| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:00.03 | Councilmember Sobieski | Thank you. I'm going to go. |
| 00:00:01.03 | Walfred Solorzano | I'm just sort of forwarding. |
| 00:00:02.43 | Mayor Woodside | Okay. So, Mr. Clinton, |
| 00:00:04.03 | Walfred Solorzano | to the community. |
| 00:00:04.18 | Mayor Woodside | Thank you. |
| 00:00:04.55 | Walfred Solorzano | Good afternoon, Mayor, City Council. Today's meeting of March 17, 2026 is being held at 420 Little Street City Council Council Chambers. It's also being broadcast live on Zoom on the city's website and on cable TV channel 27. |
| 00:00:24.85 | Mayor Woodside | Thank you. Will you please call the roll? |
| 00:00:30.30 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Cox. here. Council Member Hoffman. |
| 00:00:35.15 | Jill Hoffman | Here. Here, I'm appearing remotely from the Protea Hotel in Cape Town, South Africa, as noticed properly on the agenda. |
| 00:00:47.15 | Mayor Woodside | about the exact opposite of us on the earth. |
| 00:00:51.35 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Sobieski he did indicate he was going to join online but I still do not see him there so Vice Mayor Blaustein Thank you. |
| 00:00:58.92 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | here. |
| 00:00:59.43 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:00:59.52 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | and |
| 00:00:59.78 | Walfred Solorzano | And Mayor Woodside. |
| 00:01:00.88 | Mayor Woodside | I'm here. So. |
| 00:01:02.23 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | We'll record when he arrives for your records. |
| 00:01:05.41 | Mayor Woodside | Thank you so much. Yes, I expect that he will arrive when we get to item C2 in the closed session. We will be adjourning going into closed session to consider items C1 through C6 as on the posted agenda. And before we do so, is there any public comment on the closed session? |
| 00:01:26.99 | Walfred Solorzano | seen none. |
| 00:01:28.07 | Mayor Woodside | Very well, we'll adjourn now into closed session and we'll be out hopefully as soon as we go. So Mr. Clerk, we're ready. |
| 00:01:35.63 | Unknown | done. |
| 00:01:40.12 | Unknown | development. |
| 00:01:40.72 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. |
| 00:01:46.09 | Walfred Solorzano | All right, Mayor, |
| 00:01:47.03 | Mayor Woodside | Mayor and Council, we're ready to reconvene. Very well. First item will be the Pledge of Allegiance. |
| 00:01:56.32 | Mayor Woodside | I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, |
| 00:01:58.38 | Unknown | the United States of America. |
| 00:02:03.59 | Sophia Collier | 20. |
| 00:02:07.13 | Sophia Collier | She answers for all. |
| 00:02:15.06 | Mayor Woodside | So thank you. We'll now have the roll call. And I will note for the record that Mr. Sobieski joined the meeting at 325 remotely from Jackson Hole. |
| 00:02:24.63 | Councilmember Cox | Is he with us? |
| 00:02:29.27 | Mayor Woodside | Yes. |
| 00:02:29.36 | Walfred Solorzano | Yeah. |
| 00:02:29.38 | Councilmember Cox | Okay, great. Perfect. |
| 00:02:33.59 | Walfred Solorzano | Okay, Councilmember Cox. Here. |
| 00:02:35.45 | Councilmember Cox | Here. |
| 00:02:36.12 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Huffman. |
| 00:02:38.06 | Councilmember Huffman | Thank you. |
| 00:02:38.08 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Cheers. |
| 00:02:38.34 | Councilmember Huffman | Thank you. |
| 00:02:39.21 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Sobieski. |
| 00:02:40.75 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | here. |
| 00:02:41.00 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 00:02:42.22 | Walfred Solorzano | Vice Mayor Blalstein. Here. Mayor Woodside. |
| 00:02:44.83 | Mayor Woodside | here. I have one announcement from closed session. We did discuss each of the items on the closed session agenda. Um, Member Sobieski did recuse himself from one item of anticipated litigation. |
| 00:03:00.81 | Councilmember Sobieski | I, yeah, as I have done as this matter has come before the council many times previously, the location in question is very close to my residence and so out of an abundance of caution. recused or felt that I needed to recuse myself. |
| 00:03:14.58 | Mayor Woodside | correct, and he did not participate in that particular discussion. We do have one item to report, and that is we gave instructions to our law firm, BBK, to defend the case of Link Holdings, LLC, versus the city of Sausalito. And that's all I have to report. Now, with respect to the agenda, I think we'll be able to follow it in a timely way. It appears that we have allocated time, that looks like it will work. I do wanna indicate that we are removing one consent item and will not be hearing it. you So should I do that now? Okay. |
| 00:04:03.55 | Mayor Woodside | 3E, that's correct. This is the Bridgeway, Caledonia Street, safety measures, striping, etc. That will not be discussed tonight, but we will bring it back on a future agenda fairly soon. Okay, so with that, Do we have approval for the agenda? |
| 00:04:24.19 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Move approval as amended. you Second. |
| 00:04:27.40 | Mayor Woodside | Okay, all in favor, say it. |
| 00:04:28.60 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | But he has to call the roll because we have remote |
| 00:04:30.86 | Mayor Woodside | Okay, that's right. |
| 00:04:32.26 | Walfred Solorzano | Okay, council member Cox. Yes. Council member Hoffman. |
| 00:04:37.29 | Jill Hoffman | Yes, but Mayor, which item was that that we removed from that? It's 3E. |
| 00:04:40.38 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | The daylighting. |
| 00:04:42.75 | Jill Hoffman | Oh, three. Oh, yes. Thank you so much. Yes. Approve. Agree. |
| 00:04:46.69 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:04:46.70 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:04:46.75 | Walfred Solorzano | Okay. Councilmember Sobieski? Thank you. |
| 00:04:48.76 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:04:48.78 | Walfred Solorzano | Thanks. Vice Mayor Blaustein. Thank you. |
| 00:04:51.31 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Yes. |
| 00:04:51.67 | Walfred Solorzano | Mary Woodside. Yes. |
| 00:04:53.15 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | And Mayor may I ask that the agenda setting committee place item 3 E on as a business item, because we received a number of public comments rather than returning it on consent. |
| 00:05:03.51 | Mayor Woodside | I think that's probably in order. There were a number of communications with respect to it indicating that we're probably gonna wanna discuss it in depth and we probably will want a more more work done by staff bringing alternatives to us. That make sense? Great. Okay. Very well. |
| 00:05:19.36 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Right. |
| 00:05:21.75 | Mayor Woodside | So we now have some special presentations. Actually, we don't have a special presentation tonight. |
| 00:05:30.95 | Councilmember Sobieski | Mr. Mayor, I think you need to take public comment on that |
| 00:05:35.56 | Lorna Newlin | No, the first thing is special presentation. |
| 00:05:38.31 | Councilmember Sobieski | Oh, I'm sorry. My apologies. Thank you. |
| 00:05:40.18 | Mayor Woodside | Okay. Um, But. |
| 00:05:44.42 | Councilmember Cox | because about the next meeting because. |
| 00:05:47.10 | Mayor Woodside | Thank you. So what I'd like to start with is the city manager's report, if you would be so kind, Mr. Zapata. |
| 00:05:54.51 | Chris Zapata | Thank you, Mayor, members of the council, members of the public. It would be very brief and very sad. The city of Sausalito offers our sincere sympathy and condolences to the family of a man who was killed after his car went off to Sausalito Dock and into the San Francisco Bay. It happened Monday, March 16th, around 2 40 PM in the 500 block of Humboldt Avenue. The passenger was able to get out of the car before it went into the water. The driver was unable to escape after the car plunged into about 10 feet of water. The Southern Marin Fire Protection District personnel, along with the local private diver, found the driver inside the vehicle and initiated life-saving measures. An ambulance rushed the man to a local hospital where he was pronounced deceased. A firefighter sustained minor injuries during recovery. The passenger was not hurt. Investigators are asking witnesses or anyone with additional information to contact the Sausage Police Department at 415-289-4170. So, you know, multiple units, fire department, maritime resources, and partner agencies reacted to the incident. The U.S. Coast Guard was notified and arrangements were made for the vehicle recovery and environmental notification because the vehicle was submerged in the waterway. As we get more information, we will update this in the future. Again, our condolences to the family of the person that was killed. That concludes my report, Mayor. |
| 00:07:23.93 | Mayor Woodside | It is indeed sad and in connection, perhaps coincidentally, We do have an upcoming event. um, That's a caregiving project, uh, parks and recreation. is sponsoring this event. There'll be about a half mile walk. There'll be a participation by a local artist who I know well, Lucinda Eubanks. There'll be some simple art making And then there will be, um, Some lighting of a tree that will remain lit until the end of April. Roy Raymer of Zen Caregiving Project and Paul Mowry, Pastor Paul, here will be guiding the reflection and meditation. and some light. of. refreshments will be served. So for those interested in that, that takes place this Friday. I think it's in the evening, 6 p.m., Tiffany Park. So thank you. That's all I have to report. And what I'm going to do is ask the vice mayor to lead the rest of the meeting. And I have a cold and my voice will fail if I don't stop talking soon. Thank you. |
| 00:08:37.55 | Councilmember Cox | you mr mayor i'm happy to help so the next item on our agenda is communications this is the time for the city council to hear from citizens regarding matters within the jurisdiction of the city of Sausalito that are not on the agenda. Except in very limited situations, state law precludes the council from taking action on or engaging in discussions concerning items that are not on the agenda. However, the council may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by a member of the public, ask clarifying questions, make a brief announcement, or make a brief report on his or her own activities. The council may also refer matters not on the agenda to city staff or direct that the subject be agendized for future meetings. Please make sure you have completed a speaker's card and turn it into this City Clerk and City Clerk do we have any public comment or communications on items not on the agenda this evening? |
| 00:09:25.17 | Walfred Solorzano | We do not have any speaker cards, but we do have people online. |
| 00:09:29.06 | Councilmember Cox | Fantastic. |
| 00:09:30.02 | Walfred Solorzano | Okay, we'll start with Kieran Culligan. |
| 00:09:39.30 | Walfred Solorzano | Hello, Karen. Karen, if you can unmute yourself. Thank you. |
| 00:09:42.44 | Jeffrey Barnaby | Thank you. |
| 00:09:46.88 | Walfred Solorzano | All right. Well, we'll go to Senator Bushmaker. Thank you. |
| 00:09:51.70 | Sandra Bushmaker | Good evening, Sandra. Good evening, Council. Nice to see you all. Just wanted to let you know that we cannot see on the Zoom screen those council members who are appearing by Zoom. Only when they speak do they show up on the screen. And maybe that's by design. I don't know. I just want to discuss the Susan Nemitz- Spending that was beyond the budgeted amount of about $1.3 million that you discussed at the meeting before last. and tell you that I'm very disturbed that It seems like you're not releasing the requests for the amounts and what the spending was for that went beyond the budget amounts. I can think of no reason why It's unless there's pending litigation, it's no personnel matter. And I can't remember the third one with regard to closed session items, but I would like to make a formal request. Now, that the city release the amounts and items that these over budgeted areas we're spent on. I would like to have that made public as soon as possible. Thank you. |
| 00:11:01.62 | Mayor Woodside | If I can just make sure everyone understands what is what are the facts here. At our meeting in February, we received a draft audit report, which detailed down to the penny, the information that I believe is being requested. And we directed the city manager to come back and he will do so on April 7th with the final audit and the report on corrective steps that are taken. And having said that, I don't want to jump ahead to April 7th, but that's the date that this will be again fully addressed in public. |
| 00:11:30.74 | Councilmember Cox | uh, |
| 00:11:31.16 | Sarah Yatze | Yeah. |
| 00:11:39.60 | Councilmember Cox | I believe the city manager wanted to make a brief response to the comment. |
| 00:11:43.41 | Chris Zapata | Yes, thank you. Very quickly, we will provide the information on the $1.4 million that were referenced in the audit in a very, very... exhaustive way. So put your seatbelts on. It's going to be a long conversation about how that all happened. So we're definitely planning to do that. We've received a number of letters from the public. We're not tone deaf. We know that this is something of great interest to the community. So April the 7th is the day that this will be on the agenda. That's the date the agenda setting committee set so that we could get through the pension conversation tonight. |
| 00:12:20.64 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you, city manager. Is there any further public comment online, city clerk? |
| 00:12:23.90 | Chris Zapata | Yes, we'll go with him a bit. |
| 00:12:24.98 | Walfred Solorzano | to go. |
| 00:12:25.62 | Councilmember Cox | Fantastic. Thank you. Hello, Babette. |
| 00:12:28.44 | Babette McDougall | Hello, Madam Vice Mayor. Thank you so much for acknowledging me. Well, I just would like to take a little departure because really I'm appealing to you as my elected officials. And I say this to you now. It's really important that each and every one of us as Americans speak up. and say that we want to keep our democracy. We want to keep our institutions of fair government. Don't throw the Constitution out yet, please. Don't take the baby and throw it out with bathwater. We know we love children in Sausalito, and I look forward to having more families live here. So with that said, please do everything you can as you go forward to good The word in front of our other elected officials, the people that you are dealing with regularly now, make sure they know that we have to stand strong and united and there in Sausalito. These very kinds of democracy are alive and well as long as we let it. I really have to salute our current mayor. |
| 00:13:25.05 | Sarah Yatze | I'm sorry. |
| 00:13:25.73 | Babette McDougall | because I love the way he's willing to just be flexible. Unpend the rule a little bit. That matters because, you know, it's really not that hard. All the other organizations in town use Roberts and government agencies, as you know. There's really no harm in it. All right, well, thank you so much and have a lovely evening, you all. I hope we get better news from the editorial board at the Marin IJ. I see they have a reporter there tonight. You know, Sausalito is a community that needs to find itself quickly. And we don't have a lot of time to waste. that I yield back my time. Thank you. |
| 00:14:02.25 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 00:14:02.26 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. |
| 00:14:02.77 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:14:03.33 | Babette McDougall | any further |
| 00:14:03.97 | Councilmember Cox | comment online. |
| 00:14:04.40 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes. Kieran Culligan. |
| 00:14:06.95 | Councilmember Cox | Hi, Kieran, welcome. |
| 00:14:12.03 | Kieran Culligan | Right there, I had a public comment for consent. but uh my hand was up and they get called do you mind if i comment on something that was on the agenda |
| 00:14:20.35 | Councilmember Cox | Yes. And I may ask the city attorney a clarifying question. Would we need to take comment on the item we removed from the agenda? You're right. during the time. |
| 00:14:28.71 | Sergio Rudin | Thank you. I believe at a yes. Short answer, yes. |
| 00:14:32.99 | Councilmember Cox | Okay. We can hear so Kieran, we'll hear that comment during the comments on the consent calendar. |
| 00:14:40.15 | Kieran Culligan | Okay. Okay, thank you. |
| 00:14:42.80 | Councilmember Cox | Which brings us to our next item on the agenda, but no further public comment. |
| 00:14:47.17 | Walfred Solorzano | further public comment. |
| 00:14:48.03 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you, City Clerk. Consent calendar. Matters listed under the consent calendar are considered routine and non-controversial, require no discussion, are expected to have unanimous council support, and may be enacted by the council in one motion in the form listed below. There will be no separate discussion of consent calendar items. However, before the council votes on a motion to adopt the consent calendar items, council members may request that specific items be removed from the consent calendar for separate action members of the public and city staff may request council members to do so items removed from the consent calendar will be discussed later on the agenda when public comment will be heard on any item that was removed from the consent calendar |
| 00:14:48.04 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:15:26.23 | Councilmember Cox | Consent calendar items are required to have their funding be within existing appropriations of the approved city council budget. Public comment shall be limited to two minutes per person unless otherwise directed by the mayor or city council. So this evening on the consent calendar, we have the following items. 3A, adopt draft meeting minutes of March 3rd, 2026. 3B, adopt the Cesar Chavez Day proclamation. 3C, adopt the National Women's History Month proclamation. 3D, ratify the legislative letters of support submitted to Senator Alex Padilla, Senator Adams Schiff, and the Marin City Health and Wellness Center, Item three, which we are going to continue to a date certain is authorize an additional 34,000 $680 from Fund 117 Measure L to support a study unrelated to impacts of AB413 daylighting at roadway crossing with marked and unmarked crosswalks on Caledonia Street in and on Bridgeway in downtown. This item has been continued. 3F, adopt a resolution approving an encroachment agreement to allow construction of an entry gate along with exterior path of travel improvements and associated landscaping partially within the public right of way at 112 Spencer Avenue. from which I will need to recuse and 3g adopt a resolution approving an encroachment agreement for the reconstruction of a deck partially within the public right of way at 61 Marie street. So let's take a vote on items three, a three. Let's first hear public comment. Is there any public comment on the consent calendar items? I see item three E. What is the manner in which I should take public comment on the consent item that was removed? Do we need to hear it as a separate item? |
| 00:17:04.60 | Sergio Rudin | My recommendation is you allow public comment on that item as part of the public comment period for the entire consent calendar. |
| 00:17:11.48 | Councilmember Cox | Fantastic. Fred Moore, item 3E. Welcome, Fred. |
| 00:17:19.97 | Craig Hill | Thank you. |
| 00:17:20.78 | Unknown | And then I hope |
| 00:17:27.71 | Fred Moore | When 3E item comes back to you as a business item, I hope that it comes back in a manner slightly different than what's been presented tonight in that it's more related to a comprehensive design that deals with the aesthetics as well as the safety issues surrounding the daylight laws. I think what we've seen on Bridgeway is maybe a sledgehammer than when maybe a picket could have been done to provide the same safety measures, and i'm afraid that same matter may come back with along caledonia so i hope that when you come back the design elements are considered the aesthetics are considered the size of sauce lito were considered the alternatives from design calming methods surrounding streets one-way two- streets, so that we have a comprehensive plan in place to ensure not only the safety, but also compliance with the law, but also not losing the feel and size and aesthetics that we have in Sausalito. So I appreciate when you come back that you have a more detailed evaluation. Thank you very much. |
| 00:18:27.72 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you for it. Online public comment? |
| 00:18:30.86 | Walfred Solorzano | We'll start with Kieran Culligan. |
| 00:18:33.31 | Councilmember Cox | Welcome back, Kieran. Thank you for your patience. |
| 00:18:36.72 | Kieran Culligan | I'm back. Yeah, I just want to comment briefly without getting into all of the specifics. Definitely think there's a missed opportunity by not taking the opportunity to hear from council tonight as a discussion item of where you stand on the delays as it relates to daylighting, which has been required for quite some time now. I agree with Fred Moore. I would love to see a study that takes into account the aesthetics. Sausalito is a surprisingly car-centric town for being what's described as the Venice of the US. No cars in Venice, by the way. So there's a ton we could do. We can make it more beautiful. We can make it safer. But we don't need to delay. And one of the major sources of concern expressed to you in public comment is around the delays. And not hearing from council tonight is a missed opportunity. Not setting a date certain is a missed opportunity. It's just kind of feeding into the cycle that parking trumps safety. And it's really concerning. So hopefully during future agenda items, you can direct staff to set a date for this because right now it's just floating. It's been floating for a long time and it's still floating and I'd like to see something much better. Thank you. |
| 00:19:44.05 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. Any further public comment online? |
| 00:19:46.06 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes, we have Sandra Bushmaker. |
