean, we rezone a large portion of the waterfront with measure J at substantial, substantial, heavily vetted conversation prior to putting measure J on the ballot. passed handily with almost no opposition we had united support on the council for that and it passed with a large number of sites along the former marineship area and you know I hope to see those sites and we focus on those sites for housing 400 new units in that area so I mean, that was a substantial rezone of the maroon ship to say that that we're ignoring the marineship and not focusing on housing in the marineship areas, absolutely untrue. The other efforts that we're doing in the Marineship are the redraft of the shoreline adaptation plan. We're engaged with property owners directly on the waterfront to get their input for shoreline sea level rise and very, very specific input from them. on how we can take their input into the shoreline adaptation plan. very specific updates to the working waterfront and their input. And so what can we do? So those efforts are absolutely going forward. We're taking their input and we're moving forward on that. So there's very specific impactful work right now going on with the northern, well, with the mid waterfront, with Newtown and with the northern waterfront with the property owners. So I'm part of that and I believe the mayor's part of that as well. with the and we're going to make a further announcement about that at the Tuesday night's meeting, and it's going to be fully rolled out at Crab Fest. So very exciting stuff on that front. So we're going to make a further announcement about that at the Tuesday night's meeting, and it's going to be fully rolled out at Crab Fest. You know, 1022 was enacted to support the industrial uses in the working waterfront. I, again, you know, instead of cherry picking, you know, sound bites from it or how individuals look at 1022 and want to interpret it, I suggest that we do take a further look at that. but not this year. I think we're rolling along and we need to support the industrial and look at the tax base down there before we do anything. before we touch anything or upset anything in the working waterfront. So that's my input. |
| 00:48:09.94 | Steven Woodside | I'm gonna start by introducing our, Katie is going to be on leave starting next week, correct Katie? Our sustainability and resiliency manager who's very much familiar with the whole waterfront. And Alex Anderson will be taking her spot during her leave. So Alex is here, and I'm sure you're finding it very interesting to hear the differences, and there are differences in the community, among people in the community, between us on the council, and I believe we have to sort it out. Maybe I'm impatient, but I don't think so. I think we see parts of the marineship sinking. We see parts of the marineship unable on its own to sustain itself against sea level rise. We saw it more recently. Some places were very vulnerable. How do we deal with it without some real comprehensive planning that tries to both protect and preserve as well as create enough of an economic engine to actually keep the money in the marine ship so that we can, for example, there are private roads, there are public roads, there are rights of ways, there's some seawalls, there are pumps, there's all kinds of things that are not adequate to the task even in the last king tides. And we've gotta do something about it. I hope that's apparent to everybody. How we do it, it's going to be tough. I just would encourage my colleagues not to use adjectives. Don't characterize what's there, please. We all know people in the marinship who we admire greatly their work, whatever it is. We know some physical buildings that seem to be functioning well, and they're environmentally sound, they might be sustainable, and we all know some that are falling apart. The federal government's going to sell. the one that's most notably falling apart, and it will transfer from federal jurisdiction to ours. What about that building alone? It'll be controversial, but we're gonna have to deal with it. And we shouldn't wait around in my opinion. So that's all I'm gonna say now. But encourage the engagement. We do appreciate it very much. And I guess that's a bell. Tell me, okay. So getting back to the task at hand, did you wanna say anything more? |
| 00:50:58.30 | Ian Sobieski | I didn't know if we were going to continue discussion or. |
| 00:51:00.57 | Steven Woodside | I think we should. |
| 00:51:01.31 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 00:51:01.38 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:51:01.83 | Ian Sobieski | I'll go since I went first, then I'll just complete a few thoughts because we have people here like Craig Miralas and Andy and Alice and online Tracy Kessler and Megan Rolla. I want to emphasize again, that we're all part of the same community. And Sausalito is a proud maritime community and the infrastructure that preserves the maritime capacity. And the industrial capacity is a core part of our identity. I say that as a boat owner and just as a resident and friend. But we are a whole community. We have community needs. Again, our budget is this guy. Our roads to fix up is this guy. Our buildings is this, and our storm drains are this. I disagree with my colleague, Thank you. Joan. in the use of the word mediocrity, and I don't mean disparaging that, but the fact is that we did an assessment of our roads and the score is 58. The $17 million we're investing is going to take us to 61. 61 out of 100. And after that money's gone, We don't have any more money. That's the accumulated surplus from the last 15 years. that we are finally investing in infrastructure instead of leaving on our balance sheet. So that's great. That's why we see so much construction. But we do not have a business model in town to fix our problems. We don't. So something's got to give. Either as a community, we have to accept that we have a budget that will maintain the infrastructure more or less the way it is, and I hope it's not going to degrade more, but storm drains and the stairs that you see that are rickety and the streets with their potholes and the staffing delays on finding permits are all a consequence of the choices we make in terms of tradeoffs. And so I ask you, people who love and care about the marineship. Do you really think that there isn't a way to have our cake and eat it too? To both preserve the core essence and the core functions of the Marin ship while letting some of the empty lots be built, while letting dry storage lots be taken advantage of for industrial as well as other uses. But today, right now, let me just be specific. The company CP shades, they make clothing. They have literally seamstresses here in Sausalito that are working to make clothing. I have a jacket. They sell jackets to Carl, the store. call the store has to resell there. They only get to wholesale. They can't retail. Heath Ceramics gets to retail. Why? Because they were before the Marinship, the 1022. So does 1022 preclude activity in the Marinship that's relevant to the denizens there? I will point you to CP Shades. They cannot sell their clothing out of their factory store because of 1022. A new restaurant can't locate in a new location because changes of use are not allowed under 1022. And this isn't just in the partnership. It's in all our commercial zones. All these zones are equally vulnerable to legal challenge. So when you do have someone who wants to cause trouble, they can tie our hands up by threatening lawsuits under 1022. Ask our CDD department what it's like trying to manage the program. Okay. |