| 00:19:48.01 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 00:19:51.83 | Sandra Bushmaker | Good evening. Again, I just wanted to share the sentiments that have been expressed about a better aesthetic approach on Bridgeway. driving down it the other day, it truly is like fingernails on a chalkboard to see all that signage. It's just total overkill. And I just don't believe it's necessary to achieve the safety objectives that we had in mind. So I look forward to hearing what we can do to To me. that more attractive for our town. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:20:29.49 | Walfred Solorzano | All right. And we have Babette McDougall. |
| 00:20:32.21 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. |
| 00:20:32.23 | Babette McDougall | Welcome back, Babette. |
| 00:20:37.14 | Babette McDougall | Thank you, Madam Vice Mayor. So thank you for giving me this chance to speak. As you know, I did tender a letter today Specifically, we're addressing this daylight problem. with the sidewalks and the curbs. Now, I just want to give you one example of why it's important to look at this. And I'm just going to talk about my own neighborhood. But I see this everywhere in town, just so we're clear. I'm not the only five-point intersection. But at my five-point intersection, I would say one out of 50 cars actually stops, if that many. number one, number two, When cars, especially people who live in the hood, are driving due south on Girard and they intend to turn down Litho, they consistently cross into the oncoming traffic. Ethically, in order to spot litho. and elsewhere, I hope. But they just keep rolling. They never stop. And they're on the oncoming traffic lane now. Now, you know, that's like double the trouble. What if a child wanted, what if there was people, people walk in the mornings with their animals or without. Kids are out going to school. You know, it's a place that's in motion. And I'm telling you, this is happening all the time. It doesn't just happen once and then the rest of the day is quiet. This is the pattern, no matter whether they're coming from north, southeast, or west. Honest to God. That intersection's a mess. So, you know, the consultant that got paid a lot of money to recommend no more stop signs Well, I found it rather fascinating that nobody's come up with an alternative. Except the daylighting law, that's the only thing that's going to save us. That's why I say just get it going. And then if we have to roll it back here and there, we'll work it out. but at least get it going. Think of the children. If you don't care about the seniors and everybody else, you know, all the families, just think of the kids in particular, these little people that are obstructed by these enormous vehicles. Thank you so much. I yield back my time. |
| 00:22:36.97 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. Do we have any further public comments, city clerk? |
| 00:22:41.00 | Walfred Solorzano | No further public comments. |
| 00:22:42.33 | Councilmember Cox | Okay, we will close public comment at this time and we will take a vote on items three, although just for item three E are we comfortable continuing it to a date certain given the nature of the public comment that we received perhaps the April 21st meeting. |
| 00:23:02.62 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | I do. |
| 00:23:03.06 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 00:23:03.09 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | to the agenda. |
| 00:23:04.59 | Councilmember Cox | Okay. So in, in response to the public comment, we will continue that item to the April 21st meeting. |
| 00:23:04.61 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | in the setting. |
| 00:23:10.01 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | So moved. |
| 00:23:11.58 | Councilmember Cox | Do we have a second? |
| 00:23:12.98 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 00:23:12.99 | Walfred Solorzano | second. |
| 00:23:13.52 | Councilmember Cox | Okay, we have to take a vote of roll call. |
| 00:23:17.40 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Cox. Yes. Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 00:23:22.95 | Jill Hoffman | I actually had my hand up. |
| 00:23:26.19 | Councilmember Cox | Oh, yes. |
| 00:23:27.41 | Jill Hoffman | Sorry, I think before we set it for date certain, don't we need to at least ask Public Works? I mean, I'm a yes to, because I think that warrants moving it. I think the input was good that we need to look at it, |
| 00:23:42.78 | Mayor Woodside | I think if we've |
| 00:23:43.27 | Jill Hoffman | Can you read it out a month? |
| 00:23:44.25 | Mayor Woodside | Thank you. If we find that that's not workable, we'll have to push it a little bit. But I think the sense is we want to do this on an expeditious basis. |
| 00:23:52.03 | Jill Hoffman | It's been. Yeah. Preference. I think that's fine. A preference for the, the April 24th. I think that's fine, but we have to look at our other priorities. Right. And so if we're putting this above other priorities, um, you know, I don't know if that's what we want to do because we have to look at what our priorities that Public Works is looking at, so. Councilmember, are you asking me? |
| 00:24:13.14 | Councilmember Cox | THE FAMILY. I didn't mean to interrupt Councilman Hoffman. |
| 00:24:18.69 | Jill Hoffman | I don't know, Ian's got his hand up. |
| 00:24:20.17 | Councilmember Cox | Yeah, I was just addressing council members that we you Go ahead. |
| 00:24:24.44 | Councilmember Sobieski | If we're having discussion on the motion, then I support hearing the matter. But given the long delay, I do, I'm inclined to side with those that think we should not be in the position of misleading the public into thinking it's legal to park at those locations by the intersections when it's not under the new state law. And so we currently have marked places for cars to park that my understanding of the state law is that they're not allowed to park. Uh, And so we can take our time or be quick about trying to recover lost parking spaces, and so I'm in favor of hearing the matter as soon as possible. I don't know if it's within our ability now to make some direction to staff to go ahead and comply with the law while we're trying to make things trying to recover the parking space places elsewhere. But I don't know that we should delay and comply with the law while we while we do that. |
| 00:25:19.30 | Councilmember Cox | My understanding is that a number of times we have... worked to comply with A, B, 413 the daylighting and that there have been significant stalls so i'm inclined to agree with you councilman soieski but i think a good middle ground is to move it to a date certain and push forward making sure that we are taking action with regards to the daylighting and and a month seems to be hopefully an appropriate amount of time for our public works. It is within council direction that we gave back in 2020. And then I think again, more recently to move forward with the daylighting. So I think moving it to a date certain makes the most sense. |
| 00:25:52.26 | Mayor Woodside | I think it was 2025 in July. |
| 00:25:54.69 | Councilmember Cox | in July. |
| 00:25:56.21 | Mayor Woodside | that we last addressed this, and everyone's correct. This is long overdue, finding a way to both be in compliance with the law. and make sure we have the safest pedestrian friendly environment in the Caledonia Street area. like, |
| 00:26:15.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:26:15.99 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 00:26:16.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:26:16.04 | Councilmember Sobieski | Okay, we have a motion. Sorry, can I just say one more thing, Madam Vice Mayor? |
| 00:26:16.38 | Councilmember Cox | Okay. |
| 00:26:20.66 | Councilmember Sobieski | Yes. Since we are giving direction in that regard, then I support the motion also, but when it does come back, cueing off of Fred Moore's comments and Sandra Bushmaker's, it would be good to think holistically, just like we did with lot one about the ways to recover lost parking. and to have a better aesthetic down there, thinking about things comprehensively, I think is gonna open up possibilities that might be lost when we think very narrowly. So I hope we'll consider expanding the team. when stuff comes back with the people that can help with that solution. |
| 00:26:55.54 | Councilmember Cox | City Clerk, is that direction clear? Thank you. |
| 00:26:57.26 | Councilmember Sobieski | Yes. |
| 00:26:57.67 | Councilmember Cox | Okay, so we have a motion and a second. So let's call a vote. |
| 00:27:00.69 | Jill Hoffman | But let me just let me just here's my point is that we have we we try to rush these things and then the people that just that just spoke Karen and Fred Moore and people from South Dakota beautiful don't like the rushed plan. And then it gets pushed out again. This is my point. And then it gets pushed in front of other bigger priority projects and it bleeds off time from public works. And so that's my point is that when you try to rush these things and you put them in front of other priority projects, even the people that were trying to rush it, don't like. the project. And then it gets pushed out even further. And then the people that are advocating So I'm happy to say you know, April, whatever, but not a date certain if it's not if it's not the project that it needs to have. It's not going to warrant a public meeting if the people that were pushing for it don't like it. |
| 00:27:57.00 | Councilmember Cox | I think that the amendment to the motion was that if DPW is not prepared at that time, we'll make it clear to the public and continue it further. But ideally the date for this agenda item would be April 21st, unless clearly prohibited or not possible after discussion with our public works team. So I think we have a motion and a second. So let's go ahead and take a vote because we have a number of items to get to this evening. |
| 00:28:20.02 | Walfred Solorzano | Remember Cox? Thank you. |
| 00:28:21.94 | Councilmember Cox | Yes. |
| 00:28:22.21 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Councilmember Huffman. |
| 00:28:23.85 | Councilmember Cox | Yes. |
| 00:28:24.81 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Sobieski. Yes. Weissmehr Blastien. |
| 00:28:28.24 | Councilmember Cox | Yes. |
| 00:28:28.25 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes. Mayor, what side? Yes. |
| 00:28:30.11 | Councilmember Cox | Okay, now let's vote on the other items. That motion carries unanimously. Now let's vote on the consent calendar items that we are not removing or continuing this evening. And I will have to recuse from item 3F. So let's vote on items 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D. |
| 00:28:46.04 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:28:46.38 | Councilmember Cox | And three. |
| 00:28:47.04 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | I move approval of 3A through 3D and 3G. |
| 00:28:52.70 | Mayor Woodside | I second that. |
| 00:28:54.34 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Can we have a vote city clerk? |
| 00:28:56.10 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Cox. |
| 00:28:57.06 | Councilmember Cox | Thanks. |
| 00:28:57.18 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Yes. |
| 00:28:57.82 | Walfred Solorzano | Cantor Maria Hoffman. |
| 00:28:59.44 | Councilmember Cox | Yes. |
| 00:29:00.45 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Sobhileski. |
| 00:29:02.04 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 00:29:02.05 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:29:02.07 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:29:02.34 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Vice Mayor Blaustein. Thank you. |
| 00:29:04.43 | Councilmember Cox | Yes. |
| 00:29:04.81 | Walfred Solorzano | And Mayor Woodside? Yes. |
| 00:29:06.39 | Councilmember Cox | Mayor Woodside, could you call item 3F? I move approval of item 3F |
| 00:29:11.12 | Mayor Woodside | I'm going to second that and let's have a roll call. |
| 00:29:15.94 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Cox. |
| 00:29:17.07 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Yes. |
| 00:29:18.04 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 00:29:19.91 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Yes. |
| 00:29:20.72 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Sobieski. So, Vice Mayor Blaustein is recused. Thank you. And Mayor Woodside? Yes. |
| 00:29:25.09 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. Great, that motion carries four zero with one recusal. Now moving on to public hearing items. We do have one public hearing item this evening. We'll open the public hearing... At 537 p.m. this is an introduction by title only and waiver of first reading of ordinance number 042026 an ordinance of the city council of the city of Sausalito amending table 1022 land use is allowed in residential districts of title 10 of the municipal code and we will be hearing from our principal planner Matthew Mandich welcome Matthew. |
| 00:29:57.49 | Unknown | Good evening, Vice Mayor, Mayor and members of the council. Um, just wait briefly here while we get a presentation up. |
| 00:30:14.53 | Unknown | Great, thank you very much. So this will be a brief presentation on a relatively minor zoning ordinance amendment here. So as Vice Mayor Blastien has already introduced the item, this is an update to our residential land use table. Next slide, please. So the request is to conduct a public hearing and introduced by title only and waived first reading of ordinance number 4, 2026, an ordinance of the city council, the city's house leader amending table 10-221, land uses allowed in residential districts. Next slide, please. So a little bit of background on this. August 30th, 2022, the city adopted ordinance number 1290, which updated its 80 ordinance at that time to be compliant with state law. That ordinance was sent to HCD for review as required. About nine months later, April 6th, 2023, the city received a letter from HCD identifying some inconsistencies between that ordinance and state law at that time. In the letter, the HCD stated the following. First of all, they singled out a piece of the ordinance, which I've highlighted here in bold, where the city did allow JADUs in the R1, R2, and R3 zoning districts. However, in their letter, HCD said at this time in 2023, JADUs may only be permitted in single family residential zones, and the city must remove the underlying portions reference above, which are those. Here, the two family residential R2 and multifamily R3 zones. So requesting that the city remove JADUs as an allowed use in those zones in 2023. Next slide, please. So the city followed that direction and updated its ADU and JADU ordinance to remove JADUs as allowed use in multifamily zoning districts. Then in 2025, Sausalito property owner contacted HCD about the lack of provisions for JADUs in multifamily zoning districts. On December 23rd, 2025, the city received another letter from HCD retracting its previous guidance and stating that HCD has updated its understanding of state ADU law, and specifically regarding the issue of what a single family residential zone is. And in the letter, they went on to state that HCD hereby retracts the finding titled applicability, which is the one referenced on the previous slide that was issued April 6, 2023, and state that the city must now approve JEDU applications in the R3 zone and any other zone in which single-family dwellings are permitted use. So basically a pivot from not allowing JEDUs in multifamily zoning districts in 2023. In 2025, HCD reassesses that stance and says that JEDUs must be allowed wherever any single-family home is allowed. So therefore, because we allow single-family homes in the R3 and R2 zoning districts, JEDUs must be allowed within the walls of single-family homes only in those zoning districts. Next slide, please. So the amendment in front of you today, relatively simple. It is just the permission permitting by right of JADUs in all of our residential zoning districts. There is a footnote there stating that junior accessory dwelling units are permitted only within single family residence, within the walls of a single family residence in these zoning districts. So that is the amendment for you today. Next slide, please. Recommendation is to adopt the draft ordinance approving this proposed amendment to Table 10-22-1. City staff has updated the use table to align with the most recent HCD guidance, which allows for JDUs in multifamily zoning districts if located within a single-family home. This ordinance was already reviewed by the Sausalito Planning Commission, and the ordinance amendment was recommended for approval on a 5-0 vote. So that concludes my presentation, and happy to take any questions the council may have. Thank you. |
| 00:33:56.86 | Councilmember Cox | We have any questions from the dais? Yes, Councilmember Cox. |
| 00:33:59.22 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Do we have any pending JADU applications in single family homes in multifamily home districts? |
| 00:34:08.61 | Unknown | Currently pending? No. |
| 00:34:10.49 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Thanks. |
| 00:34:13.23 | Councilmember Cox | Do we have any other questions from the diocese? or from online, I can't see if, no. I had just one, just because not all members of the public are familiar with JADUs versus ADUs, could you just quickly sort of explain the difference. |
| 00:34:27.08 | Unknown | Sure. So a JDU is a junior accessory dwelling unit. It's only permitted to be a maximum of 500 square feet, minimum 150 square feet, and it must be contained entirely within the walls of an existing or proposed single family home. An ADU can be a little bit different. You can have a detached ADU, you can have an attached ADU, you can have an interior conversion ADU, and they can be larger in size in certain cases and thus lead up to a thousand square feet and predominantly under the 800 foot threshold if you want to take advantage of some of the state laws that permit multiple ADUs on a single lot. But yeah, there is a difference there. The JADU is very much the smaller version and meant to be within the walls of an existing or proposed single family home. |
| 00:35:09.69 | Councilmember Cox | Does it require its own unique entrance? |
| 00:35:11.94 | Unknown | Yes, it does. you |
| 00:35:12.61 | Councilmember Cox | Okay. Thank you for that. Do we have any further questions from the dais? Okay, seeing none, we will now open it up for public comment. I have no comment cards in. In front of me, do we have any? Yes. You have to open the public. I already did that when I started the item. I missed it. Yes, I did that as soon as I started the item. Thank you very much. I see no comment cards. Do we have any comment online? |
| 00:35:25.00 | Babette McDougall | So. |
| 00:35:25.05 | Unknown | THE FAMILY. |
| 00:35:32.57 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes, can we have, we have Bette McDougall. |
| 00:35:36.29 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 00:35:36.32 | Babette McDougall | Welcome, Babette. Well, thank you. another subject near and dear to my heart So just to remind you all, I mean, I live in a neighborhood you know, this neighborhood where you all are sitting now, I'm right above you. I'm close to this five-point intersection. I call it the Pentagon. Now, I want to ask, what in the world are we going to do? I am in favor. I even have an ADU myself. I'm in favor of us bringing people into the hood. to the extent that we can, but that means parking. That brings me back to residential codes. What do we do about these households that just jam up the trucks and all the vehicles? They use it as lawn art. I mean, what are we doing with our places here? People think of my street as their back alley, and they carbo-load cars. I mean, God, I'm lucky that they saved one for me. Thank God. And that's thanks to SPD. So thank you for SPD. But you see my point. If we're going to bring more people to live in our neighborhoods, we've got to get serious about the parking. Why does one household get to have a dozen cars? There's only two people there. And I can't imagine that they really need a dozen cars. And that's not just my neighborhood. Every neighborhood has big problems. And I just want us to think about this as we go forward and approve these permits. Thank you. Thank you very much. |
| 00:36:58.15 | Councilmember Cox | Yeah. |
| 00:36:58.22 | Babette McDougall | Yeah. |
| 00:37:00.43 | Walfred Solorzano | We have Jack Burrows. |
| 00:37:02.03 | Councilmember Cox | Welcome, Jack. |
| 00:37:04.75 | Jack Burroughs | Thank you everyone and happy St. Patty's Day. I'm just trying to understand. the process here. the city implemented a zoning for JADUs. HCD commented that there was an issue with the way that that zoning read. And then the city amended their zoning. And then ACD came back and said, oh, you know, we're going to kind of correct what our previous statement was and have you amended it again, is that correct? Is that the... timeline of things. |
| 00:37:45.67 | Councilmember Cox | The comments that we don't typically respond. However, I did see a thumbs up from our principal planner in the back of the room. |
| 00:37:51.84 | Jack Burroughs | Yeah. |
| 00:37:55.66 | Councilmember Cox | Is that your full public comment, Mr. Burroughs? |
| 00:37:58.85 | Jack Burroughs | Yes, it is. I was just trying to understand, um, the communication with the HCD and and the correction to our planning code. to address their comments. |
| 00:38:13.09 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you very much. Do we have any further public comment online, city clerk? |
| 00:38:16.23 | Walfred Solorzano | No further public comment. |
| 00:38:17.49 | Councilmember Cox | Okay, I will close public comment and bring it back up to the dais for comments. Who would like to get us started? |
| 00:38:23.23 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 00:38:23.76 | Councilmember Cox | Councilmember Cox. Thank you. |
| 00:38:25.26 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Obviously, I love ADUs and JADUs because they uh, in some cases, provide A component of our affordable housing in Sausalito. I do want to clarify for those attending this meeting that with some exceptions, we have very little ability to deny an application for an ad you or a J a du that complies with local ordinances or that meets state safety standards and so um, there's the whole point of ADUs and JADUs is their streamlined application process and ministerial approval so long as they meet certain parameters. And so um, that. I Although some people may wish that we required parking with our ADUs, we're not always allowed to do that. We have done so in certain areas where we can, where it is a life safety issue. But our ability to impose additional requirements on ADUs and JADUs is limited. Thank you. |
| 00:39:42.16 | Mayor Woodside | Mayor Woodside? Just a quick comment taking from what Mr. Burroughs said and also what my colleague Joan Cox has said. |
| 00:39:42.19 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Mayor Woodside? |
| 00:39:49.97 | Mayor Woodside | Thank you. We're a general law city, and when the state passes housing laws and directs the city to do something, we're legally obliged to follow suit. That's this is an example where what was passed might have been subject to some interpretation. So HCD has the authority to interpret. and we rely on their interpretations until otherwise. And this is in microcosm, an example of what we're going to be facing pretty big time in just a few minutes with respect to the overall housing element. We are under the gun to do things that, believe me, we don't necessarily want. to do so in this case it's pretty benign it's pretty small it doesn't have huge impact it does provide affordable housing places for people who are want to age in place for example so it serves some good public purposes so i'm prepared to vote for it of course but i just wanted to make that comment |
| 00:40:52.96 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you, Mayor Woodside. What about online, Councilmembers Sobieski or Hoffman? |
| 00:40:59.44 | Jill Hoffman | Nothing to happen. Thanks to our Matthew, great presentation and your patience with this back and forth with the ACD. |
| 00:40:59.73 | Justine Kahn | Thank you. |
| 00:40:59.75 | Councilmember Cox | Nothing to happen. |
| 00:41:00.42 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:41:09.45 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. Councilmember Sobieski? |
| 00:41:11.39 | Councilmember Sobieski | comments. Thank you. |
| 00:41:13.13 | Councilmember Cox | Okay, fantastic. So I think that we are all amenable to the proposed... changes to our JADU podcast. |
| 00:41:21.03 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Do we have a motion? Yes, I will move that we introduce by title only and waive first reading of Ordinance Number 04-2026, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Sausalito, amending Table 10.22-1, Land Uses Allowed in Residential Districts of Title 10 of the Sausalito Municipal Code. |
| 00:41:39.44 | Mayor Woodside | I second that. |
| 00:41:40.40 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Thank you, city clerk. Will you call the roll? |
| 00:41:42.71 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Cox. Yes. Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 00:41:45.95 | Councilmember Cox | Yes. |
| 00:41:47.17 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Sobieski. |
| 00:41:48.45 | Councilmember Sobieski | Yes. |
| 00:41:48.82 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Vice Mayor Blaustein. |
| 00:41:50.90 | Councilmember Cox | Yes. |
| 00:41:50.93 | Walfred Solorzano | Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Woodside. Yes. |
| 00:41:53.31 | Councilmember Cox | That motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much. And now we will move on to our business items for this evening. Our first business item is 5A, review revised draft requests for proposals for the joint development opportunity on city-owned housing element opportunity sites, Martin Luther King Jr. Park property, and the Corporation Road. Provide direction to staff as appropriate. Authorize staff to publicly submit the RFP prior to the end of March. and discussion of next steps. And I know our assistant city manager, Brandon Phibbs, is here. Before you get started on your presentation, I'd just like to give a big thank you and share some background to our working group on this issue. Myself and Councilmember Cox and a number of members of the community have spent the last two months focused on ensuring that we receive significant community input on the nature of this RFP. Some of the community members are here in the audience. So if you were a part of the working group, could you please raise your hand so we can acknowledge you and your great work? Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. We had representatives from the Planning Commission, from Age Friendly Sausalito, from Friends of MLK Park, from Sausalito Beautiful, from the Parks and Rec. And we also conducted two citywide workshops, one at the New Village School. Thank you for hosting us. And at the Spinnaker. Thank you very much for hosting us. And this proposed RFP is the result of those conversations, including a section on specifics of community engagements and community requests. That being said, we do look forward to hearing further from you this evening, and we will have a significant discussion about what will be included before publishing. So, Council Member Cox, would you like to add anything about the working group? Thank you. |
| 00:43:32.92 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | No, just my thanks. You know, we could not get done Our staff could not get done what they do. We could not get done what we do without the volunteers that we are blessed with in our community. So I'm very grateful. And this is just another great example of that collaborative. |
| 00:43:48.31 | Councilmember Cox | I think we met, how many meetings did we have? |
| 00:43:51.67 | Brendan Phipps | It's in the presentation. I look forward to sharing. |
| 00:43:53.71 | Councilmember Cox | Oh, great. And also Assistant City Manager Fibs did fantastic work on this issue and was extremely responsive, and we really appreciate it. So with that, I'll have you go ahead and start your presentation. Thank you. |
| 00:44:03.99 | Brendan Phipps | Thank you very much, Vice Mayor and Council Member, Mayor, other Council members, members of the public. I'm Brendan Phipps, your Assistant City Manager, and it is my honor to be here tonight to present the culmination of a significant body of work that you just heard described. And even more significant community engagement around Program 8, our public property conversion to affordable housing program in our housing element. What I'm bringing to you this evening is the joint request for proposals for the development of affordable housing at two city-owned sites. That's the Martin Luther King Jr. Park property at 100 Ebtide Avenue and the City Corporation Yard at 530 Nevada Street. This RFP did not emerge in a vacuum, as you heard. It was built by this community. And I'm excited to share some of the details associated with this process. Next slide, please. So apologies for any repeating that I'll do here. On January 6th, City Council provided direction to move forward with the joint development of these two sites and established the governance structure to carry that work forward. The City Council appointed a working group led by our very own Vice Mayor Melissa Blaustein and Council Member Joan Cox, who provided ongoing oversight and direction throughout the entire process, coordinated the two public forums that were central to shaping this document. And I thank you. The working group in turn appointed a program, a task force composed of local community members with professional expertise in architecture, urban planning, housing finance, senior housing, and community services. Over nine consecutive weekly meetings, we held nine meetings, the task force provided iterative input on successive drafts of this RFP, co-facilitated our public forums, and helped to translate our community feedback directly into the document that you have before you this evening. Next slide, please. All right, so we did just have the opportunity to honor our task force members. I want to honor them once again here and just name all of them. Scott Thornburg, Alexander Woe, Sybil Batelier, Morgan Pierce, Aaron Nathan, Michelle McCullough, David Merlot, and Carolyn Revell, who did attend in place of Mr. Pierce on a few occasions. These individuals gave their time, their expertise, and their deep commitment. to this community every week since January. Their contribution to this document is immeasurable, and the city is deeply grateful for their service. A special thank you as well to Amy Holworth, our council member from down south in Manhattan Beach, who assisted in facilitating both of our public forums with her natural skill, warmth, and grace. Next slide, please. Okay, so the RFP before you is the product of, and as described, robust community engagement process, one of which that was accomplished within a pretty short and compressed timeframe. It does reflect the nine community meetings, two public forums, 51 participants at our first public forum, approximately 60 participants at our second public forum. A dedicated public facing web page was also created with all RFP iterations available throughout the process. 25 online feedback form submissions were received and we received six hard copy written comments submitted directly by our community members. And of course, we've read some of the public comments that are posted to the agenda this evening. To the community, thank you. Your showing up does matter. Your comments are not just received, they are embedded in the document. And I'll walk you through exactly how we did that on the next few slides. Next slide. Okay, so I'll start with some of kind of the major tranches based on the breakout sessions and community forum number one. So across both forums, this is with respect to selection criteria. The community told us clearly that they wanted to evaluate the entire development team, not just the lead developer. There was a particular concern that proposals could look strong on paper, but result in poorly managed housing over the long term. And that's certainly a priority from my perspective as well. You asked for built examples, real projects, not just renderings that demonstrate design quality relevant to Sal Salido's coastal character. And you asked for a greater transparency on developer fees, investor returns, and the use of public subsidy. So here's what we changed. The RFP now requires a qualifications for the full team, the developer, the architect, the contractor, and the property manager, and the city will be evaluating each role separately. Now, where, of course, a property has not yet been identified, an operator that is, proposers must describe their selection process and the minimum qualifications that the operator will need to meet. We added a new multi-project portfolio requirement as well with built examples reflecting Sausalito's character and coastal context. We added a preference for Bay Area coastal community experience. And we added a new disclosure requirement. Developer fees in both dollar and percentage terms, investor return structure, and deferred fee repayment terms will also be requested. Next slide, please. Okay, moving on to our community amenity portion. This did generate some of the richest discussion across both of our forums. And the RFP now reflects that conversation with some greater precision. So for site 84 MLK Park, the community was clear, no net loss of parking with subterranean placement, strongly preferred to preserve surface open space and integrated landscaping with permeable surfaces and strict privacy buffers. These are now tier one priorities, the highest level of community preference, and this is weighted most heavily in our proposal evaluation. For Site 75, the corporation yard, the community's top priority was the daylighting of Willow Creek. I want to be direct about what this means in the RFP. Proposals that do not meaningfully address the daylighting of Willow Creek, whether it does result in a full daylighting, a partial, or some other concept, will be viewed less favorably. So that's a required element. That's how clearly the community has spoken and that's how directly that we've responded. Tier two includes a community center with technology, fitness space, and aquatics facility with public-private partnerships arranged and actively encouraged. Like commercial use, as well as park enhancements was also mentioned and is stated. The city is also committing to pursue public-private partnership structures and alternative funding sources. That includes Measure A, potentially, and state and federal grants for amenities that exceed what can be financed within the housing budget alone. And every amenity at both sites is to be designated with senior residents explicitly in mind. Next slide, please. Okay, design concepts. The community spoke with one voice on this one. The development needs to reflect Sausalito's character, particularly our coastal character, not a generic monolithic housing architecture. You raised... Specific concerns about the corporation yard's proximity to Nevada Street neighbors, about view impacts, privacy and light spillage as well. The RFP now strongly encourages a view impact analysis at Site 75, and all exterior lighting must also use downward shielded LED fixtures with timers or motion sensors to prevent glare onto neighboring homes. Integrated landscaping is also now required at both sites. The preference for clustered residential-scale buildings rather than a monolithic structure is reflected throughout our design requirements. On accessibility, we strengthened the requirements significantly. 100% of senior units must meet either a type A or a type B accessibility standard and proposals that exceed any minimum ADA requirements. So that could be through smart home technology, roll in showers and visitability features will be evaluated more favorably. Next slide, please. Okay, this category also generated some of the most passionate feedback that we received, and rightly so. Traffic and construction impacts, particularly around Nevada Street, were a significant concern. You told us Nevada Street already functions as a congested cut-through to Highway 101, and that adding housing-related traffic without meaningful mitigation was simply not acceptable. You asked for formal coordination with the school district, as have the schools on the MLK site as well. Before construction begins, you asked for regular proactive communication, not just reactive responses to complaints. So here's what the RFP now requires. A comprehensive traffic study quantifying trip generation during school commute hours and highway 101 peak congestion periods with required school zone enhancements. At site 75 driveways onto Nevada street must be avoided where feasible with truck restrictions during school hours and a joint traffic and school safety plan must be developed with the school district before the construction begins. Monthly written notifications are required for all properties within 300 feet throughout the construction and a citizen oversight committee will be established with quarterly city council progress updates and any commentary. And at site 84 residential and school and park parking must be physically separated with real time particulate monitoring during demolition and grading, given the site's proximity to these active school uses. Next slide please. Okay, so I wanna highlight, just having all of that said, I wanna highlight some of the four key changes that we've made since the March 4 draft, informed by the second public forum on March 8th, our written comments, as well as some task force input. So first we added new community feedback section, section Section 6, which formally embeds community voice into the RFP, making it visible to every developer who opens this document and explicitly weighted in evaluation. The Tier 1 and Tier 2 structure also avoids imposing cost-prohibitive mandatory requirements that could deter qualified developers, undermine financial feasibility, or put some of our overseeing bodies, HCD, in a position of saying that we've provided an RFP that, in fact, disincentivizes housing development over incentivizing it. Second, we established a clear senior housing commitment a minimum of 70% and a maximum of 80% of units at each site designated as senior housing. This is consistent with the priorities expressed for senior housing in Measure K. The city's preferences for the higher end of that range And non senior units may include other housing types such as workforce and a central worker housing We added neighborhood sensitivity language as well for the MLK Park site that matches what was already required with the corporation site, and this just recognizes the adjacent residential neighborhood attributes, particularly on Coloma and Lima. And fourth, we strengthen traffic, parking, construction impact mitigation language, particularly for site 75, based on the additional feedback received at forum number two. Next slide, please. Okay, so staff seeking direction on three specific items before the RFP is released. First, the response period. The current draft calls for a May 1 deadline, approximately 30 days from release. Staff recommends extending it to a 60 day response period, setting a revised deadline of approximately May 30th. A longer window will give qualified developers adequate time to prepare a truly competitive proposal. And we believe it will produce a stronger applicant pool, particularly because this proposal will require concepts to be built or assembled in connection with two different and separate sites. Second, um, Oh, and yeah, just asking for council direction to either confirm or modify that response period of 60 days. Second, the senior housing unit range, as mentioned, the RFP currently requires a minimum of 70 and a maximum of 80% of senior units at each site designated senior housing Age 55 plus consistent with measure K. Staff's asking for counsel confirmation of that range. Third, we ask for Council confirmation of two eligibility requirements, mandatory in-person site visits and attendance at a virtual pre-proposal meeting. And if the joint proposal requirement, meaning proposals must address both sites together, single site proposals will not be accepted. I'm looking for confirmation on that item tonight as well. Next slide, please. Thank you. Thank you. Subject to your direction, here's our path forward. So the RFP will be released. on or before March 31st, based on council's direction this evening, consistent with our housing element program, eight obligations. And a pre-proposal meeting will follow, tentatively scheduled for April 15th with a Q&A deadline on April 20th. And the timeline that you see here does ideate a 60-day. So under the recommended 60-day timeline, proposals would be due approximately May 30th. Finalist interviews are anticipated June through July, with some developer selection action being taken in July of this year. The community will have additional opportunities to provide input when proposals are received and the format and timing will be determined based on the quality, quantity of submissions and community availability. Next slide, please. All right, so to summarize, staff requests that the council approve the joint request for proposals for the development of affordable housing at site 84 and site 75, and direct staff to publicly release the RFP on or before March 31, 2026, consistent with our housing element deadlines. We're also asking for council direction on the 60 day response period, the 70 to 80% senior housing requirement and authorization to release the final RFP. Thank you, Mayor, Vice Mayor. Council members, happy to answer any questions. |
| 00:58:34.33 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you very much, Assistant City Manager Phibbs. And I will start, but I also want to note if you are hoping to make public comment, please do fill out a public card so that we have you in the queue. The cards are on the left on the table. I know some of you, this might be Um, you might not know. where the cards are or how to make sure you make comments. So I wanted to give everyone that opportunity as we pose questions to staff before we do open public comment. And with that, um, director Phipps, I know that myself and council member Cox, we received quite a bit of correspondence with regards to concerns about the views at the corporation yard, as well as the height at the corporation yard. Uh, and I know that myself and council member Cox, as well as task force members had agreed on recommending a 32 foot height there that is consistent with the height at mlk so ensuring that both Of those two properties remained at the 32 foot height limit. Could you speak to that please? |
| 00:59:25.43 | Brendan Phipps | Yes, regarding view impact, there is a statement in the RFP and a, I'd call it, you know, kind of a loose requirement language that does prioritize a view impact analysis being conducted on that site for any development concepts. That being said, that language is clarified with, if feasible. And that's why I kind of state the more softness of that language as related to the height limit. The corporation yard is zoned H 70. That's 70 units per acre. Our height that we backed into is not necessarily based off of a city preference. This is based off of discussions with HCD as related to the feasibility of developing at that density. Um, That being said, There are a number of ways that we can iterate deployment on the corporation yard site. And if it's council's direction and desire that we limit the height limit, similar to how we have limited that height limit at the MLK site, I think now would be a great opportunity to make that statement. |
| 01:00:30.96 | Councilmember Cox | Okay. Thank you, Director Phipps. All right. Council Member Cox, you had your hand raised. |
| 01:00:35.55 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. There was one statement in the RFP that jumped out at me. Well, two. So first of all, page four, we make reference to far ahead of state mandated deadlines. That is true of the corporation yard, but not true of MLK. And I think it's important for our community to understand we are not voluntarily issuing this RFP right away in March for the MLK site, That is a requirement within our housing element that was imposed by HCD. And so I would like to correct the language on page four to clarify that, yes, because we see an opportunity to accomplish economies of scale by issuing An RFP for two sites instead of one we are accelerating. the request for proposals with respect to the corporation yard, but not MLK. Timeline is mandated by the state. Is that okay? Do you agree? |
| 01:01:33.53 | Brendan Phipps | I totally agree, Council Member. |