| 00:54:13.03 | Steven Woodside | but I have more to say, but let's keep going. Okay, keep going, Ms. Cox. |
| 00:54:19.27 | Joan Cox | Thank you. I just wanted to wrap up some of the comments, and I wanted to make a couple of additional comments in response to my fellow council members. I endorse every single thing. Melissa Blaustein, our vice mayor, said. I, in the past, actually spoke with the owner of the Valhalla about turning that into a hotel. and I would love to revisit that subject with him. That would be an amazing sight. He actually considered it himself. The site is now for sale for $28 million. but I would like to talk to prospective purchasers about that. That would be an ideal site for a hotel in my view. I also endorse her urging and the mayor's urging that we collect the data we need to grapple with 1022. I believe it's a data-driven exercise. Let's grab the data, let's understand what the data is so that we can figure out how best to address it. I absolutely want to address CP Shades and other, I want to address applied arts. I want to allow second stories for the owner of Clipper Yacht Harbor on their warehouse building. I want to tweak 1022 at a minimum thoughtfully without subjecting ourselves to unintended consequences, without undermining our very unique and special historic district on the south side of town. we don't have to rely totally on Council Member Sobieski's M&Ms. We have Measure L that is dedicated towards improving our infrastructure. We have enterprise funds such as our parking lot fund, which we should be using to improve the infrastructure of our parking lots. We have Tidelands Fund monies that can be used to address some of our infrastructure needs along the waterfront. And so we are not confined solely to this additional potential revenue generation to continue to address our infrastructure needs. That being said, I am all about increasing our revenues. That's why the mayor and I are collaborating about creating a possible charter for consideration so that we can increase our transfer tax from 55 cents per thousand dollars to $11 per $1,000. So, um, I wanted to also finish my earlier data. A 1,000 unit apartment complex with an estimated value of 600 million would generate only $690,000. Marinship would need about 14 of these 1,000 unit properties to generate $10 million. So I just want us to be thoughtful and broad based and holistic as we consider how best to address 1022. |
| 00:57:20.17 | Peter Streetman | Yes. |
| 00:57:21.77 | Jill Hoffman | some, Sorry, thanks. Yeah, I do have some follow-up too, especially on the specific CP shades. I mean, the specifics of that example, they closed their business because they just wanted to retire. So they didn't even try to resell their property. They were just done and wanted to close their business and weren't interested in a retail shop. So you have to have specifics of these individual stories when you're looking at them. Furthermore, the interesting thing is when you're looking at tax revenue, right? So when you're looking at sales tax revenue, so we obviously keep more of every penny of a sales tax revenue. than we do of property tax revenues, for some of the reasons that Councilmember Cox brought forward. So when we're looking at, and that's why we have to do Before we talk about, you know, any sort of monkeying around, or sorry, adjustment of 1022, have another drink. 1022, another one, you have to look at what's our biggest return on investment for different types of businesses, right, okay, so if you're building a, you're selling a $300,000 electric boat, as opposed to, you know, a vest that's done by a garment company. I want the boat. And that's a heavy industrial type of business. that's better for Sausalito. That's the kind of business that, and that requires a, different kind of infrastructure for heavy industrial. That's a better type of business for Sausalito. That's what kept us afloat during COVID, that type of big industrial businesses. million-dollar houseboat built by List Marine, the businesses down in Arkez boats in the in the marineship. That's the business that I want to support and I want to stay in the marineship. That's why I want the shipways down there, so that they can launch the boat, so they can still work the ferries in the Marinship, That's what we have to protect in the marinship for the economic diversity and vitality of Sausalito. That's what's important and that's why we need working waterfront in the Marin ships you cannot ignore that. And once you start veering off of that, then you start endangering that revenue stream for Sausalito. So I think we're getting again far afield of what's on our agenda tonight. And so I think we've kind of gone around to this. We've gone an hour down this rabbit hole again Um, and, uh, also a hotel for one last, for my last few minutes, another hotel in Sausalito at EDAC, um, Cass Green from In Above Tide is on EDAC, and she's been on EDAC from the beginning. I asked Cass at that meeting. We've talked about it in the past. I asked her again. Could Saucelito sustain another hotel? during the busy season, even during the off season, Her answer was no. And so... That's so we build another hotel. Are they going to cannibalize you know, customers from our other hotels. So that's the question. Do we want to go down this road again for hotels? |
| 01:00:48.66 | Steven Woodside | I'm gonna make a couple comments about property taxes. For better or worse, I've been involved practicing law in this very area since the state first ripped off local taxes. Property taxes were 100% local. And Aha, the state needed money. So they kept eating and eating and eating away, such that Sausalito's percentage was down to 19%. We didn't get all 100%, but our You know, fire districts, school districts, local entities had it all. So our ability, and I think my colleague Ms. Cox understands that our ability to raise revenue from that source is, there's no real possibility unless |
| 01:01:36.16 | Chris Zapata | and I think, |
| 01:01:50.08 | Steven Woodside | And this is something I think we all agree on, the possibility of an enhanced infrastructure financing district within the marineship to hopefully preserve all of the taxes that come from whatever is developed there that increases the assessed value. It's a little bit complicated to figure out, however, that increment could stay in the marineship to do what? to create sea walls. to help Gate 5 Road from chronically flooding, and to do other things that might be in our collective best interest when we look at the people who are working in the marineship. So I just want to mention that because these kind of things, we will look at the possibility of an enhanced infrastructure district I know this the city manager is interested in the assistant city manager has some expertise there I think we're all in agreement that that may be a technique I don't want to get down into the weeds too much today but I do think that my conversations for example with Ms. Green Go the opposite direction. that there could be more hotels in town if the town has the infrastructure to support such a thing. So anyway, these are topics that we will debate. And I see Ms. Blaustein has her hand up. |