| 01:01:34.96 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | The other thing that concerned me is page five. We say the project will provide housing affordable to persons and families of low or moderate income. We are issuing these RFPs for housing on city owned property in order to assure affordability. I was not of the understanding that we were entertaining proposals for moderate income sites since we are absorbing the land cost. Can you explain why we are talking about moderate income? |
| 01:02:07.40 | Brendan Phipps | Absolutely. Thank you for the question. This gets at the nature of... Our housing element and the the affordability levels that we wrote into reasonable capacity at MLK and corporation are so despite the fact that the MLK site does not contain any moderate income housing. The corporation site does in limited quantity so. The clarification of that language is to reflect the income levels that we've approved in our certified housing element. |
| 01:02:36.81 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | But that is... Thank you. Okay. But we have... said there's a capacity of 31 units on a very small parcel. And so I don't think it's feasible for moderate income housing unless we do ignore the height limit and allow people to go up to 70 feet. I, um. I I'm not sure why we included that within our moderate income inventory. because I thought at the time that we conceived of the housing element, we always intended that the corporation yard and the potential MLK site would be for affordable housing because we are absorbing the land cost. So is there a requirement in the housing element that we make the corporation yard available for moderate Uh, you next- |
| 01:03:31.77 | Brendan Phipps | This is this may be a thank you for the question. And I think good clarification. This may be a good question for our city attorney. But what I will say is, Again, appendix D one in our certified housing element defines realistic capacity and distribution between between income levels based on the densities identified. We've identified 18 very low income units, nine low income units and four moderate income units at the corporation yard based on a housing element. I don't believe that a deeper level of affordability. will be viewed as a negative council member. So I think that that is a given. I think that our bookend is to not go anywhere beyond that moderate income level, but we may always access deeper affordability. |
| 01:04:18.64 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Well, can we give, I mean, if the city is giving away land, Certainly we should require affordable housing. That's where we're trying to house our seniors and our workers. So are we able to give direction tonight to seek proposals for affordable housing at both sites? |
| 01:04:38.33 | Brendan Phipps | I believe that the structure is already Inclusive of that, but if you'd like, I mean if it's counsel's direction and if we could get city attorneys clarification on this I don't see any issue as to why? We could not request a deeper level of affordability as we've stated in our appendix earlier. |
| 01:05:03.30 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, I would not anticipate that requiring a higher level of affordability at the corporation yard site would be problematic. Typically... with regards to affordable housing requirements, deeper levels of affordability can be used to satisfy you know, less affordable requirements in your housing element and density bonus law and all sorts of other state laws. So usually there is no harm in requesting more affordability in our RFP. |
| 01:05:34.08 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Thank you, Vice Mayor. Those were my questions. Okay, Mayor Woodside. |
| 01:05:39.06 | Mayor Woodside | Thank you. with respect to the, RFP now it has two sites. And are the respondents required to respond to both sites? Yes, as currently written. As currently written. So, um, |
| 01:05:59.18 | Mayor Woodside | A respondent who might be able to produce, let's say, 50 units of affordable housing at MLK and doesn't... wanting to do with the other site is pro precluded from responding. |
| 01:06:12.47 | Brendan Phipps | has written unless they're able to partner with another development team who will coordinate the development of both sites in a collaborative way. Thank you. |
| 01:06:22.84 | Mayor Woodside | In other words, find a partner. to do the other side. Yes, Mayor. |
| 01:06:26.41 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | I think that was our direction. |
| 01:06:27.78 | Mayor Woodside | Well, and I didn't either, and that's why I asked the question, but we'll probably bring this back for further discussion. Right. Secondly, I think you used the phrase, if feasible, with respect to view protection. And I know from those of us who worked long and hard on the objective design standards and person in the audience in the second row who's worked very hard on ViewSync Thank you. |
| 01:06:53.33 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:06:53.46 | Mayor Woodside | I'm curious why it's not mandatory. It's not that onerous. any |
| 01:07:00.85 | Brendan Phipps | Thank you. |
| 01:07:01.14 | Mayor Woodside | Reason for that? |
| 01:07:02.03 | Brendan Phipps | that you can articulate? Well, thank you, Mayor. We're trying to strike a balance here with not asking so much at the application stage so as to... create a process that perhaps didn't disincentivizes proposers. That being said, I'm very much open to Council's direction this evening on increasing the importance or the level of requirement for a view sync analysis on the corporation yard site. |
| 01:07:33.49 | Mayor Woodside | Last question. Is there any mechanism... currently in the RFP expressing a preference at MLK for two story structures. |
| 01:07:46.45 | Brendan Phipps | Yes, how I've written that based on the feedback I've received is a strong preference for two stories above grade. Um, that is to highlight and identify one of the preferences that we received from our community feedback sessions related to subterranean parking being something that ought to be considered as a part of this development. Um, I will say, you know, we, we, we do have a pretty strong bookend there with respect to measure K and as related to maintaining a 32 foot high limit on that site, um, I don't believe that an applicant would be precluded from submitting a three story development within 32 feet above grade. However, our strong preference is for two stories above grade. And then. |
| 01:08:33.97 | Mayor Woodside | How does how is that handled when when staff and others are analyzing a response? How do you handle a preference like that? Is there a scoring system that waits one |
| 01:08:41.41 | Brendan Phipps | area. |
| 01:08:44.79 | Mayor Woodside | more favorably over another? Or how do you propose handling that before bringing it back to council? |
| 01:08:49.87 | Brendan Phipps | Yeah, that will be a part of the selection criteria implementation element. So following receipt of proposals, we will have an evaluation committee evaluate. these proposals and the scoring will be partly weighted based on some of the things you heard this evening. Are is the developer responding directly to some of the site specific requirements that we've set in Section four and Section five? Additionally, to what extent has the development team responded appropriately to the tier one and tier two preferences expressed by our community members. Now, I'm not I haven't crafted, you know, a an all-inclusive function with weighted criteria. partly based on an understanding that I may receive some direction from council this evening. So, Open to your thoughts, Mayor. Thank you. You've answered my question. |
| 01:09:46.15 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. Councilmember Hoffman had her hand raised. |
| 01:09:51.88 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. And so I talked about this at the last council meeting that we had about this RFP process. And I mentioned it at the first public workshop And that's the absence of the addressing site 73 in this process, which is the school site. And we talked about it at the first, City Council meeting that we had about this and that site 73 is part of program. eight, And that's the third site that's part of Program 8. So we have three public sites that are part of program eight. except that we don't own the site. at the Southern Marin sorry at the Sausalito Marin City School District, but it is part of our housing element And we did commit that as part of our housing element. It is part of program eight. As... as publicly owned sites. And so it does, in a sense, make sense that it's part of this. And the thing that makes sense is that it's right next to our public, the site at our MLK Park, it's within steps, there's two schools. within steps of the MLK Park site. And the school is within, you know, a couple hundred feet of... the corporation yard. The reason it makes sense is there might be state funding for this site. There likely will be, in fact, state funding for this Site 73. Putting these together also is another site for this RFP Kind of makes sense, even though we don't own it. the coordination with the school district. makes sense. So that was part of, I thought, the direction from the city council. at the last meeting. And, There's head shaking. But I'm wondering why we wouldn't pursue this as part of this process. So maybe. I don't know. |
| 01:12:03.83 | Mayor Woodside | Thank you. Thank you. shaking my head is that we did not give direction to include yet a third site and further complicate this, particularly since we have a March 31st deadline. |
| 01:12:06.44 | Jill Hoffman | Correct. |
| 01:12:15.30 | Jill Hoffman | here's the here's my because we also have a deadline by the end of this year that if we don't get movement on this site, that we have to find another site, in our housing element. So the last page of Program A specifically in our housing element, specifically says that if we don't have a commitment School district. the city is going to have to identify a replacement site. |
| 01:12:39.97 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | May I provide an update on this based on conversations I've had? the vice mayor and I had an initial conversation that we reported at our last city council meeting with the superintendent and the board president. At the time that we listed this site, We had spoken with the then superintendent Itoko Garcia, who was very bullish about building. housing on school owned land. when the vice mayor and the City manager and I circled back with the school district with the new superintendent, She was less enthusiastic about it. And we cannot legally put out an RFP to build housing on land without the permission of the land owner. However, since then, I met with another school board member who is very excited about the opportunity of possibly building on the school site. So we have not lost the opportunity to do that. What she suggested and she was going to meet with the board president to discuss this further. is that we see what responses we get to this RFP so that we gauge the interest of the development community. And if it becomes obvious that it is feasible for a developer to build affordable housing using tax credits and their own financing mechanisms, so long as they don't have to pay a land cost, then the school district, it would be interested in further exploring that opportunity. And so it's a two-step process. I would |
| 01:14:17.97 | Councilmember Cox | I would also add that it would need to be formally agendized and discussed by the school board. So given our limited timeline, while we are very excited about partnering with the school district to figure out a path to complete our housing element requirements, given that it does demand a conversation from their jurisdiction, since we, as you noted, Council member Hoffman do not own the property. We are moving forward with those discussions and hopefully We will be able to engage them in the forward path for the RFP pending whatever responses we receive this year. So there is interest in the conversation is getting started, but given that this deadline is March 31st in order to comply with HCD. And we have little time, I think that that's how we got to where we are now. |
| 01:15:00.04 | Jill Hoffman | So let me, so I'll follow back up on this during our discussion, but I think since we're tied together with them by our own language and our own housing element. Um, I think that there are some ways that we can address this in our RFP process. So I'm glad that you circled back with the school district, Council Member Cox. I think there's a way that we can incentivize ourselves and the school district to moving forward with this by our own deadline. Thank you for that update. That's good news, I think, for us. I had a follow-up question also on the Corporation Yard site. And thank you for that update and explanation Um, Director Phipps on that. And so, I know that the corporation yard, not only is it by income level, but it's also by income level and income. and by size. And my question is the requirements of the housing element also goes It's very strict on income level and size of family units. And so if we squeeze a balloon on either one of those, is that going to impact our overall numbers and the calculations and the overall numbers on our chart of income levels and unit levels? |
| 01:16:25.61 | Councilmember Cox | And as a follow up to that, are there specific requirements for unit mix with regards to the number of units, Director Phipps? |
| 01:16:32.88 | Jill Hoffman | I thought there was. |
| 01:16:34.87 | Brendan Phipps | So with respect, I Not sure which question to answer first. With respect- |
| 01:16:41.81 | Jill Hoffman | How about if you take mine first? |
| 01:16:43.90 | Brendan Phipps | Sure. Thank you, Councilmember. So with respect to the size, I think that when you say size, you're referring to density as opposed to an average unit size. So, so long as we meet the density figures that we've committed ourselves to in the housing element, I think that we will be just fine. As related to, if your question was relating to square footage and a range of potential unit types, we have, as mentioned, prioritized senior housing 70 to 80 percent. The size and mix of unit types that are affordable senior is not explicitly defined. So we allow developers some flexibility to tell us what they believe would be most successful and what would be the best reflection of this community. That goes for the remaining portion of the units, which we have identified to be, you know, kind of community serving and community oriented types of units. |
| 01:17:50.20 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:17:50.56 | Brendan Phipps | So they could be workforce housing. For example, in that same way, we haven't required any specific square footage or size of design for... |
| 01:18:01.10 | Jill Hoffman | So can I ask a follow up on that? So I know with MLK, we have it's 50 units. See, it's, I thought it was 50 units. studio, almost studio, or very small units. And at Corporation Yard, it was a mix of you know, some of those were two or three bedrooms. Are we talking about deviating from that on our plan? |
| 01:18:26.32 | Brendan Phipps | Those specific elements are not explicitly defined in the RFP. So at Current, we're keeping it a little bit flexible to allow developers to tell us what they feel would be the best fit for this community based on the bookends we've given senior housing. |
| 01:18:44.52 | Councilmember Cox | And I'll add that we actually had in the community forum discussion on types of unit mix and what the residents nearby would like to see and what types of units and unit size. But in the housing element, there is no already determined type of unit that we are required to build. So I think that that's that's determined on what we'll see from the RFP. So we'll look forward to seeing that. Councilmember Hoffman, do you have any further questions? |
| 01:19:09.50 | Jill Hoffman | Um. No, so, sorry, let me just follow up. So, I see in our housing, element though that we do have like what we just discussed, we have 15, we have income levels, but we don't have unit sizes. Is that right? |
| 01:19:24.55 | Brendan Phipps | Correct. |
| 01:19:26.14 | Jill Hoffman | Gotcha. Okay, thanks. Thanks very much. |
| 01:19:28.31 | Councilmember Cox | Council member Sobieski, do you have any questions? |
| 01:19:32.89 | Councilmember Sobieski | Yes, I do. Thank you very much. Council member, I mean, Director Phipps. So what is the deadline that's in our approved housing element. . for issuing this RFP. |
| 01:19:46.86 | Brendan Phipps | That would be the end of this month. |
| 01:19:49.73 | Councilmember Sobieski | What happens after we issue this RFP? if you don't get any responses. |
| 01:19:55.99 | Brendan Phipps | Great question. I will repeat what I said at the first forum when I was asked this question and you know my mother's voice is in the back of my head. If at first you don't succeed, try try again. So this is a requirement that we have committed to in our state certified housing element and Based on the direction that I understand and what's written to the element, we are beholden to that commitment until that commitment or if that commitment is modified in any way. So my recommendation would be to retool the RFP if we do not receive any responses in a way that opens the city up to potential applicants. |
| 01:20:43.07 | Councilmember Sobieski | So, if we do not receive any responses to the RFP, we would have an opportunity to modify the RFP and reissue it. |
| 01:20:53.26 | Brendan Phipps | Correct. And I would secondly recommend that that phase is to potentially touch base with some developers to get their feedback as to how we could best reposition the RFP to be most attractive to the affordable housing development community. |
| 01:21:12.16 | Councilmember Sobieski | So, Thank you. We're doing this, though, under the encouragement, I say coercion of the state housing laws, that are managed by HCD and include the threat of Losing local control with a thing called builder's remedy, where if we fail to comply with their own housing element, there could be penalties. This issuance of an RFP is part of that, but help me understand, It sounds like what you're saying is if no one responds to this first RFP, we don't have to worry about being in Builder's Revity right away, that we have a chance to reissue RFP and that's what I heard you just say. |
| 01:21:51.48 | Brendan Phipps | You heard correctly, council member. That is my understanding. |
| 01:21:55.43 | Councilmember Sobieski | Okay? what happens if we modify it in the second time, no one responds. In other words, what I'm trying to understand is, what exactly is the nature of the legal coercion for us to succeed at this effort. |
| 01:22:06.53 | Sarah Yatze | Thank you. |
| 01:22:10.05 | Councilmember Sobieski | Setting aside all the merits of affordable housing and whatnot, just in terms of us managing the tradeoffs in what we insist on in the RFP versus not, help me understand the jeopardy we may face sometime down the road if we iteratively did this exercise a few times but didn't succeed. |
| 01:22:32.52 | Brendan Phipps | Thank you for the question. I think that this is an important risk balancing discussion for the city. So this is a bit of a crystal ball question. So I won't attempt to provide a comprehensive answer when there are known unknowns and that certain precedent setting opportunities have not yet taken place that may make a more clear path for the city. What I can say is the more times we release an RFP, receive a response, and kick the can further down the road, the less ideal of a position the city is in. Um, I would. want to have some discussions with our counsel, our working group members, our city attorney, um, to, to really try to, to identify or crystallize, you know, some elements of that crystal ball that I mentioned so that we can be most rational. The fact of the matter is, um, I don't have those answers right now for you, but I'm very pleased to start digging for them. And, um, I think that I, I, you know, I'm very much supportive of that, particularly if we issue the RFP and don't receive any responses. |
| 01:23:41.36 | Councilmember Sobieski | One more question in that vein, though. And it has more to do because this is part of our affordable housing target that we have established in our housing element. We established a certain number of units that we plan to be affordable in town. of which this is a meaningful portion. I think that maybe you could just speak to if the city of Sausalito fails to meet its Development of Affordable Housing to HCD Satisfaction what would be the consequence? |
| 01:24:16.07 | Brendan Phipps | That's another crystal ball question, council member. So I think I will defer to the city attorney on that. I do appreciate the question. I do think it's an important one for us to understand. |
| 01:24:30.61 | Sergio Rudin | Now, I will agree with the Assistant City Manager's characterization of this is peering into the crystal ball. We don't know for certain what HCD may do. What we can say is there are things HCD can do. That includes requesting the city find substitute sites for these units and If the city is not in conformance with its programs as outlined in the housing element, one of their powers is to uh rescinded certification of the city's |
| 01:25:01.55 | Sarah Yatze | Thank you. |
| 01:25:02.78 | Sergio Rudin | finding of substantial compliance with housing element law. So that is something that they could do. I don't know necessarily that is something they will do if the city is attempting in good faith to comply with its programs and you know, pursue the development of both of these sites for affordable housing as outlined in this housing element. um, There are other powers, certainly, that they may have. But as a practical matter, the thing that immediately comes to mind is the city's finding of substantial compliance with housing element law. |
| 01:25:39.46 | Councilmember Sobieski | Thank you, senior attorney. Just one follow-up question. I have a follow-up question too. and as I understand builder's remedy, it's not actually a sentence imposed upon us, but rather it's a claim that, developers make. They claim that we are non-compliant and hence they try to make a legal claim and sue us under builders remedy and that the certification we got from HCD is our safe harbor. But as long as we have that certification, we can rest easy about the claims that a developer may make using those builders remedy. So as long as, |