| 01:03:21.48 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you, Mayor Woodside. I wanted to respond to some of my colleagues' comments. I just want to reiterate something that is, to me, incredibly clear based on the comments of everyone on this dais, which is that, No one is saying that we don't want to protect maritime infrastructure. No one has said from this dais at any point that they have any interest in losing our working waterfront or not taking the necessary steps to protect the maritime businesses and protect our working waterfront. I've heard that from every member of the dais time and again. And I just want to be clear that I think this is another good shared goal that we have. And it's something that needs to be pointed out because often any conversation about advancing or improving infrastructure in specific areas of town is characterized as not being in favor of maintaining or preserving maritime use. And I believe that everyone on the dais cares deeply about preserving the working waterfront and preserving maritime uses. And how that is achieved may be different according to each of us, but I believe each of us care deeply about that, and I wanted to make sure to reiterate that. I think the businesses down there are vital and are an economic engine, and I think that we all acknowledge that. So I wanted to put that forward. I also wanted to say with regards to hotels, I hadn't heard that same conversation in sitting on PBID, but I will say that I would like to bring back the topic of revitalizing our downtown, because if we revitalize our downtown effectively, then any hotel in our downtown would thrive. There's a reason why Carmel has $8,000 per resident, and we have, whatever number Ian said, close to $1,200. Part of it has to do with the types of businesses that we have in offer in our downtown, which is something that I am very excited to put more effort and time into working on. Again, I do think that a lot of us have the same vision and goals around. generating revenue, about improving our infrastructure, and these are things that we're gonna work towards. But I really wanted to reiterate that I think We, at our core, have a lot of those shared I THINK WE'RE GOING TO BE TOWARDS THOSE. I REALLY APPRECIATE MAYOR WOODSIDE'S EFFORTS TO PUSH US TO HAVE A MORE STRATEGIC CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS. effort and a lot of time from all of us. So I just wanted to add that. |
| 01:05:28.40 | Ian Sobieski | you Sure. We're continuing the discussion. Are we not continuing the discussion? I don't have to. But the mayor said we are until 530. |
| 01:05:34.42 | Sergio Rudin | All right. |
| 01:05:34.44 | Steven Woodside | Until 5. |
| 01:05:34.96 | Joan Cox | We only have 20 more minutes to finish this whole |
| 01:05:37.69 | Steven Woodside | Well, this particular phase, we hope to finish in 20 minutes. So are we talking about it? We are talking about it, so go ahead. Thank you. |
| 01:05:45.89 | Ian Sobieski | Okay. Yeah, so I think it's a great discussion and we don't get to do this because of the Brown Act otherwise. So, you know, I wasn't here back in the Houseboat Wars, but I've become friends with some people who wore and... my understanding is part of the great culture of the Mern ship isn't just the zoning that was preserved. It was all the incredible creative activities that were going on. It was people actually living illegally. You know, they wasn't allowed to live in the Mern ship, but people were living there. People live there still. even though it's not zoned for residential, people live there. It's a real culture and community Right? And some of it, some of the most storied elements of it were illegal. It wasn't by the rules. The irony now. my friends, is that this rule is strangling the very thing that we want to save. Instead of having trust and faith in the spirit of entrepreneurship and creativity, that when you fertilize the soil, flowers bloom, and different kinds of plants of all kinds can be created. You want to be thoughtful about protecting the slipways, the urban planning to ensure that there is the maritime industrial there. But I believe that we are selling ourselves short when we think that if we liberalize that area, that if we remove the strictures that you can't increase activity, that we wouldn't have more activity. Right now it's very confusing. Fjord de Sana got in because of an Olympic level back somersault through a hoop that our director of CDD had to do to approve that project. Diameter Plants, which is on Caledonia, was denied their first desire to be in the Marin ship, only to be frustrated to see a similar store approved in the Marin ship. The fishing ordinance is a complex multi-paragraph legal analysis. If that's what's required for any entrepreneur to do anything in town, they go elsewhere. It means stasis. It's not encouraging. And we want to encourage creativity. It's the Sausalito spirit. We should have confidence in ourselves. removing 1022 doesn't change an inch of zoning it doesn't change the far All it does is create an ability for people to have a slightly easier path to applying to do some of those things. I feel, Councilmember Cox, with all respect, that it's a bit of a red herring about 6,000 apartment units. And not talking about that, as Councilmember Blaustein said, the secret to Carmel's revenue is that, according to the ChatGP, they have a thoughtful business model built around boutique hotels. The emergency is 215 acres, going from Dum Dumpy Park all the way to the north end of town. There's a lot of land there, and to paint it all with one broad brush, as both 1022 does to MarinShip and to our whole commercial district, is to miss the opportunity for nuance. So my real question to Jill and to others is, okay, you're shooting down all these ideas, here are the M&Ms, what are your ideas? And if we don't have specific ideas to add up, and with all respect, the $17 million is not repeatable, then we're gonna admit that we're not gonna solve. our problem, our infrastructure problem. We're just not. |
| 01:08:52.62 | Steven Woodside | I'm gonna suggest that we not table this, but continue this at a future date on this, please. |
| 01:09:00.43 | Jill Hoffman | I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm gonna insist on responding. |
| 01:09:01.58 | Ian Sobieski | So, I'm going to go ahead and Respondent. I was the first to speak again. |