| 01:26:05.48 | Unknown | to see. |
| 01:26:05.60 | Sarah Yatze | Thank you. |
| 01:26:05.70 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:26:05.74 | Sarah Yatze | Bye. |
| 01:26:15.27 | Councilmember Sobieski | HCD gives us that certification, we're in that safe harbor is what I'm hearing you say. And even if we go through one, two, or three of these RFP cycles, as long as HCD hasn't yet presented their certification of our housing element, we remain a state-certified housing element with all the protections that the case law has given us. Is that a fair assumption? |
| 01:26:35.74 | Sergio Rudin | So, |
| 01:26:36.52 | Councilmember Sobieski | That's correct. |
| 01:26:36.59 | Sergio Rudin | That's correct. The state housing element law says that as long as HCD has made a fining of substantial compliance with housing element law. That is... The city enjoys a rebuttable presumption of validity with regards to its housing element. That rebuttable presumption is difficult to overcome because it requires that you show an abuse of HCD's discretion in making that determination. Now, if HCD affirmatively rescinds its findings, there is a presumption the other way, that the city is, there is a presumption that the city's housing element does not comply with housing element law. And that places the burden on the city to defend any builder's remedy lawsuit or a claim by a developer, that builder's remedy does not apply. So it shifts the burden to the city in litigation. |
| 01:27:28.66 | Councilmember Sobieski | Thank you very much. Those are all my questions, Vice Mayor. Thank you. |
| 01:27:32.43 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Okay, go ahead, Councilmember Cox. I just wanted to follow on. Brandon, is it true that in drafting the RFP, you have structured it in such a way as to enhance the likelihood that we receive development proposals? |
| 01:27:51.70 | Brendan Phipps | Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this. So yeah, this is, I think, one of the larger changes that we've made since public forum number two. This was to create section six in the RFP, which is our community feedback section, all encompassing. And we did this for two primary reasons. First reason is because we want to share community feedback. We want developers to see our tier one and tier two priorities, whatever they may be for both sites. That's an important part of our transparency, an important part of our community outreach process. So this allowed us to do that, partly because of point number two, This gets to that balance that we're trying to strike here. If we ask for an aquatics facility, a community center, integrative native landscaping, a commercial use, the list may go on, the more infeasible these proposals become. excuse me, a response to these proposals become, or to this request becomes. And the more likely, An overseeing body like HCD might take the position that our over ask our requirement of these community amenities, in fact, represent a disincentive to affordable housing development, and therefore the city may not be engaging in. in good faith to have these sites developed. in being able to state all the community feedback, but not necessarily have it be a required element of each proposal, but a weighted element in our evaluation process. We've been able to accomplish both of those goals. |
| 01:29:31.66 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | And doesn't the RFP also include a savings clause that says if a developer is unable to meet any of the required components within the RFP, they should explain why they can't and still submit a proposal. |
| 01:29:48.51 | Brendan Phipps | Absolutely. Thank you for the question. Affordable housing can sometimes be like a stew. You have to use multiple flavors, multiple funding sources to make it worthwhile, to make it feasible. So we've allowed for that flexibility. |
| 01:30:02.95 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | And another way that we could assure proposals, if we wanted to take this step today, would be to narrow it. So for example, we could say you don't have to include in your initial proposal, your operations plan, you could simply propose for construction, that would be one example. Yes. Thank you. |
| 01:30:21.36 | Unknown | Correct. |
| 01:30:21.72 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 01:30:21.78 | Unknown | you |
| 01:30:22.05 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Another example would be we could say that if it's infeasible for a proposal to include both sites, that they could propose for a single site. So these are things we could do to further assure responses to our request for proposals. Is that right? Absolutely. Those were my following questions, Vice Mayor. Thank you. |
| 01:30:39.76 | Brendan Phipps | look, |
| 01:30:39.97 | Councilmember Cox | THOSE. Thank you. City Manager FIPS, Assistant City Manager FIPS, isn't it true that we have also discussed in the working group? the opportunity for council to direct staff to hire a financial consultant to ensure that we are aware of the actual and real cost of these proposals that we're receiving from developers. |
| 01:31:00.16 | Brendan Phipps | Yes, thank you for making that clarification. This is an element of the application review that we're considering. I don't believe that it's currently written in as a requirement to any city actions because it's more internal to the city, but that is something that we've discussed and something that we've allocated budget towards. |
| 01:31:19.39 | Councilmember Cox | And isn't it right that commissioner Marlott suggested that we, determine a consultant to help us ensure that this pencils financially. |
| 01:31:29.82 | Brendan Phipps | I believe the answer to that question is yes. We want to be able to evaluate now who that person is, whether we choose to keep it internal to the city. I think that's a decision yet to be made. |
| 01:31:42.58 | Councilmember Cox | Okay. Thank you. Assistant city manager phibster. Do you have any other questions from the dias before we do open it up for public comment? |
| 01:31:45.08 | Brendan Phipps | First part. |
| 01:31:49.95 | Councilmember Cox | Okay. Seeing none with that, I will go ahead and get started with public comment. And my first comment card is from Fred Moore. And he will be followed by Steve Harris. So please be prepared to go after Mr. Moore. |
| 01:32:06.37 | Fred Moore | Not sure I want to be first, but again, I want to give applause to both councilmen, councilpersons for working on the group, all the citizen input, all the time that was put in this RFP. It's, I don't think anybody realized how many hours they did to put that in all the considerations. So that's greatly appreciated. However, reasonable minds can differ. And so I'm, For 40 years of dealing with a lot of RFPs for city-owned sites, I would say this is the most comprehensive and elaborate RFP, which I think may dissuade a number of qualified developers. I sent it out, one of the first drafts to two developers, both of them declined. They said, no, we would not be interested. There's too much work. A couple of things, I think the last argument about what do we do if no one responds, how do we modify this? Councilman Cox mentioned how can we loosen up some issues to try to get more applicants. I think the city's goal at the end of the day is we want proposals in the door to evaluate, to go through the whole process, through the Planning Commission, through the council, with a lot of design items that will be brought up once we get a proposal. But we need the people submitting proposals. Tying two sites, I believe, is a bad idea. It should be one site or the other site or both sites. It's your choice. I also think the senior housing is very high. There's a lot of opportunity now because city-owned site to have community-based housing, workforce, first responders. So I would significantly lower the percentage of senior housing on these sites, to 30% and work with private developers who have larger sites in the marineship who can provide a more senior oriented housing. I fall in the category of seniors. I think 70% on these sites is a little too high. I also believe the 32 foot height limitation was significant. Rather than having proposals, battle is three stories, 32 feet or whatever, I would suggest we remove the two height, I guess you put it as a want and just limited to 32 feet if they have three. |
| 01:34:08.80 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. Thank you. Steve Harris, and you'll be followed by Jeffrey Barnaby. |
| 01:34:22.62 | Steve Harris | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor, City Council members and staff. My name is Steve Harris. I'm a field representative from the North Coast States Carpenter's Union covering Marin County. I am here tonight to talk to you about ensuring the future of our construction industry and your community by implementing labor standards into the housing element. There are a variety of factors that I hope you will consider in all future endeavors. To lift up your community first is ensuring men and women who are building your community have health care by choosing contractors that give this benefit to their employees. You empower the people to build your community and give them the safeguard that we all need as a community, our health. On the average, one out of four construction workers in California lack health insurance. On the average, one out of four, which is two and a half times all California workers, that cannot be a statistic in our community fall into. As elected officials, you have the power to ensure that does not happen. Policies that require contractors to offer their workers and family health care will rise standards in the construction industry, while also ensuring the employers who do not offer health care can compete on a level playing field. Another factor is local hire. All too often our community members must work one to two hours away from home, which in turn has them spending much more money on gas and food in other areas, leaving our town to miss out on the tax opportunities. As the state and local... communities look into carbon emissions, local hires should be a part of any green construction strategy. As more construction workers work in other communities, local hire policies can help Thank you. |
| 01:36:25.20 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you very much, Steve. Jeffrey Barnaby, and then you will be followed by Jennifer Nemo. |
| 01:36:37.44 | Jeffrey Barnaby | Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council members and staff. Thank you for inviting us to speak today. My name is Jeff Barnaby. I am the President of the Board of the New Village School and I really want to speak on behalf of the schools in general. First of all, I would like to acknowledge the workshops that we've participated in. I'm very grateful for having the ability to engage with the community on that and for your participation in that. Just some context for the schools. So there's two fairly significant schools on the MLK campus, the Lisee Francaise and the New Village School, which also includes the Little Village, which is a preschool under the same umbrella. You know, we are the largest tenants in the city, collectively about a million dollars in revenue, which is not insignificant. The new village, I think actually both schools have about 140 students in total. For the new village, we're preschool through eighth grade. That constitutes about 300 people in our community across parents and teachers. So obviously we feel like we should be represented well here. We're also stakeholders in the park environment. Our primary concerns are related to obviously the construction noise and pollution as well as its impact on traffic, parking and the safety of the children and the families. You know from a parking perspective you know we need not only to be able to park it drop off and pick up there's also events that happen through the day that are important and on weekends as well and right now the RFP calls to add an additional 25 spots to the 72. And we just think that's gonna be a real challenge to not put pressure on the rest of the park. From a traffic flow perspective, we also were concerned about flow through that. Um, In the essence of time, I'll get to the chase. What I really think is that I would like the schools to have representation in the oversight body that is overseeing how construction happens, design and planning, as well as post-production. Parts of the community were also stakeholders as well. Thank you. |
| 01:38:39.92 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you very much. Jennifer Nemo, and you will be followed by Sophia Collier. |
| 01:38:44.56 | Jennifer Nemo | here. |
| 01:38:47.63 | Jennifer Nemo | Good evening, Mayor and Council members. My name is Jennifer, and I'm a resident of Sausalito. Thank you for all the work you've done on this. I know, is this good? I know I'm short. |
| 01:38:49.11 | Councilmember Cox | I don't remember. |
| 01:38:57.10 | Councilmember Cox | Can you hear her? Will you let us know? |
| 01:38:59.12 | Jennifer Nemo | I'm not sure. |
| 01:38:59.20 | Councilmember Cox | Okay. |
| 01:38:59.52 | Jennifer Nemo | That's better. Okay. |
| 01:38:59.93 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:39:00.27 | Jennifer Nemo | Thank you. Um, Throughout the housing element and ballot measure processes, the public was promised a development in MLK Park that would be consistent with the two-story scale of the neighborhood. We talked about Rotary Village as the model. That was thrown around a lot. And- was our impression of what we would be seeing there. Every rendering and visual presented to us has shown two stories. Thank you. The RFP right now encourages developers to think about three stories, and I don't think we need to encourage them to do that. Let's get RFPs that are what we envisioned for this property. They will expand upon it however much they want to. I don't think we need to encourage them to do that. And if we do, they will never try to pencil out a two story building. There's a big difference between two story townhouses and a three story cube that's maxed out to the capacity of the park. So I would encourage you to tone down that language and not ask for those, they will do it. Also, there are things still where like the view analysis If you're doing that for 75, why not 84 too? It's not consistent between the two. Please be consistent on those neighborhood protections that you're doing for both sites. Thank you. |
| 01:40:15.28 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:40:15.90 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. |
| 01:40:16.36 | Councilmember Cox | So if I call here, you'll be followed by edge friends in and Heather friends in Thank you. |
| 01:40:22.19 | Sophia Collier | after her. Okay, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. And I also want to acknowledge the work of the committee and the task force. I know that's not easy work. And I also want to acknowledge the leadership of our vice mayor and Councilwoman Joan Cox. Both have been leaders in promoting housing for a long period of time. So thank you both for your work. So I wanted to really draw attention to a critical update that's needed in it. In the original draft posted on the city website, and I think it's actually still the draft on there, there was a view protection study required for the developer of the corporation yard. If we do not have a view protection study, we will not know what the particular view protection implications are of it. And I think there's a confusion that view protection and view studies are somehow inconsistent with housing. They are not. One of the, we have went through last year, an entire year of working on the odds process and developing several tools to understand view analysis and view impact on housing. I am probably the only person that actually did a view study of the corporation yard. And I took our housing element into account and determined with care that these units could fit there. But they can't fit there without care. So that's the point. We need the folks who are coming into our community to place the care that's needed to make sure that the people in these parts of town are protected and have the best opportunity to have a great neighbor with their new neighbor. So I really want to say that the folks of Nevada Street and obviously the friends of the MLK folks, that everybody should have the opportunity to have that analysis done and to know what we're dealing with. So as we evaluate alternate proposals, each proposal can be, that can be one element as we consider them. Thank you very much. Thank you, Sophia. So now we're going to hear from Heather and Ed. |
| 01:42:20.98 | Councilmember Cox | you |
| 01:42:24.22 | Councilmember Cox | Okay, great. Okay. You each get two minutes, so. |
| 01:42:36.99 | Heather Friends | I'm here because I have concerns about children's safety and the RFP housing plan, which takes away green space at MLK Park. Your plan removes the woods area above the bus barn where my daughter plays pictured here. when housing should be built at empty office buildings and dilapidated lots. The pandemic changed how real estate is used and your thinking needs to change too. The kids cannot have their already small park turned into a dense, dangerous, high traffic area when there are better alternatives. Nature at MLK park is their playground. I learned too late that the council operates reactively based on the loudest and wealthiest groups. I ask that you start to make decisions using proven community models. Some of you are hell bent on building at MLK. to save face for the deceptive Measure K process, and the deception continues. The RFP stated last week that New Village is only a preschool When you knew full well, it's a preschool through eighth grade. You can continue to say that the math works out with parking and not touching a blade of grass. But that's an outright lie. Measure K won by very little. and with deception. You used Builder's Remedy as a threat. when you could have avoided it by choosing safer locations in the first place. The result is that you're responsible for concentrating 85% of Sausalito's housing capacity on the north side. All of this, while not allowing actual patrons of the park, 400 houseboat families, and our predominantly black community in Marin City a say. I will call your plan what it is. racist and classist. If you choose to put housing in MLK Park instead of sensible locations, This will go down on the wrong side of history with your names attached to it. |
| 01:44:34.97 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:44:36.84 | Heather Friends | that's a good one. |
| 01:44:36.97 | Councilmember Cox | I just want to enter her photo into the exhibit for the council to take a look. |
| 01:44:43.07 | Heather Friends | That's just a photo, not a photo. |
| 01:44:44.10 | Councilmember Cox | Okay. |
| 01:44:47.89 | Councilmember Cox | You want to hold it up so we can see it, or you can hand it to the city clerk, whatever you prefer. Thank you for participating in the meeting. |
| 01:44:58.02 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you very much. Okay, now we'll hear from Aaron Nathan, followed by Michelle McCullough. Do you want to say something? Okay. Well, thanks for coming. We appreciate you. Aaron Nathan followed by Michelle McCullough. |
| 01:45:16.46 | Aaron Nathan | Thank you. Good evening, Councilmembers. Firstly, thank you for the work that all of you have done in creating this RFP, I think that It reflects a lot of community input and a real effort to move the housing commitments forward. The task force met exhaustively and thank you, councilman. Cox and Vice Mayor Blasdine for participating and leading that task force. There's a bunch of public feedback that weighed many of the tradeoffs, requiring respondents to propose on both sides what was the consensus between various things. And we do not need to change drastically this RFP that we have brought to the dais here. And we should accept the task force recommendation on this subject as proposed. With that said, I do want to speak to a real risk that we've heard about today. which is something we all know is real, there is a meaningful chance that we do not receive any viable proposals for the MLK corp yard sites. If that happens, We haven't planned for it, and we will find ourselves in the exact same position that we have been in before, where we are out of time, we are out of options, and we are forced into decisions that do not reflect our community's priorities. We can avoid this. I urge you to direct staff now to begin planning for alternatives in parallel to issuance of the RFP. Specifically, we should start the environmental review process on additional sites that we are likely to need anyway. for the next housing element cycle that is just around the corner. These are not hypothetical sites. They're part of our longer term obligations. Starting that work now does two important things. It gives us a real viable backup option if this RFP doesn't produce the results that reflect the community input and it ensures we are not walking into the next housing cycle unprepared. |
| 01:47:18.87 | Councilmember Cox | you |
| 01:47:18.91 | Aaron Nathan | Thank you. |
| 01:47:18.92 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. Michelle McCullough followed by Michael Rex. |
| 01:47:26.62 | Michelle McCullough | Hi, good evening. I know I don't have very much time. But before I give my public comment, I just I have to say this because I'm half Persian and half Latina, and I know we have an Iranian-American community in this town. My heart goes out to them. So I just want to acknowledge the great privilege I have to even be up here speaking to all of you. And also, again, just my heart goes out to everyone. who has no communication with their family right now in Iran, my prayers are with you. Thank you. Good evening, City Council. So happy to see so many friends and neighbors and so many great community partners. Save our Sausalito. I see a Also, Sausalito Beautiful. I'm sorry. Hard for you to turn here. And Build Smart Sausalito and my personal neighbors. So yay, we made it. We actually made it to the finish line. And I also want to say personal thank you to Vice Mayor Blaustein and Joan Cox. It was Councilwoman Joan Cox. It was my great privilege to work with you. And special shout out to Brandon. And here we go to you, the heavy lifter. So I know I sent in my comment earlier, so I want to quickly just talk about these three points. In my comments, I asked to submit the RFP exactly as written. I want to edit that note because upon further review, there are two things that came to light that have already been spoken to, but Section 5.2, please restore view protection for Corpyard. That's something that needs to be explicit. Another thing that just came up that I want to make sure is clear in the edit. of this last draft. is that both sites need to be submitted on in terms of RFPs. If you submit an RFP, it has to be on both sites. We worked very hard on this public task force, and all the community output that we got was on both sites. Point number two that I think is important, please do not weaken ballot requirements of Tier 1 RFP requirements. Again, all of that hard work and collaboration should be noted there in that rfp step three please develop a contingency plan if no workable proposals are received i echoed what council member ian sobieski just mentioned and this was my question before k passed and it's still my question now that it has passed what is the backup plan thank you so much Thank you, Michael Rex, followed by Stacey Nemo. |
| 01:49:31.32 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:49:35.93 | Michael Rex | I'm Michael Rex, local architect. I'm going to wail through it here with recommendations. First of all, while I appreciate Brandon Phipps' caution, you start with telling or informing a developer what you want. If they can't provide it financially, you can always cut back on your program. But if you don't start with what you want, you'll never get it. some of what you want. So, Don't be fearful of asking for what you want. 60-40, senior versus non-senior is a better balance. We heard that at the workshops. Um, make a very strong preference for two stories, no higher than 27 feet above existing grade at MLK. If you go a foot higher, you'll start to significantly block water views. Jerome Christensen and I proved that And the design we prepared for the ballot measure Uh, require view sync for both applications. If you require a view sync on private property, you should require it on public property. Um, Target and specifically invite preferred developers. Don't just send it out wildly, and particularly target for nonprofit developers. update the odds that were proposed. Do that quickly before an application is submitted or we won't have view protection. |
| 01:50:45.32 | Unknown | of the |
| 01:50:53.45 | Michael Rex | Call for a mix of unit sizes. studios, one bedroom, two bedroom, particularly require that many of the non-senior housing be one or two bedrooms so they serve families. includes small gathering spaces for the tenants on each site. It could be very small, but it's an essential amenity. And then I'd like you to confirm with, your city attorney that a developer can be prohibited from applying for density bonuses or all of our standards will go out the window. Okay. That has to be part of the deal. I think that's it. I beat my time. I can't believe it. Thank you. |
| 01:51:30.68 | Councilmember Cox | That was impressive. Thank you, Michael. Stacy, and then we'll hear from Jan Johnson. Thank you. |
| 01:51:37.38 | Unknown | I just wanted to share an image that I created of what a |
| 01:51:45.85 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | You have to speak into the mic or they won't be able to hear you online. |
| 01:51:45.87 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:51:51.13 | Stacey Nemo | I wanted to share an image of a three-story possible development in MLK Park. I think three stories is a very important part of what could happen. Thank you, Michelle. But did you want to |
| 01:52:01.55 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Did you want the council to see that Michelle? |
| 01:52:04.80 | Stacey Nemo | Um, so there's a very big difference between the two story, which, uh, the city had created and the designs that Michael Rex had created and what we're looking at right now with this three sort story possibility. I know if you think about 32 feet and I appreciate Michael Rex from mentioning 27 feet, cause there is a significant difference there, but even at the 32 feet level, there's a huge difference between the two stories that was presented before the ballot measure in order to encourage community support. |
| 01:52:20.14 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:52:31.73 | Stacey Nemo | and what three stories could look like. So I created this image to help give you a better understanding of something we don't want. |
| 01:52:34.65 | Sarah Yatze | to help you. |
| 01:52:37.83 | Stacey Nemo | I think it's a very good idea, as Michael Rex again said, who is clearly more experienced at this than me, start with what you want and then go from there. I think that's a fantastic idea. I agree also with the view sync idea and view impact protection, and I think that that's essential as well. And it's important to give it to all residents and all people in Sausalito. Our views are all very important. It's not different if you're in South Sausalito or North Sausalito or Corporation Yard or at MLK. So two main things that I just want to sum up is view protection should be for everyone and that three stories should not be given away. It should be if we have to down the road, maybe, but I highly recommend that you don't give it away. right now. Thank you very much. |
| 01:53:22.29 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:53:22.39 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. |
| 01:53:22.73 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. Jan Johnson followed by Justine Kahn. |
| 01:53:27.59 | Unknown | you |
| 01:53:29.65 | Councilmember Cox | Did someone leave their phone at the... Public. |
| 01:53:35.59 | Jan Johnson | Thank you. |
| 01:53:35.61 | Councilmember Cox | Hi. |
| 01:53:35.91 | Jan Johnson | happy St. Patty's Day and thank you for all the work um a couple of things. I think the words encouraged allow for... overstep by developers. It should be required. I think 27 feet was promised in some form or another to the locals around MLK. So it should be stuck to. View study is essential all over town, not just for these projects, but if you don't want to betray your citizens, then view study is essential. I guess that's it. Thank you. |
| 01:54:16.48 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you very much. Justine Khan followed by Sybil Boutillier. And then I have no more comment cards. So if you had something to say and you're in the room, please ensure that you submit a comment card. Hi, Justine. |
| 01:54:25.47 | Justine Kahn | Hi, thank you so much, City Council, and thank you to all my neighbors who showed up today. I'm here speaking on behalf of the New Village School and my daughter, who's in the fifth grade there. And, you know, I think one of the things that is really missing from my perspective is a study on the sound, the toxic waste, and the impact of the park itself. for the school while construction is happening. I would really like to see that added. And I agree with Jeff Barnaby about having some sort of liaison in the RFP with all schools and making sure that there is constant communication The schools are a really delicate ecosystem here in Sausalito. It's one of the reasons that my husband and I are here in this community. These schools are... really important to protect, especially during such a large project. I would also like to Second, the height limitation and make sure that 32 feet is the height level and stays that way. And also say that this bill was passed because people wanted senior housing. I was against the bill entirely. But if it is not senior housing, it just doesn't make sense. So 80% at minimum is what I... believe this housing should be at the MLK site and the corporation yard. Thank you so much. |
| 01:55:52.35 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. Sybil Boutillier followed by Adriana Denehenian. |
| 01:56:03.43 | Sybil Boutillier | Thank you. I really want to thank Vice Mayor and Blalstein and City Council Member Joan Cox for leading our committee and I was honored to be a part of that committee with people both pro and con this housing so that a nice variety of opinions were able to be clearly aired as well as in the two community, uh, commun, uh, convenings. Um, I wanted to mention just a small point, but I think it's very important. On page nine and on page nine, section two and page 25, at 5.1, it talks about the existing site conditions and protected uses. And it protects the playing fields, the courts, the children's playground, but does not mention the senior fitness exercise zone. And since this is priority seniors at this housing, site. As the voters I think it's really important that that site be mentioned by name and and included in the suggested amenities with expanding or enhancing it. Unfortunately, it has degraded and was never completely finished since it was carefully selected with many site visits in other towns, research meetings with equipment manufacturers, In Sacramento, in Davis, we went to Charlie Thank you. Um, Brown and Mike, our previous recreation director, and myself made a number of road trips to look at equipment and meet with people. And then we had a consultant with a physical therapist. Thank you, Sipple. |
| 01:58:07.65 | Councilmember Cox | So it's selected. |
| 01:58:08.43 | Sybil Boutillier | it for |
| 01:58:08.97 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:58:08.98 | Sybil Boutillier | Thank you. |
| 01:58:09.03 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you very much. Okay, that's, we have Adriana, and then there are no further comments in the |
| 01:58:11.07 | Sybil Boutillier | Thank you. |
| 01:58:15.88 | Councilmember Cox | Do we have any other cards over there? No. Okay, great. Thank you very much. |
| 01:58:19.31 | Councilmember Huffman | Thank you. |
| 01:58:19.33 | Councilmember Cox | Good evening. |
| 01:58:19.39 | Councilmember Huffman | Good evening City Council. I just want to speak to the 25 parking spaces that have been allotted. It seems very impractical that we have 50 units with only 25 parking spaces, meaning one half of a space per living unit. I think there should be a minimum of 50. And I'm sure somebody can come up with a way to do that, because otherwise those people in those units are going to be parking in the spaces that you think the people that are using the park are parking, or the people that are going to the two schools are parking. Also, I think 27 feet is a much better height than 32, and it should be two stories only because otherwise, as Mr. Rex said, they'll go for the good thing for them. Instead, We should keep it to what we really want. |
| 01:59:22.52 | Councilmember Cox | Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. And now let's go to public comment on Zoom, please, city clerk. |
| 01:59:28.70 | Walfred Solorzano | We'll start with Sandra Bushmaker. |
| 01:59:30.40 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. Welcome, Sandra. Thank you. |
| 01:59:32.83 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you very much. I just wanted to say thank you to the staff and to the public, mainly the public and the council who put all their efforts into this effort. It's no secret I was a no on Kay. I wanted to keep that park a park for the benefit of all of the surrounding areas. And it's very difficult for me to see housing going into an area that we protected in 1997 with 1128. and. And so just saying that, I just want to make sure that You know, I want you to know I appreciate the effort that's going into this. effort to try to make something out of a very difficult situation. I was very concerned to hear Council Member Cox talking about giving away the land when she was referring to the corporation land corporation lot. I am hoping that we are not giving away our land without proper notice to the citizens of Sausalito on either site. in engaging with developers through the RFP process. that it may be made very, very clear to the population that we're giving away public land if that is the direction the council is headed. I just was concerned when I heard those phrases because during the Measure K matter, there was debate about Karen Hollweg, Whether the Council could could sell the property without further voter input and we were assured that they would not, so I just want to make sure that that was. Maybe a misstatement. but that we don't give away public land without public process. Thank you. Thank you very much. |
| 02:01:24.04 | Walfred Solorzano | Next speaker is Jake Beyer. |
| 02:01:30.34 | Jake Beyer | Council members, my name is Jake Byer. I'm the owner of 426 Pine Street. I was no on K as well, and I'm here to just touch on what Ian Sobieski talked about, the risk of builder's remedy. And I have four children, we've been working on trying to build a house for over six years in Sausalito and have the ability to add four units. Actually tonight's item, which I was not informed of, 4A was a response of months of battling getting the city to acknowledge state law that JADUs are allowed on single family lots. And we've had a JE ADU denied, an ADU denied, and probably another ADU that's gonna be denied. and it's hard to see you guys block owners that actually want to build units on their home and do so in a lawful manner. and at the same time take away green space that should have never been converted into housing if you all just did your job. |
| 02:02:34.17 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. |
| 02:02:35.27 | Walfred Solorzano | All right. Thank you. All right. Next speaker is Babette McDougall. |
| 02:02:44.03 | Babette McDougall | Thank you, Mr. City Clerk, for acknowledging me. Okay, the purpose of my comment now is to salute the citizens of Sausalito. As I said, they're back. You don't really need to hear from me anymore. They have it well in hand. You only need to heed what they say, because even though you don't like, what you hear, and we know that. We know that. The truth is that's where your constituents are standing. These are the people who voted for you. They didn't they didn't monetize you. They're not wealthy. They have nothing to offer except their faith and their vote. So if you can't honor your oath to uphold That faith. and that vote, then you have no business sitting in those chairs. And I urge you to consider stepping down while you can. Save face. Because these things about you will not be well remembered. They've been saying that for two years now. So for two years, they've been pushing back. And guess what? Here we are today where we really need to come together and we are still finding that we have a lot of common ground to establish. And that will be your jobs. Thank you so much. |
| 02:04:03.27 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. |
| 02:04:03.90 | Walfred Solorzano | We have Lorna Newlin. |
| 02:04:06.75 | Babette McDougall | Good evening, Lorna. |
| 02:04:11.29 | Lorna Newlin | Hello, I wanna first thank everyone for the hard work that the task force did. But in January, I did volunteer to be on it to city staff and council members, frankly, with lots of experience. And I am dismayed I did not get one response to my email. Nonetheless, I thought combining MLK with the corporation yard would give more time to find a better location. Mr. Sobieski has mentioned times several times of using derelict land in the marine ship that would not displace anyone ms hosman has said there are exercise sites in the overall plan and i know you guys hopefully are working with the school district on other things that won't be part of this thing but you have to have contingencies for the future you have to plan for that um i believe you're accelerating mlk more than i thought was required also Also in the RFP, I believe you have the address wrong. The bus barn, lycée, gymnasium, and playland addresses are all listed in the RFP as They're all listed as 610 Coloma Street. You have the RFP at 110 Ebtide. Only the new village school is listed at 100 Ebtide. I don't see any mention of the site availability. for the bus barn or that part of MLK or the demolition planned? And when do you plan to evict and displace the tenants. I feel that the measure is misleading. It mentioned a commercial building. It did not say that 13 tenants, artists, and maritime businesses representing approximately 30 livelihoods will be displaced. Most of us are seniors. Some are family businesses. I've been a tenant at MLK Bus Barn for 20 years, and some have been here over 30 years paying tenants. I don't know where the city would relocate me, which has been mentioned several times, even at city council meetings, where I would have decent rent and feel safe. I currently have a two minute walking commute. |
| 02:06:17.63 | Walfred Solorzano | All right, next speaker is Jack Burroughs. |
| 02:06:23.18 | Jack Burroughs | Thank you, City Council members. Wow, following Babette and Lorna is difficult. But I wanna go back to something that Council member Cox had mentioned that We are actually giving this land away. and remind everyone that when you're giving something away, It is not unreasonable to expect back in return. to help. heal the wounds that you're inflicting upon this community. So what I would like to suggest is that in realizing that By forcing all of the housing element up here into the north of Sausalito, where a lot of young families have made root here and are the future of the city. is that it would not be an unreasonable ask that every site, every lot in Sausalito that benefits from the odds that meaning they're going to get protected views. has an excise tax. imposed upon them to build the facilities here that will help create the kind of community that brings everyone together. instead of the community you are creating. that has put everyone at odds. Thank you so much. Enjoy your evening. And I hope we all get through this. |
| 02:07:46.34 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you, Jack. |
| 02:07:47.68 | Walfred Solorzano | No further public comments. |
| 02:07:49.16 | Councilmember Cox | Okay, we'll go ahead and bring it back up to the dais for discussion. Thank you. |
| 02:07:54.04 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Can I just clarify my earlier statement? Absolutely, Councilor. So we are not giving away the corporation yard. We are making that land available at no cost to the developer. And we have not yet aligned on what that approach will be. It could be a long-term lease or some other mechanism. But there is no plan to give away the corporation yard, only to make it available at zero land cost. So I just wanted to clarify any confusion caused by my earlier comments. Thank you. |
| 02:08:22.27 | Councilmember Cox | Great, thank you very much. So, Okay, go ahead, Mayor Woodside, please. |
| 02:08:27.45 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:08:27.47 | Mayor Woodside | Want to start? |
| 02:08:28.09 | Councilmember Cox | I was just going to propose that we consider our comments in the lens of what are the specific changes we'd like to make to the RFP and what is the staff direction we want to give because there are two important. areas that we need to discuss because things like the financial analyses and liaisons and the task force also need to be considered. So we can start with the RFP and then move from there. |
| 02:08:49.44 | Mayor Woodside | Okay, I'll take your suggestion with just a preliminary comment. do not like where we are. I haven't liked where the city has been vis-a-vis the housing laws for several years. of. But I also know that we don't want to take great risk right now and suffer what might be an even greater calamity than many of you see us facing. Having said that, I'll be very specific. I think we need a preference, strong preference, if not requirement for two stories. Okay? The architects, Michael Rex and others, have designed something. There may be alternatives. Proponents will come in, and we'll see. Secondly, I, let's see, I think we need to make sure it's mandatory that we use the tools we have available to look at views, measure views and study them, etc. That's not unique to these properties. But very important for these properties. Very, very important. Thirdly, and this may be more controversial, but I was under the impression, perhaps wrong, that we were going to go out with a single RFP with an opportunity for a uh proponent to come back on one or the other or both that's that was my recollection if i'm wrong i'm wrong but i think that's and some of you may not like that because Going out on both of these strikes me as pretty complex and is likely to cause delay, which might open the door to other sites, which by the way, I do favor other sites and have for many years, and we don't all agree on what those other sites are, but particularly in the Marinians. And I would encourage those of you who've gotten involved directly now. to join with others in the community who are looking at ways to change that going forward. |
| 02:10:44.48 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:10:46.43 | Mayor Woodside | And we, Many of you have said we face another cycle very soon. And we need to be starting now to look at where the housing is appropriate in our community. And there are sites that are, and there are many places that really aren't, that the state will look at and say, oh, no, you can build. You can build in a landslide area. You can build right next to the water where it's subsiding. I don't agree with that. And we have a battle on our hands going forward, perhaps. So anyway, I make those specific suggestions, and I hope I have support from my colleagues on at least those. |
| 02:11:20.45 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. So just to clarify, that was the strong preference for two stories in the RFP, a mandatory site analysis using ViewSync and a separation of or a consideration for applying for either site within the RFP. Okay. |
| 02:11:33.99 | Mayor Woodside | Correct. |
| 02:11:34.61 | Councilmember Cox | Okay? Councilmember Cox, do you want to fill a long arm? |