| 01:09:05.69 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. I think I... Okay. Sorry. Three minutes. I'm a fast talker. So the good news is we did rezone in the Marinership. There's substantial new housing in the Marinership. And with regard to the people that live down there, I know there's houseboat communities down there currently and other people that live down there right now. With regard to the Fresh Catch program, it was just a fairly simple review of the code. And it just took about a half an hour to do it. |
| 01:09:10.44 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah. |
| 01:09:11.26 | Steven Woodside | Okay. |
| 01:09:11.79 | Ian Sobieski | I'm sorry. |
| 01:09:11.85 | Steven Woodside | All right. |
| 01:09:12.18 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 01:09:12.23 | Steven Woodside | the |
| 01:09:12.38 | Ian Sobieski | . |
| 01:09:12.41 | Steven Woodside | Three minutes. |
| 01:09:39.24 | Jill Hoffman | Actually, it was less than a half an hour for our very smart city attorney to take a look at the code to find out It wasn't prohibited. No one had just actually bothered to look and confirm that. And it took a little bit of work to track down the person at the county to confirm that it wasn't prohibited at the county either. And it took about 20 minutes to look at the and we had a lot of fish and game requirements to see what the fishermen, the commercial fishermen were required to get through fish and game, not through Sausalito, but just as a courtesy for us to look through fish and game to see what they were required to get. So, you know, that's all that was required. You know, thanks to our CDD director for sitting down with me and our city attorney And a very nice person at the county whose first name is Carly for talking to me on the phone for... 10 minutes and then sending me an email and confirming what was required. We got that together, and I'm very happy with that. So it does take a little bit of effort to look at the codes in Sausalito, and I completely agree that maybe we should and we're going to invest in a couple more permanent technicians to look navigate their way through our codes and permits so that Fjord could get there quicker. and who's not happy with that? I wish I could afford to go there, but it looks like it's a lot of fun when I see the Instagram posts, but maybe someday I'll get there. So good news on all sides, and that's my response. |
| 01:11:16.86 | Steven Woodside | Okay, I'm gonna say that for now, let's focus on where we are aligned. We all agree that revenue is a very limiting factor. We all agree on that and I think. |
| 01:11:29.62 | Ian Sobieski | I have to respectfully disagree. Just the conversation, I just want, |
| 01:11:35.04 | Steven Woodside | Wait a second, Ian. We all agree, we all agree, we all agree that we need more revenue. You've proven it. |
| 01:11:38.16 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. WE ALL AGREE THAT WE NEED MORE REVENUE. I'm not sure. |
| 01:11:43.04 | Steven Woodside | Okay. |
| 01:11:43.32 | Ian Sobieski | Okay? The question is, is it, is it, Thank you. this kind of revenue, thimble sized, or is it going to move the needle? |
| 01:11:49.03 | Steven Woodside | Well, that's the point. We need much more revenue, and that's why we're gonna have to emphasize it. We all agree on that. Now, how we do it? |
| 01:11:49.06 | Ian Sobieski | Bye. Right. |
| 01:11:57.11 | Steven Woodside | we may differ. Is it all going to be coming out of the marine ship? Is that the debate tonight? If so, |
| 01:12:02.24 | Ian Sobieski | If so. Then I would love to modify the word revenue to be $10 million of revenue. But some real goal that's specific, measurable, and achievable, that's like Janelle's always talking about key performance index. It's like if we don't have a measurable goal, then revenues just every incremental bit counts. But I'm saying if it doesn't move the needle, then it isn't really attending to the problem. |
| 01:12:03.86 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:12:22.63 | Joan Cox | But I would say let's not sacrifice the better for the best. We don't have to generate $10 million of revenue in one year. let's have that as a longer term goal and figure out what we might be able to generate. |
| 01:12:33.31 | Steven Woodside | What I think Ian proposed at the last meeting, and I agree with this, is that we direct the city manager to focus on those measures that will generate one million dollars or more. That's the priority, okay? The ultimate goal, it's gonna be tens of millions in order to solve the problems that we face. |
| 01:12:34.93 | Joan Cox | Sooner. |
| 01:12:57.62 | Steven Woodside | I think we have to be realistic about that. And the goal is... |
| 01:13:00.34 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. |
| 01:13:00.46 | Sergio Rudin | Thank you. |
| 01:13:00.49 | Chris Zapata | What are you doing? |
| 01:13:01.34 | Steven Woodside | The goal and the direction to the city manager is focus on those big, possible revenue generating items, and then we will debate those. Not tonight, okay? Not this afternoon. But I 100% agree with your analysis. I think you just moderated. |
| 01:13:17.02 | Ian Sobieski | I think he just modified it from revenue to revenue. It was greater than $1 million. Yeah. |
| 01:13:21.22 | Steven Woodside | Yes, yes. I think we agree. Okay, that's one. We do want to deal with economic vitality generally, not just the big ticket items. So I think, for example, Ms. Blaustein is going to take the lead on the possibility of a business license tax holiday. The extent of that will be dealt with, hopefully in the anticipated budget for next fiscal year. and we look to the city manager to spend some time to work on how that might be accomplished and to work with the business community to see how that will work Ms. Blaustein is that sort of your thought there so that's it that's one method but the whole idea of economic vitality and ways to stimulate that is a priority and it's gonna be. |
| 01:14:06.12 | John DeRay | Exactly. |
| 01:14:06.97 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. |
| 01:14:15.62 | Jill Hoffman | So I think Mayor, Councilor Blassey and I were gonna look at that in the context of our review, the business license tax, but in the review, I thought that was in our bucket of economic vitality and I thought that was in our, in downtown revitalization. |
| 01:14:30.83 | Steven Woodside | I thought that was interesting. |
| 01:14:35.38 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. |
| 01:14:35.75 | Jill Hoffman | That was in one of our things. So we, and then we were going to come back. |
| 01:14:39.94 | Steven Woodside | Well, I know that this was. |
| 01:14:41.10 | Jill Hoffman | This was. No or no? I'm sorry, maybe I'm confused on that. Maybe I didn't. Was that what we were, and then we were gonna come back, Vice Mayor, we were gonna look at that |
| 01:14:51.09 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. |
| 01:14:56.69 | Jill Hoffman | That was in our that was just saying that. |
| 01:14:56.76 | Melissa Blaustein | That was in our that was just saying that we were going to look we're going to look at it and talk about the options for the downtown. But I'm very interested in pursuing a business license tax and I've been talking with David about it so we could come together and see what he has to say as well. This doesn't preclude. |