| 02:11:37.23 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Sure. I had some specific comments to the RFP. I mentioned one, which is page four. We are not far ahead of state mandated deadlines for both sites. Also on page four, we talk about moderate income housing, I would favor affordable housing on both sites. um, page five contains the language that says we will not accept proposals for only one site I endorse the comments of our mayor on that. only because I want to ensure that we get proposals. The whole reason of including two sites was to in case a developer who We did not want to only build 50 units, could possibly build 81 units on both sites, thereby accomplishing economies of scale. So we want to give developers that flexibility But I did not intend that they be constrained to only propose as to both sites. Um, page six also talks about the moderate income, uh, page eight talks about the 32 foot height limit at the corporation yard. I endorse that. Um. Yeah. Same thing with the framework. As to affordability, I side with many members of the community and with what we said in Measure K. was that we would have a preference for senior housing. So I believe at least at MLK, we need to have 80% senior housing. Um, Let's see. Page 13 also says we will not accept proposals for only one site. I think that should be changed. I think the entire affordability flexibility section should come out. It says that we will allow flexibility in how these affordability requirements are distributed across the two sites. I think that's confusing. MLK has very strict affordability requirements. If we decide to allow moderate units at site 84 at the corporation yard, it needs to be clear that's only at site 84. So I would remove that entire section. on page it's called affordability allocation flexibility, I would remove that entire section in the RFP. Um, Okay, let's see. I agree, I endorse the mayor's other comments about view sync, I endorse, um, identifying how we will evaluate financial feasibility. I believe we have the ability to do that in-house through our assistant city manager, who is also our economic development director and who has prior experience working with Cosmot, has experience with EIFDs, I believe we have the ability in-house, and we should give him the ability, if he thinks we don't, to hire I'm not sure. an outside financial consultant. But I believe we have that ability in-house. |
| 02:14:41.18 | Councilmember Cox | circle back and give you opportunity to make further comments but i'm going to go to councilmember sobieski who had his hand raised first and then councilmember huffman |
| 02:14:48.22 | Councilmember Sobieski | Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. So I think there are some detailed comments that my colleagues are making. I think Councilman Cox talked about taking out a section. It sounds fine with me. I think I've agreed with everything I've heard, except this notion of splitting the two. websites, I think they should be kept combined for two reasons. One is I think the working group actually engaged with this and I wanna really defer to the all that, those multiple meetings with all those people who arrived at this consensus view and not change it from a dais. And the second is really Michael Rex's comment, which I thought was germane, to, you know, in this first blush, we should ask for everything we want. Two stories, the views, everything. and see if we get a response before we presumed that that might be problematic. And so we're in the ability to ask for exactly everything we want, and I think we should do that. uh, and hope we get a response. So that's the one place I disagree with my colleagues, and we'll see where the nose count is at the end of our comments on that particular point. But I believe we should take take the task force recognition as is. Thank you. Issue is about plan B. You know, I came out very reluctantly in favor of K despite the fact that there were much better sites in South Salido because it was a choice between saying yes to K or increasing the chance of builders remedy. And my great fear is that after this process, we will face a similar choice point a few months from now, where there is a respondent to the RFP, but that respondent doesn't meet our goals. Larry Silverstein, Many of them, maybe it meets the minimum unit count, but not some other important aspects of the proposals and we're compelled to say yes. because the alternative is builder's remedy. My... I'm just not going to vote for that. If it comes to that one day, I'll I'll have to take the the other side of that bet. What I want now is just to alert us to let's, for once, get ahead of the ball. Let's develop a Plan B now, and I hope today will direct staff to come back with a specific plan B for other sites that can be used in future housing elements or even now if we fall below no net loss. Um, My own plan B, of course, is well known. I think we have. A lot of sites Like here, two of them are pictured this empty lot That's just a grassy field. Uh, and the buildings associated with it in this storage yard of RVs. I believe that we should complete the EIR that was started but stopped on this site and we should expand it to site 68, which is next door. and we should do an EIR for this site and maybe consider some others. If we do that EIR work, |
| 02:17:25.53 | Sarah Yatze | you know, |
| 02:17:27.33 | Councilmember Sobieski | which takes six months. then we would be in a position to also potentially put something new on the ballot for rezoning those sites if we need to. Change, modifying 1022. so that we can use a community development agreement tool to negotiate with property owners and create more options for ourselves so that we're not backed up into a corner. I believe that we should give that direction to staff to start that process today. |
| 02:17:50.47 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you, Councilmember Sobieski, Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 02:17:56.75 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. So I think I agree, I understand Sorry, I understand that. the concern about not receiving an RFP uh, with the complications, uh, uh, the fully loaded wish list, I guess, is how we could phrase the RFP. So I get that in fact, the comments that Fred Moore that we started off with. But... um, I do think that we should maybe start with that. I think that's a good, um, I think that's a good goal and we should start with, because that's what the goal was to, go with the economies of scale and see what we can come up with. and see if we get a response. And I think, that when you follow through with that it's all the other things that the task force um led with i i think that's those are also goals um that we can you know goals that we can go with as well it's no secret um i'm also not happy with what we're here with either building at the mlk park site for all the reasons that i didn't support measure k um and i we don't need to go through those again, obviously. And for the reasons that I didn't support Measure K. And we don't need to go through those again, obviously. And for the reasons that I stated before, with the Site 73, which is the school site, the Martin Luther King School site, which is up the street in its acre. And so the reason that I'm interested in this site, is because of all the funding, AB 1221, which is a teacher housing act, and that was updated with AB three, 3,300 in 2020 and the low income housing tax credits for that have been extended to teachers AB 3308 that specifically targets 80 percent at AMI or below. to moderate at 120% at AMI. Um, or specifically teacher income. I think there's money on the table. for teacher housing. I'm not sure. I'm glad that Councilmember Cox is reaching out. So I'm wondering if, I'm wondering if in the RFP, I don't want to add anything in the RFP at this point, accept that just maybe one reference to cite, just so that we can say in good faith, two HCD We haven't given up on Site 73. We did include it in our RFP. And that it's not a surprise to anybody if we reference it later, especially anybody who responds that we say, hey, and by the way, we've got this third site And we're talking to the school districts. by the way, and there's all these tax credits and these programs for funding. should you be interested in a third site for 27 units 15 at extremely low and ate it low, for a moderate you know, let us know and we might expand this even further with the school district's help. So I think that's it's just maybe a sentence in there or maybe it's another paragraph in the RFP. I think that's worth putting in there. |
| 02:21:11.77 | Councilmember Huffman | Oh. |
| 02:21:18.69 | Jill Hoffman | Sure. |
| 02:21:18.72 | Councilmember Cox | Sure. We'll consider that in discussion. Everyone's getting three minutes to speak. So I just want to be respectful and we'll circle back. But I think I think I know how we can wrap that in. And I appreciate how you shared that and add that to the conversation. I'll just say I understand the upset of the community and the housing element process, and I think a lot of us have concerns about what sites we do have, what sites we don't have. But my deeper concern and the reason for the housing element and the state's actions is creation. A LOT OF US HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT SITES WE DO HAVE, WHAT SITES WE DON'T HAVE. BUT MY DEEPER CONCERN AND THE REASON FOR THE HOUSING ELEMENT AND THE STATE'S ACTIONS IS CREATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING. though this site is on public property close to a park the site allows us to determine what it looks like. So that means two things. That means we will have affordable housing for our community and for our seniors, but it also means we have full discretion of what it will look like. And there are a very limited number of sites in our community where that is the case. That being said, I do believe we absolutely owe it to the community and to the working group to our best of our ability at this first round to include whatever we can in the RFP and reconsider when we have to reconsider to the extent that we can. and I have to I agree with at this first round to include whatever we can in the RFP and reconsider when we have to reconsider to the extent that we can. Uh, and I, I have to, I agree with all of the comments made by. mayor woodside councilmember cox and agreed upon by mayor by councilmember sobieski and hoffman um in terms of what we would remove in terms of the preference for two stories the the height analysis on both sites um i think where i do disagree is that i do recall that it was a very clear request from the friends of mlk park and as part of our task force that we've really crfp together and while i know that we may not receive responses on the first round potentially i'd like to see if we can i'd like i think that we owe that to the community and so that's something that i'm going to continue to hope to include in the rfp but what i'm hearing is we have a strong preference for those two stories so we add that back in we add back in the mandatory view analysis we go forward with the page four five six eight and thirteen suggested by joan Um, and, and then I guess we can have, and then I think in the overview of the site, we should add language as suggested by council member Hoffman. So we could add a sentence or two noting clearly to the proposers and Brandon, you can work on what this looks like. Site 73 is also included in our housing element, although not owned by us. We are in conversation with the school district. We welcome a discussion. on how we might collaborate. We're happy to make introductions to the school district, et cetera, so that we're not ignoring that opportunity and agree we are endorsing the recommendations of HCD. So I think we're very close to being on the same page, except we do need to have a further conversation around the decision with the two sites or one site for RFP, and then we can go forward with a conversation about direction to staff and planning, as suggested by Councilmember Sobieski. Does that sound right to everyone? |
| 02:24:05.06 | Mayor Woodside | Sure, and I'm happy to go forward if it's the will of the majority to go with both sites at the same time. I'm just pessimistic that it doesn't get us to the finish line, doesn't avoid problems with HCD. That's my concern right up front. Um, I think we can speculate. I like sometimes to use sports analogies. If you are a field goal kicker in a football game and you have a chance to Kick the field goal. If you miss, you miss. Okay. If you're a basketball player and we're in March Madness now, you shoot the ball, you miss. Ah, your team might get a second chance if they can rebound. Okay. And that's where I think we are with HCD. I don't think we're going to get three strikes. I think we're not a baseball. I don't think HCD is going to tolerate coming back a third time. |
| 02:24:54.55 | Councilmember Cox | It's a great analogy. |
| 02:24:55.92 | Mayor Woodside | Okay, so I like sports. But let me say this, I wish, that. We could turn back the clock. And I personally suggested that while we were doing the environmental analysis, we should include all the sites that had ever been put on a list, and we didn't. And for us to now go back and go through the time and expense when we don't have much money is to me not the way to go, but to say we are going to address it. And I think there are people in the community who may be coming forward with other ways to get there quicker And without the necessity of going through a full blown EIR, there's been a lot of talk, people in the audience, repeal or modify 1022. There are people working on that right now. And I'm more open to that than to go off and hire environment, you know, our environmental consultants to go through, you know, it's just troublesome to me. So having said that, I'm happy to go along with the majority. Let's get this thing out. and see what happens. |
| 02:26:01.43 | Councilmember Cox | So if I hear you're in favor of making sure that the developer responds to both sites, you're okay with that since council members, so we Ski and I. |
| 02:26:08.30 | Mayor Woodside | Just like I said during Measure K, I'm only okay with it. |
| 02:26:11.54 | Councilmember Cox | Okay. All right. Council member Cox, Council member Hoffman at our hand raised. I just wanted to. |
| 02:26:17.80 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Oh, I thought we were. Yeah, I'm sorry. That's fine. She had her hand up first. Yeah, I have to go forward with this. |
| 02:26:19.50 | Councilmember Cox | Yeah. She had her hand up first. |
| 02:26:24.99 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | and |
| 02:26:25.04 | Councilmember Cox | Okay. |
| 02:26:25.97 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Yeah, I will also defer to the majority. As someone who works with RFPs day in and day out. I am pessimistic. that we will get. the more than one proposal, if we get one proposal. We really would like to have multiple proposals so that we can choose the best, the proposal best suited to the community and that provides the highest level of amenities and other things that the city has laid out. But I'm willing to defer to the majority and in deference to the community that would really like to see. I also agree about adding the language that Council Member Hoffman suggested that there could be a third site available. I think that's great. Um, I do want to say I just want to be clear for the record. The MLK sites that are potentially available are privately owned. We cannot um, require that they build affordable housing on those sites. You mean the marineship sites, right? The marineship sites. And so we cannot simply substitute a privately owned marineship site for the city owned public sites on which we can require what is built. We do not have the ability. In fact, we are, our ability to control at all what is built on privately owned sites is constantly being eroded by the state of California. And so any action that we take to make those sites available for housing needs to be carefully managed so that we don't end up with eight story buildings on those sites. And so I am fully in favor of As I've said before, of modifying our SB 1022. But I think we have to do so in a thoughtful manner so that we continue to enjoy the protections of our historic district and also so that we continue to manage To the extent we can, what is built where? Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 02:28:38.33 | Jill Hoffman | Sorry, yeah, I did raise my hand again, because this keeps coming up and specifically the site that Councilmember Sobieski likes to show us. So I think it's, we start keeping a tally. of how many times we've seen Carlito Berg sites. He's a very nice fella, let me just say that, but we see his site a lot. And I know Council Member Sobhivetsky wants to rezone that site for housing and we talked about that lot during the last housing element so It was heavily vetted, heavily talked about, and decided not to include that in our last housing amount for very specific reasons. So it's not on our agenda tonight to talk about it. Anytime we talk about any sites on our housing element. We need to notice those sites. We need to let The neighbors know. that we're going to talk about those sites and we need to let them know and give notice and be fair that that's what we're going to talk about. So we haven't done that tonight. And I hope that we stop doing that and we don't do that in the future, because I think that's only fair. and that if we're going to revisit sites, that we've got. previously talked about for the housing element, or if we're going to do that in the future, that we let people know that we're going to do that. So the only thing on our agenda tonight, was the MLK sites and what you know how we're going to move forward on our rfp um so thanks |
| 02:29:55.13 | Councilmember Cox | Councilmember Sobieski, you have your hand raised? |
| 02:29:57.22 | Councilmember Sobieski | Yeah, thank you. I mean, if people are wondering how it is we ended up here, that's it in a nutshell, basically. It is that a series of choices were made by small groups to remove sites and add them that ended up with this choice of |
| 02:30:11.85 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:30:12.31 | Councilmember Sobieski | issuing this RFP. First measure K. And the choice was, I wrote it at the time, is if we didn't pass measure K, we were likely going to be in builder's remedy. So what kind of choice is that? So. passed. But now we're talking about what to build there. And the idea, of local control is one of the great virtues of a city on site. But if you're in a negotiating position and you can't say no, then you're not in much of a negotiating position. And if our back is against the wall, a builder. remedy. if we don't build, 50 units at MLK. then we don't have much say. If we had more capacity in the affordable category in general, then we would have more ability to negotiate with the RFP. with respondents. We might not need to build 50 entire units. Maybe we could build 35 at MLK. or 25. Only, of course, if we had other sites. And that's how it's relevant to this topic of what's in the RFP, both now, And of course, in a few months when the respondents come back to the RFP, these issues are still there. So, It is true, of course, that we can't dictate what's built on private land, but as we know, many Private developers want to build affordable housing to take advantage of state density bonus laws. So private property, as we have in our current housing element, often accounts for partially affordable housing towards our affordable housing buffer. So adding at plan B. backup plan for now and the future. that includes private property, will give us some negotiating leverage with potential respondents and in the future for our housing element if we start to fall short in the affordable category to avoid not being able to have any options. So, and of course, Council Member Cox, you know, you've talked about the Community Development Agreement and our Community Development Agreement ordinance needs updating. And if it was done in conjunction with a modification of ordinance 1022. then we would be able to, build or rezone sites like this Dry storage yard, not owned by Carlos. |
| 02:32:18.89 | Councilmember Cox | Give your post-it out, customers. to do the tally. |
| 02:32:23.09 | Councilmember Sobieski | Yeah, and this empty field. So we're building right up against our park. |
| 02:32:24.48 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you for your opinion. |
| 02:32:25.00 | Unknown | you |
| 02:32:27.60 | Councilmember Sobieski | And this empty field isn't. And it wasn't because of some, we didn't give voters a choice on this. We never gave them the choice of voting for this. We did this. when nobody was paying attention. Now people are, I've learned more about the housing element So has the community. I think it's time to prepare for the future. And by preparing for the future, we may give ourselves some options in the near term present. Thank you. And that's what seems like good governance to me. So I hope we can get around this idea Giving ourselves more options than latitude by giving some direction to staff in this regard. |
| 02:33:00.39 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. So I just before we continue, I'm happy to continue the conversation of how we direct staff, but I do want to finalize the direction we're giving on the RFP and take a vote on the direction for the RFP and then we can definitely return to your comments Council member Sobieski I appreciate that. And I do think we should discuss it. So just to review, And this is the direction we're giving staff. And then I'll ask someone to make a motion with this direction. We will. Add a mention of the school district's availability of site 73 into the site summary director Phipps. You can determine the best path to do that and note that we are in discussion and conversation with the school district. we will Remove on page four, there's mention of moderate and affordable housing. Keep it to just affordable housing on page five. We're going to keep the part about a protect accepting proposals from both sites per discussion on page six. Again, moderate income is mentioned. Keep it to affordable income on page eight, 32 foot height limit at corporation yard that should make. remain and there should be a mention of view analysis specifically and the same view analysis for the corporation yard that is being given to MLK. and preference for two stories should be added there as well. And on page 13 of the RFP remove the section, sorry, It's not page 13, but the remove the flexibility section, which is the affordability allocation section of the feasibility section of the RFP. And I believe that was Yes, page 13. So I believe that was all we had for the change. Director Phipps. Senior Housing. One second. |
| 02:34:32.52 | Brendan Phipps | I think. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I was gonna add a couple more that I heard |
| 02:34:34.24 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | THE END OF |