| 01:14:58.82 | Steven Woodside | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:14:58.91 | Jill Hoffman | We'll be right back. |
| 01:14:58.97 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:14:59.06 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:14:59.16 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:15:09.49 | Steven Woodside | doesn't preclude you from focusing on that for purposes of tonight okay this is this is not a big-ticket item but it is something that we heard at the last meeting there are vacant storefronts okay is there a way to incentivize businesses this is one means I think that's in a nutshell the purpose and it will involve city staff to help analyze it and will probably be dealing with it Thank you. I think that's in a nutshell the purpose and it will involve City staff to help analyze it and we'll probably be dealing with it directly When we get to budget later this year. Is that fair to say? |
| 01:15:11.53 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Pursue best strategies for the future. Okay. |
| 01:15:16.09 | Sergio Rudin | Thank you. |
| 01:15:44.67 | Joan Cox | I endorse that as a priority. |
| 01:15:47.37 | Steven Woodside | Yes. |
| 01:15:47.78 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:15:47.79 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. Thank you. That's two yes answers. I think there is consensus, although if I may say so, I think you see it as a small. |
| 01:15:50.91 | Joan Cox | So, |
| 01:15:51.25 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:15:51.27 | Joan Cox | That's two. |
| 01:15:55.05 | Chris Zapata | I don't remember. |
| 01:16:00.65 | Steven Woodside | M&M at the most. OK. I also think we did have strong alignment that we need to have better planning in the marinship without debating what that looks like. we don't have what I would consider to be a comprehensive plan for the marineship that involves roads, sea level rise, et cetera. I know it will be debated the specifics when we get there, but we've got to be addressing it sooner than later, or we're just gonna slide into the bay. |
| 01:16:37.20 | Unknown | I endorse that to other council members. Yeah, that's number four on our, I see the vice mayor nodding her head yes. |
| 01:16:44.04 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:16:44.27 | Steven Woodside | Yeah, I think we've got consensus. |
| 01:16:45.69 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:16:45.74 | Jill Hoffman | Which is what we're, yeah, with our draft, with our draft shoreline adaptation, we're already in. That would be involved, yeah. |
| 01:16:51.50 | Steven Woodside | that would be involved. Yeah, some of it's underway, some of it will require some additional planning. We asked last December for a roadmap. We will be getting that, we hope, in March, and we're not gonna wait until next year once we see what's in the roadmap, and if we like it, we're gonna start taking the steps. I think that's the goal. Mr. Sobieski, is that, okay. Just wanna make sure. |
| 01:17:21.25 | Ian Sobieski | Can I ask you a question about one thing I thought I heard alignment of that didn't make the list and just see and it was around permitting reform or permitting streamlining I didn't see where that was on the list and I thought it was one of the strong alignment things because I heard everyone |
| 01:17:34.56 | Steven Woodside | Yes, it's mentioned I think by everyone. But it didn't make this list that I see. For some reason it didn't. |
| 01:17:38.49 | Ian Sobieski | for some reason. |
| 01:17:40.10 | Joan Cox | Yeah, I agree that that's... Oh, I see the city manager maybe has a... |
| 01:17:43.37 | Steven Woodside | And I believe two members of the Planning Commission are embarking on their own to also look at that very topic. So we're not alone. |
| 01:17:51.74 | Ian Sobieski | I wanted to share with my colleagues, I hope it's okay to share a conversation I had with our CDD director that's on this point that might inform the direction we want to give, help him or help the staff, and it's just that They live with the code. They implement the code, as Jill was saying, they live with the code, right? they have ideas on how things could be streamlined. Like, for example, there was a zoning administration meeting on Wednesday. It's the first one I ever attended. three tables in front of Franco Cafe. The only, it was a nice thick staff report. It was a Brown Act meeting. The only attendee was the applicant and our staff. And it took like an hour and all the reports and everything took a lot of time too. And I asked staff like, how many of these are there? And they're a fair number. And I asked how many times do you ever have anyone dispute show up and criticize, and he said, it's very, very rare. But right now, because of our code, the requirement for a public hearing, which makes sense, of course, you want to preserve some way for neighbors to be alerted. The solution back then was let's have a public hearing and see. but, and I'm not drawing judgment, but the actual experience has been that maybe this isn't the most efficient way to give, alert the neighbors. |
| 01:19:01.37 | Steven Woodside | So we're not directing how to streamline it, but to look at those kind of incidents. |
| 01:19:03.56 | Ian Sobieski | No. Thank you. It's really, and I think the staff needs a clear direction from all of us that they should prioritize using their own experience from the last several years to report to us what they think would actually streamline things in terms of changes of the code. For us to decide what to do with, but instead of having two planning commissioners that are just part of the process, the actual employees who sit behind the wall knowing this, having this knowledge, I think should be tapped directly. |
| 01:19:30.88 | Steven Woodside | I think that's why we're here, because that's a direction to the assistant city manager. And I'm looking, I can't quite see you. You clear on that? |
| 01:19:30.90 | Ian Sobieski | I'd be told. |
| 01:19:45.32 | Steven Woodside | Yes. And you're OK with it? Yes. And you will be working also with the planning commissioners who are assigned to that task. That is in progress. Okay. So just so everyone understands, we don't want to be giving direction that we don't think can be followed through on or unduly burdened staff. The exercise here is to try to help make sure what we're asking be done can be done and that it's a priority with us. We do have a lot of specific, yeah, let me just go through. |
| 01:20:21.77 | Jill Hoffman | the specifics. Go ahead. |
| 01:20:25.27 | Steven Woodside | I think those are the strong alignment areas and the and several of the others we have efforts by pairs of council members and others moving forward I don't know that any of them require lots of staff time at this point and I would say you know go for it including members of the Planning Commission who are Interested in this topic as long as it doesn't overwhelm the staff. I just wanted to say that because we could spend a lot of time talking about those specifics, but I think it's fruitless tonight because we're not directing something that requires a lot of staff time at this juncture. So, Ms. Hoffman. |
| 01:21:03.83 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you very much. I'm sorry, I'm just asking for clarification. Did you say that there's a planning commission... that's working on permitting review? |
| 01:21:15.05 | Steven Woodside | Streamlining, streamlining. |
| 01:21:15.61 | Sergio Rudin | Thank you. |
| 01:21:15.67 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. OK. Great. |
| 01:21:18.39 | Steven Woodside | Yeah. |
| 01:21:18.66 | Jill Hoffman | Excellent. |
| 01:21:19.61 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. And I see it's underway. Yeah. |
| 01:21:24.67 | Brandon Phipps | Yes, happy to share that this working group was created last year, and that working group is composed of now Vice Chair David Merlot and Commissioner Andrew Junius. |
| 01:21:41.68 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you. |
| 01:21:41.69 | Steven Woodside | So in terms of the priorities, as far as I'm concerned, those are the ones we can give direction now and the rest I think that we'll be working on individually do not require we hope a lot of staff time is that |
| 01:21:55.72 | Chris Zapata | Yeah. If I can, Mayor and Council in the public, just to sum up, you're about two minutes left. So what I heard was revenue and big ticket items are what you're looking for from staff. I heard infrastructure and infrastructure tools. Our economic vitality and an economic vitality that includes permit streamlining and the work that has to happen there. And then I heard the maritime, the maritime, the maritime and the waterfront, the waterfront, the waterfront is a priority. Those are the four that I heard. Am I missing anything? |
| 01:21:57.42 | Steven Woodside | Yes. |
| 01:22:26.52 | Ian Sobieski | I didn't hear you say greater than $1 million in the revenue. I did say that. Okay, I didn't hear it. |
| 01:22:28.96 | Chris Zapata | I did say that. Okay, I didn't hear it, so my fault. That was the first sentence. Okay, thanks. Revenue and big ticket items are the focus and the priorities you want to. |
| 01:22:32.74 | Ian Sobieski | Okay. |
| 01:22:36.83 | Steven Woodside | He used big ticket, not one million, okay? |
| 01:22:43.90 | Steven Woodside | Okay, are we aligned on that? |
| 01:22:47.42 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 01:22:48.34 | Steven Woodside | Melissa? Okay, I see you're nodding. |
| 01:22:52.08 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:22:52.10 | Jill Hoffman | Can I? |
| 01:22:53.90 | Steven Woodside | Ms. Hoffman, yes. |
| 01:22:55.64 | Jill Hoffman | I'm glad we're aligning on these priorities and I am wondering how we implement this in the agendas and our own behavior on the dais. And so when we're on the dais and we're looking at our agendas and during our conversations, then do we look at these priorities? Can we have a set of these priorities and can we are we going to adhere to these during our discussions and say these are the priorities this year for 2026? |
| 01:23:29.93 | Steven Woodside | Yes, I know Mr. Sobieski has a specific technique that he suggested for how we do that. I think agenda setting committee will get to it. We'll come back to you. In a way, this is a little bit like how you implement strategic plans thoughtfully. You say, what was the goal set in the plan? How do we measure up as we move through an agenda, for example? So I think you just don't want us to lose track of these. |
| 01:23:58.59 | Jill Hoffman | right. |
| 01:23:58.96 | Steven Woodside | Okay. |
| 01:23:59.36 | Jill Hoffman | And I want to use our time judiciously and our staff times judiciously when we look at the very finite resource that that is. And the other stuff that they, the other mountain of work that they have this year in implementing our housing element and all the incredible workload that they have. |
| 01:24:21.92 | Steven Woodside | I think if Mr. City Manager, yes. |
| 01:24:27.83 | Chris Zapata | My mic is on now. What I would do is what Susan Cleveland Knowles asked us to do with this 2020-26 strategic plan. And that's when we submit council agenda items. These four items have to be referenced. These are the things that you want to see movement on. They're your priorities. And so that will be one way to track efforts in that area that stays constant in front of folks. Revenue, infrastructure, economic vitality, maritime shorelines. |
| 01:24:55.30 | Steven Woodside | Thank you and it's almost 530. So one way that we can show restraint and discipline is to finish on time and move on to the next item. We okay? Okay. Yes. The next item is an example of how two members of the council can take on a task and bring it back to us, I think in pretty good shape. So who do I call on first? Mr. Sobiesti. |
| 01:25:07.67 | Alice Merrill | Yes. |
| 01:25:23.40 | Joan Cox | Council member, so rocket scientist. |
| 01:25:25.07 | Steven Woodside | This is the RFP. |
| 01:25:28.28 | Joan Cox | praising your good work. |
| 01:25:29.36 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah, well, Councilor Cox and I collaborated with Brandon to modify his RFP to be called an RFIP, so Request for Ideas and Proposals, and it's attached to the agenda. It's eight pages long, so the original was substantially longer. The longer version had all important material elements, and all of the things that Brandon produced in the longer version will come to bear before we ever sign an official agreement, but the shorter RFP will be easier for people to digest in keeping with assistant city managers, FIPS's recommendation to keep it shorter, and so we hope to get some responses. I do think maybe March, even though I put in March 19 on there, that might be a little bit fast, given that that's just a slightly more than a month away, you might want to do one extra week because it would line up with the city council meeting. So I might suggest modifying the thing I submitted by adding seven days to it, but to the deadline, but other than that, |
| 01:26:25.40 | Steven Woodside | I was like, No objection to that. |
| 01:26:28.81 | Joan Cox | Yeah, I would love it to be able to come back to us at our second meeting in March. So I would like it to be received in time for staff to come back to us with a recommendation. |
| 01:26:41.38 | Ian Sobieski | Currently it's March 19th, which is in there, and but our second meeting of March is March 17th because of the way March lays out. |
| 01:26:46.85 | Joan Cox | Yeah. |
| 01:26:48.41 | Ian Sobieski | that would substantially shorten the window if we did that. So my suggestion was to actually add a week to March 26th so that we come to the April, first meeting in April instead of the last meeting in March. |
| 01:26:57.97 | Joan Cox | It's up to the council. I will tell you that when I go out for $100 million jail projects, I give them 30 days. So. I would suggest April. That's fine with me. That's fine with me. I would like us also to address scoring. |
| 01:27:10.84 | Sergio Rudin | Thank you. |
| 01:27:10.94 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 01:27:14.37 | Joan Cox | So the, um, Councilmember Sobieski sent some interesting bullet points regarding some factors to consider scoring. I added to those the Assistant City Manager put in the RFP the scoring system that had previously been enunciated So I would prefer to focus on some of the Metrics that you and I Had come up with if we could give that direction for development of a scoring system |
| 01:27:50.03 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah, Brandon Phipps recommended a scoring system, so he mailed it back. It was a little bit at the last minute, so John and I did not get a chance really to talk about it. So the question for the council members is that the scoring system is how staff would grade it. It still had one key sentence, which is at the end of the day, council can do whatever they want. Maybe I would put that sentence in bold and underlined rather than it just being at the bottom of the paragraph. To my own read, frankly, when I saw that long scoring system as an applicant, I'd be intimidated by it because it was lengthy. So I prefer it to be shorter is all. |
| 01:28:21.94 | Joan Cox | And that's why I liked, I think you and I, Between Us, came up with six... |
| 01:28:25.72 | Ian Sobieski | We'll be right back. |
| 01:28:25.87 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:28:25.99 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 01:28:26.04 | Joan Cox | Yeah, we had six parameters for scoring and we emailed those to you assistant city manager that afternoon, but we ran a Okay, so do you want me to tell you what those six were? |
| 01:28:26.46 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah, we have to. |
| 01:28:35.03 | Ian Sobieski | I can support that. Okay. |
| 01:28:39.82 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:28:39.88 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 01:28:39.96 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:28:39.98 | Ian Sobieski | THE FAMILY. |
| 01:28:40.03 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:28:40.11 | Ian Sobieski | It's in the email. |
| 01:28:41.07 | Joan Cox | That's what I'm gonna do but the council hasn't seen the email |
| 01:28:45.19 | Steven Woodside | So I'm gonna say I trust that if you've reduced it and you're both satisfied with it, and Mr. Phipps, you've had a chance to take it |
| 01:28:51.52 | Brandon Phipps | and, look. |
| 01:28:54.40 | Steven Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:28:54.44 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you. I have reviewed that email. I'll have to re-review that following this discussion. because I, |
| 01:29:02.98 | Steven Woodside | we don't want to hold this up unnecessarily. So having the base RFP approved. |
| 01:29:05.22 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:29:09.07 | Joan Cox | I'll just tell you what the six are. |
| 01:29:10.76 | Steven Woodside | Okay. |
| 01:29:10.99 | Joan Cox | 10 points anticipated revenue generation to city. 10 points subjective assessment of benefit to neighboring businesses. 10 points subjective assessment of benefit to residents. 10 points subjective assessment of benefit to visitors. 10 points. and then 10 points for creativity. and 10 points for financial viability. |
| 01:29:36.83 | Steven Woodside | Pretty straightforward. And this is a scoring system that's used by staff before bringing a final proposal to us. And we don't have a scoring system. We have a method of discussing on the dais and trying to sort out We don't have a scoring system. So having said that, we didn't really maybe explain this, although hopefully everyone is aware, this is for the docks that have deteriorated, slips that is at Tourney Street. And the idea is that perhaps in a public-private partnership there are businesses or others who may wish to come forward and say, we can repair and make your dock serviceable and we have an idea of what we would want to see in return perhaps who knows what we don't want to foreclose creative thinking I also think that when we talk about public-private partnership there are other very active waterfront or oriented activities including community boating center and Sea Trek and others on the water who might be interested in partnering with someone else and doing something creative so we're hoping number one to get the docks of slips back in operation for public access purposes and that's the heart of it Is that? |
| 01:31:05.19 | Joan Cox | Yes, I just wanted to share. I attended Super Bowl Sunday at the Saucyedull Yacht Club and was approached by the rear commodore who said he intends to put in a proposal. So and I know that's in addition to a couple of other people who are interested and considering proposing. So I thought that was great news. Great. |
| 01:31:24.39 | Steven Woodside | Excellent. So do we have a motion? I have a couple of questions. |
| 01:31:25.10 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Go ahead. I have a couple questions. Thank you. Oh. |
| 01:31:29.55 | Steven Woodside | Oh, I'm sorry. |
| 01:31:29.86 | Jill Hoffman | I'm sorry. Oh, Melissa might have a, did she have her hand? |
| 01:31:31.80 | Melissa Blaustein | I've had my hand up for a while. |
| 01:31:32.66 | Steven Woodside | Yes. |
| 01:31:34.78 | Melissa Blaustein | I just, well, first, I don't think we took public comment and we probably should before we do a motion and stuff, I, I, uh... You're right. |
| 01:31:42.51 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:31:42.55 | Sergio Rudin | You're right. |
| 01:31:43.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:31:43.04 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah. |
| 01:31:43.68 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 01:31:43.83 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:31:43.86 | Sergio Rudin | I know. |
| 01:31:44.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:31:44.56 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, no problem. |
| 01:31:47.17 | Melissa Blaustein | And you notice more when you're on Zoom, you know? Um, But I just had a couple of questions about the RFP. Um, Is it standard that we really require everyone to mail in a sealed envelope. There's no way to just do an online form submission. I just feel like we're, maybe that's If we can't address it with this RFP, In future submissions, we should. because it just feels kind of limiting and I'm not sure why we need a specific hard paper copy unless that's something that our community development director really holds dear. |
| 01:32:16.85 | Steven Woodside | I think the issue is confidentiality and protecting the document itself. Whether that can be done online or not, I don't know. But you're talking, for this purpose it's okay, but you're questioning whether in the future |
| 01:32:17.01 | Melissa Blaustein | I think the issue is... |
| 01:32:33.14 | Melissa Blaustein | I mean, I just think it's easier for folks if they can submit online, but that's just my perspective. If it's too hard to institute at this measure or this junction, I'm not going to fight about it, but it was just something that I was realizing in reviewing our RFP processes that maybe we could improve. |
| 01:32:50.62 | Steven Woodside | That's a great comment. |
| 01:32:50.74 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 01:32:52.06 | Steven Woodside | Mr. Fitch? |
| 01:32:52.09 | Melissa Blaustein | And then I'm also And then I just, I think it's really well simplified and I really appreciate the time and effort from Um, Council members Cox and Sobieski. I I just want to make sure it's abundantly clear the two part pilot. And that seemed a little bit lost. I guess it appears on page two. Um, |
| 01:33:20.86 | Melissa Blaustein | I guess, I mean, it's fine. It'll work. I just want to make sure that it doesn't discourage anybody from moving quickly. And it seems very general. So I appreciate the changes. I don't have any other comments. Sorry. |
| 01:33:30.66 | Steven Woodside | Okay, thank you. Ms. Hoffman, did you want |
| 01:33:33.80 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, thank you. I, let's see, I saw that the Section 9, that the housing element reservation of rights, but it seemed a little, I know that we can go into that if we sign the lease, right? But I think in the I think that's what we said in our presentation. I think that's what we said in our presentation. I think that's what we said in our presentation. I think that's what we said in our presentation. I think that's what we said in our presentation. I think that's what we said in our original because if it's going to interfere with the housing element, housing element |
| 01:34:22.18 | Steven Woodside | I think that's fine. |
| 01:34:23.10 | Jill Hoffman | And then. |
| 01:34:24.14 | Joan Cox | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:34:24.73 | Jill Hoffman | I'm not sure. |
| 01:34:24.97 | Joan Cox | the assistant city manager is hearing this conversation. He got interrupted, so I just want to be sure. you are tracking that we want to include potential cancellation of the lease if necessary to accommodate the housing element. |
| 01:34:41.61 | Brandon Phipps | Yes, I did hear that, and thank you, Council Member, for clarifying. I would also just state to support this discussion that we had previously integrated a 60-day advance notice time limit. So I believe that was your recommendation, Council Member. I'm happy to integrate that with Council's majority consensus as well. |
| 01:34:44.04 | Joan Cox | THE FAMILY IS |
| 01:34:59.97 | Jill Hoffman | And then the only, the other thing you might want to include is in the housing element, on page 373 on our housing element plan, Thank you. There's a really great map of site 301 which shows how closely I don't know if somebody bidding on this is going to want to know how closely site 301 is up against the docks because on page six there's a you draw a nice circle around it but but the site through one goes right up against the end of the slips so they are going to have to work with mr uh razavi um on building the sites because they are going to have to cross his property even though as we discussed the last one um i'm excited uh this is the sixth time this has come on our agenda this year um so this uh since i looked it up uh since january of 2025 so um Yeah so this is good hopefully This is, we're gonna get there with this project. |
| 01:36:09.02 | Steven Woodside | Okay, is there a motion to approve? Oh. Public comment. Is there any? |
| 01:36:16.88 | Steven Woodside | I see none in the chambers. |
| 01:36:19.50 | Walfred Solorzano | And |
| 01:36:20.21 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:36:20.66 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 01:36:20.68 | Steven Woodside | Yes, seeing none. Very good. Everyone must be happy with this. Is there a motion? |
| 01:36:25.96 | Joan Cox | I move approval of the RFP in the packet with the revisions enunciated by council members including |
| 01:36:39.16 | Joan Cox | including the revision regarding the housing element, including the six scoring criteria, Is there anything else? |
| 01:36:51.90 | Ian Sobieski | changing the due date to March 26th. |
| 01:36:54.04 | Joan Cox | changing the due date to March 26th, and then including the diagram that was in the prior um, version that that clearly depicted the proximity of the subject site to site 301. I see the assistant city manager feverishly writing, so I think he got it. |
| 01:37:10.49 | Steven Woodside | See you. |
| 01:37:15.31 | Steven Woodside | And there's a second. I'll second it. Any further discussion? I'm seeing none. Do we need a roll call? |
| 01:37:26.73 | Joan Cox | Yes, because she's remote. |
| 01:37:28.27 | Steven Woodside | Oh, that's right. |
| 01:37:28.85 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 01:37:31.96 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Cox. Yes. Councilmember Hoffman? Yes. Councilmember Sobieski? Yes. Vice Mayor Blaustein? |
| 01:37:34.95 | Joan Cox | Yes. Yeah. |
| 01:37:39.81 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes. And Mary Woodside. |
| 01:37:41.51 | Steven Woodside | Yes, and thank you to my fellow council members for spending as much time as you did to pare this down to its essentials. I really appreciate that. We have no other items on the agenda tonight. |
| 01:37:47.27 | Walfred Solorzano | THE END OF THE END OF THE Thank you. |
| 01:37:48.48 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. to. |
| 01:37:58.20 | Steven Woodside | and no other announcements to be made. We do have a meeting next week coming right up. Tuesday and there will probably be plenty of things to announce then so we'll wait and until then and and thank you and thank you city manager for helping us pull this together we appreciate it It is 540, 543, and we are adjourned. |
| 01:38:30.10 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
Craig Merrily — Against: Highlighted Marinship's economic diversity, essential maritime services, and housing contributions; opposed zoning changes that would threaten the working waterfront. ▶ 📄
Alice Merrill — Against: Briefly echoed previous speakers in strong support for preserving Marinship's current maritime and industrial character. ▶ 📄
Peter Streetman — Against: Argued that Marinship areas like the Arques shipyard need investment, not redevelopment, and should remain essential for maritime services and houseboat community. ▶ 📄
Megan Roll — Against: Opposed 'economic liberalization' framing, advocated for inclusive community process, and stressed preserving Ordinance 1022 to require public vote on zoning changes. ▶ 📄
John DeRay — Against: Stated Marinship is largely active and successful; urged careful, surgical changes to Ordinance 1022 rather than wholesale removal, and emphasized preserving maritime services and industrial affordability. ▶ 📄
Sandra Bushmaker — Against: Opposed removing Ordinance 1022, emphasized Marinship's value to maritime community, and endorsed preserving maritime, artistic, and light industrial uses. ▶ 📄
Tracy Kessler — Against: As an artist in Marinship, expressed confusion over revisiting 1022 after housing mandates were met, and advocated for protecting artists and maritime community. ▶ 📄
Adrian Brinton — In Favor: Argued Ordinance 1022 is outdated, prevents needed investment and modernization in Marinship, and supports changes to enable development that can fund maritime and artistic uses. ▶ 📄