| 02:34:34.30 | Councilmember Cox | I'm not saying that. |
| 02:34:34.80 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:34:36.47 | Brendan Phipps | Oh, shoot. Excellent. Dr. Phipps. Excellent. So page four, there's a timeline clarification. I believe council member Cox called that out. |
| 02:34:46.16 | Councilmember Cox | Okay. 60 days. Yes. |
| 02:34:47.73 | Brendan Phipps | Yep, well, there is that, correct. And then the confirmation on the affordability, just wanna make sure we're very clear on that and where we're ending up with senior percentages. |
| 02:34:50.48 | Councilmember Cox | Correct. I'm not. |
| 02:35:01.87 | Mayor Woodside | When you say senior percentages, you're talking 80-20. |
| 02:35:04.89 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Yeah. |
| 02:35:05.04 | Mayor Woodside | Bye. Correct. To be clear. Okay. |
| 02:35:06.37 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. So we haven't all weighed in on that. I haven't heard what other people think. |
| 02:35:10.81 | Councilmember Cox | I think it's what's written in the RFP. So I, and I think the feedback we heard from the community was moved for the most part, move forward with what's in the RFP. And again, I mean, I am, very aware of what we said. And I have the language up actually from what we put in measure K, which said specifically 50 units of housing prioritizing Sausalito seniors. So I would like to be consistent with that and maintain what we promise to the voters as well. So I'm comfortable with the 80, 20, I'm I but again I haven't heard from Councilmember Sobieski or Councilmember Hoffman Councilman |
| 02:35:41.49 | Councilmember Sobieski | I certainly defer a great deal to the task force that looked at this, but the campaign was for affordable housing. I presumed it was 100% affordable. And so my inclination is |
| 02:35:52.76 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Right. We agreed on 100% affordable. It's now senior. |
| 02:35:53.69 | Councilmember Sobieski | I'm going to have a |
| 02:35:54.18 | Councilmember Cox | of course. |
| 02:35:54.45 | Councilmember Sobieski | Exactly. |
| 02:35:54.53 | Councilmember Cox | Right. |
| 02:35:54.67 | Councilmember Sobieski | Oh. |
| 02:35:54.92 | Councilmember Cox | It's now senior. Senior versus community. |
| 02:35:57.67 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | And right now, the RFP says a minimum of 70 and a maximum of 80. So I'd like to take out the maximum of 80 and keep it at a minimum of 80. So, |
| 02:36:09.91 | Unknown | The post is my destination. |
| 02:36:10.42 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | This is must designate a minimum of 80% of total units at each site as senior housing. That's what I'd like it to say. |
| 02:36:11.26 | Jill Hoffman | . |
| 02:36:16.96 | Jill Hoffman | Let me, can I weigh in on, let me. |
| 02:36:19.02 | Mayor Woodside | 80% at both sites? That's what I would propose. Okay. Well, I'm certain about it for MLK. I just haven't thought through what that might mean. |
| 02:36:20.78 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. That's what I would propose. |
| 02:36:24.17 | Councilmember Cox | Okay. |
| 02:36:24.24 | Jill Hoffman | But... |
| 02:36:24.29 | Councilmember Cox | Okay. |
| 02:36:24.50 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:36:24.54 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 02:36:27.58 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. |
| 02:36:27.59 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. |
| 02:36:27.63 | Babette McDougall | Okay. |
| 02:36:27.97 | Councilmember Cox | that might be for- Councilmember Hoffman? |
| 02:36:30.31 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, let me... Yeah, I'm... I'm leaning toward that for MLK. I mean, I can see that I think 80% of prioritizing Seeing your housing on me, I can see that. As a majority at it, and I can see 70%, I can see maybe 80% at MLK, but for both sites, I feel like that's a lot. Of course, affordable, yes. I'm totally, totally in for that. But if we're adding in teacher housing, if we're adding in absolutely work, like it's I'm thinking it's all workforce housing, right? So We talked a lot about, we have been talking a lot about the need for workforce housing down in everywhere across town, right? workforce housing for people that work in the city, workforce housing for people that work in the Miran ship, workforce housing for anybody who's in the income level. and you know for seniors right Lauren had just talked about people that you know had businesses in you know the bus barn so of course that would be seniors so that would be seniors but I'm just I just don't want to limit ourselves to just seniors at both locations I'm fine |
| 02:37:44.65 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | I'm fine with Katie at MLK and then something different at Corporate. |
| 02:37:48.83 | Mayor Woodside | Yeah, and I think what we should look back to and maybe Brandon, you can help us. What did we say in the housing element as to the corp yard, what it would be? |
| 02:37:56.90 | Brendan Phipps | With respect to a requirement for senior housing, we have not written that into the housing element. What we have written in is the affordability levels and the total number of units at 31. |
| 02:38:10.97 | Mayor Woodside | That might get us to perhaps workforce housing and other types of housing that we're hopeful also to include as we go forward. The question is where? So, um, |
| 02:38:21.70 | Jill Hoffman | Maybe it's, sorry, maybe, sorry, Stephen, I just, I totally interrupted you. Go ahead. |
| 02:38:25.60 | Mayor Woodside | Okay. |
| 02:38:25.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:38:27.41 | Jill Hoffman | No, no. Maybe it depends on the grants that we get. Like if we're going for grants for |
| 02:38:27.49 | Mayor Woodside | I don't know. |
| 02:38:33.11 | Jill Hoffman | housing and we get grants for senior housing to cover you know both sides then that's kind of done |
| 02:38:40.65 | Mayor Woodside | Yeah, I think we're leaving it to developers to propose, and then we'll have a chance to evaluate at that point what the mix is. |
| 02:38:47.83 | Jill Hoffman | Maybe that's it. |
| 02:38:48.58 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:38:48.68 | Mayor Woodside | make a decision that actually has meat on those bones. |
| 02:38:53.16 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | So it's fine with me if in the RFP we say 80% minimum at MLK. and then affordable at Corporation Yard with workforce and other housing encouraged. |
| 02:39:07.53 | Councilmember Cox | Okay. |
| 02:39:09.17 | Jill Hoffman | I think that's right. |
| 02:39:09.48 | Councilmember Cox | Is everyone okay with that? Yeah. Councilmember Sobieski. |
| 02:39:13.02 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:39:13.10 | Councilmember Cox | Okay. |
| 02:39:14.03 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | So are we prepared to make a motion? Can I make one other comment? So the schools both asked for participation as a stakeholder throughout the development process. There already is language. in there that says that the developer shall be responsible for meaningful community engagement throughout the development process including stakeholders and schools i'd like to emphasize that if that's okay. |
| 02:39:38.08 | Councilmember Cox | Yeah, I had thought that also perhaps in the direction to staff as we build the advisory council, we create a position for the school's liaison specifically. Yes. And we can say that in staff direction. So I would like that. Okay. |
| 02:39:50.35 | Jill Hoffman | Great. Because there are tenants, right? I mean, I think as tenants. Yes. Yes. |
| 02:39:53.06 | Councilmember Cox | Yeah. |
| 02:39:53.98 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | very valuable tenants. |
| 02:39:55.51 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 02:39:56.91 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | They are. OK. |
| 02:39:58.67 | Councilmember Cox | Yes, Director Phipps. |
| 02:40:00.98 | Brendan Phipps | Thanks, Mayor. Just want to be rigorous and make sure that I'm not missing anything here. Just want to make sure I did hear a discussion about identifying how we evaluate financial feasibility in a previous discussion, but that was not mentioned in this most recent summary. I want to confirm that that's something that we want to reflect as well. |
| 02:40:16.05 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | And so my suggestion was that we allow we leave that to director Phipps, that it start in house since he has that ability, but that we empower him to go. how to come back to hire an outside consultant if he thinks it's necessary. |
| 02:40:29.46 | Councilmember Cox | Could we give a budget amount if he does need that consultant because we are moving forward with new note of ensuring that we have budgeted for each of the items as we expend for them. So what do we want to do for a budget item? And what do you think do you need an external consultant? |
| 02:40:37.33 | Sarah Yatze | Yes. |
| 02:40:37.41 | Jan Johnson | Thank you. |
| 02:40:44.90 | Mayor Woodside | I don't think we should budget tonight. I think we should direct that that be incorporated in the budget deliberations that are right around the corner. |
| 02:40:50.24 | Councilmember Cox | around the corner. Great. Okay. Fantastic. |
| 02:40:53.22 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:40:53.27 | Councilmember Cox | Okay. |
| 02:40:53.56 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. Okay, so does someone want to... I'm just looking at what he asked us to tell. So 60-day response time we are aligned on. views saying, I think we, oh. Mandatory site visit and attendance at pre proposal meeting. That's something else he asked for direction on. I think that should stay. |
| 02:41:10.50 | Brendan Phipps | Yeah, at current, those are required elements. |
| 02:41:12.27 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Yes. Okay. And then my final point. |
| 02:41:15.85 | Brendan Phipps | And then my final point, and I don't mean to interrupt, on the one, the other, or both. I think that we decided that both is worth it. Both. Both. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:41:22.00 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Both. Both. Bye. Okay, I move Melissa's laundry list. |
| 02:41:31.14 | Mayor Woodside | I'll second it. |
| 02:41:32.19 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | you |
| 02:41:32.20 | Councilmember Cox | Okay, let's take a roll call vote, please, clerk. |
| 02:41:36.46 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Cox. Yes. Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 02:41:40.08 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 02:41:40.10 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 02:41:41.17 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Sobieski. Councilmember Sobieski? Yes. Vice Mayor Blavstein. |
| 02:41:48.86 | Councilmember Cox | Yes. |
| 02:41:49.32 | Walfred Solorzano | And Mary Welch said Yes |
| 02:41:51.34 | Councilmember Cox | Before we close this item that carried unanimously for the RFP, I do want to return to Councilmember Sobieski's comments and give some direction with regards to what we might do I just think it's worth having a conversation about forward thinking housing in general. I don't know if that means we want to agendize a deeper discussion here. I do know that we begin our new housing element. We'll start just next year would be when we would form our housing element advisory committee. Again, as I have said from the dais many times, I am, very much an advocate for housing. So I am more than happy to begin a conversation about where we might have possible sites. And also I know we are in the process of a visioning period for the Marin ship right now. So I'd like to see where that goes, but I definitely think that there were some critical comments made and also that we should be more focused on a big picture discussion about where housing can go so that when the new cycle starts we don't end up in the position that we're in now. |
| 02:42:46.64 | Mayor Woodside | I totally agree with that. I totally agree. It's hard to give direction now to hire and do an environmental analysis with the hope that we put something on the ballot. I have to tell you, the last environmental analysis was way overdue, had to be redone. |
| 02:42:48.12 | Councilmember Cox | I totally agree. |
| 02:43:02.62 | Mayor Woodside | And it's very expensive. Yeah, very expensive and put us up against the wall. And I don't want to look back and not learn from those mistakes. |
| 02:43:02.77 | Sarah Yatze | Amen. So, |
| 02:43:04.21 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | against |
| 02:43:04.63 | Sarah Yatze | Thank you. |
| 02:43:12.02 | Mayor Woodside | Thank you. |
| 02:43:12.04 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:43:12.05 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:43:12.16 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:43:12.26 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. So I think this is a discussion for future agenda items. It's not part of this discussion. And staff is already supposed to return to us with their feedback on our request for marineship visioning. |
| 02:43:24.03 | Councilmember Cox | I let's let council members. |
| 02:43:25.27 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | this month. |
| 02:43:26.55 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 02:43:26.57 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | I'm not sure. |
| 02:43:26.97 | Councilmember Cox | THE FAMILY IS |
| 02:43:27.14 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:43:27.21 | Councilmember Cox | WITH THE FAMILY. |
| 02:43:27.27 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | AND, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT |
| 02:43:27.53 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 02:43:27.97 | Councilmember Sobieski | Of course, it would have to be a separate agenda item. We often give direction, on matters that are related, you know, and we probably are straining surgery as patients talking about this item here, but it's giving direction about what we wanna see that's related and it's related because this RFP He's going to come back. and we don't have any alternative except to say yes, then it's not really, we don't have any negotiating positions. |
| 02:43:50.16 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | But this is so controversial. There are lots of community members who would want to weigh in on this discussion. That's why I haven't given them the opportunity. |
| 02:43:55.52 | Councilmember Sobieski | Yeah. |
| 02:43:55.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:43:56.30 | Councilmember Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 02:43:57.46 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | by noticing it as an agenda item. |
| 02:43:59.64 | Mayor Woodside | And I hate to disagree with you, Ian, but we do not have to say yes to anything. |
| 02:43:59.94 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:44:04.40 | Mayor Woodside | Is this? |
| 02:44:04.42 | Councilmember Sobieski | We're potentially face builders remedies. I'm just asking. If we say no for good. |
| 02:44:05.04 | Mayor Woodside | Yeah. |
| 02:44:08.52 | Mayor Woodside | We say no for good reasons and we're not saying them for reasons that are in violation of the law, we can say no. I don't want to prejudge anything at this point, but We are not automatically up against the wall. We'll have a chance to get the rebound and make one more effort is if you don't mind the sports analogy and I think Councilmember Cox is correct. Where we put housing will never be an easy task in this community or almost anywhere else in the Bay Area. And it deserves going fully. We asked and thank you, Ian, for suggesting last December. that we have a roadmap for how we go about planning and what's involved. And we need that roadmap, and we need to do it in public, completely in public. |
| 02:44:56.42 | Councilmember Sobieski | So I didn't get to finish my thought first Council Mayor Cox clarified my remarks and then the mayor added to them, both of which I appreciate very much. But again, my concern is that the RP, for instance, preferences two stories, what if we get an RP that has three? What if we have an RFP that's 34 feet instead of 32 feet? And the alternative of saying yes, If we say no to that, What if it's our third strike? and we, now face the choice of Builder's Remedy. If we want to create an alternative to that, we need to start on that. now or soonish. That's my point. If we only start on that alternative then, we won't then, indeed, as you say, Mary, we won't have time to finish it. It does take a while to develop these things because of all the rules and the laws and whatnot. what I was hoping is we should, the direction of staff is to create a plan B, a real plan B. if we wanna be able to say no to and responded to the RIP that we don't like. then we need to have an alternative plan. |
| 02:45:59.52 | Mayor Woodside | I agree. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't see that. show. |
| 02:46:06.81 | Jill Hoffman | So I think that the alternative, okay, so Ian's hypothetical, let's just keep it within, let's just keep it within the what's noticed tonight. |
| 02:46:08.58 | Sophia Collier | Yes. |
| 02:46:17.97 | Jill Hoffman | I think the... Thank you. Thank you. hypothetical response isn't that we pivot to another site that's not on our housing element. The response to the hypothetical is we adjust the RFP to what we can agree to. So we have three sites under program eight. We've now talked about the three sites. And so we're issuing an RFP We may not get the home run, Let's just talk. I'm going to talk baseball. You may not get a home run, but we may be able to adjust to a doubleheader. No, wait, that's two games. We made two, you know, two bases. Triple. Yeah. Okay. So we may, we would adjust down, we would adjust down somewhat. That's how we would respond. So- We may not get as many units as we thought we were going to get. That's how we would adjust down. So that's how we will respond. I can just say, |
| 02:47:18.77 | Mayor Woodside | I can just say, Jill, I appreciate your point of view on that, but when you say that's how we would adjust down, that's presuming something. We need to have that discussion in light of whatever comes before us at that time. And we need to be well prepared. I'm not against being well prepared, but simply giving staff direction to solve our problems is not going to work. to come back with what? A contract with a environmental analysis firm to analyze what? We've got so much to discuss about where. And there are three members on this council now who would building closer to Bridgeway, south of Harbor Drive, modifying 1022, if we could do it. The problem is we need to have that full discussion and set the groundwork so we can take those steps if we have a majority or a supermajority or maybe unanimous council to go forward. And I really appreciate the. input from the public help us because you have strong points of view about where housing could be located that would be less impactful on your community. And we need to hear that, and we need you to participate and help us get there. uh, We may not all agree at the end of the day, but we know we're gonna face another cycle sooner than later and we don't wanna be on the defense like last time because the results are frankly not very effective at producing housing. And have really impacted negatively many parts of our community. |
| 02:48:55.63 | Jill Hoffman | Well, I think that conversation is for the next housing cycle. not a reaction to something that might happen with these RFPs, which is what Councilmember Sobieski is trying to insert into this conversation with regard to this RFP. |
| 02:49:03.10 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:49:10.19 | Sergio Rudin | And council members, if I may, I think the council has acknowledged that those kinds of discussions are probably broader than the scope of this agenda item. Certainly any council member can request. |
| 02:49:11.15 | Jill Hoffman | I'm just... I'm going to. Thank you. |
| 02:49:21.51 | Sergio Rudin | time. a broader discussion on housing, substitute sites, development of the next housing element. And I agree with some of the comments of council members that planning for the next housing element is appropriate and should be done shortly. |
| 02:49:33.29 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you, city attorney written. So I think it's clear that we, I mean, I look forward to the Marin chip visioning feedback, and I think we do need to agenda as a conversation about how we. appropriately plan for the next housing element cycle. And that would include an assessment of all of our potential sites and a consideration of where we can and can't put housing and where we should and should not put housing. I, again, am very excited about all housing opportunity sites as you all know. So I welcome any sort of discussion about housing from the dais. So I think what we're hearing is that we need to agendize this and I wouldn't, I might be revolutionary and suggest we form our HEAC early this time and just start, start working on it. Um, But let's agenda is that let's talk. We can talk about it more specifically at future agenda items. But can I just ask director Phibs, where do we stand right now on the Marin ship visioning timeline so that we know when we might hear that from the dais? |
| 02:50:30.77 | Brendan Phipps | Yeah, thank you for the opportunity. I think it's... No mystery that I've been very focused and staff's been focused. Council's been focused as well. The community's been focused on making sure that we meet our HCD deadline and connection with this specific RFP release. So that being said, we've made some excellent progress with our 90-day roadmap request. I have a proposal from a very strong team of consultants that has come within the allocated budget for this item. I have, you know, all but essentially given the green light to proceed. We did have some budgetary discussions, which I'll just say was a slight hiccup, which kicked the can a little bit down the road, but I'm excited to pull the trigger on this. And again, I think that we have a great team and we're going to be able to deliver something positive to council. |
| 02:51:19.13 | Councilmember Cox | Does that mean in the next 60 days? I mean, it was supposed to come back to us in March. The Roadmap. So it sounds like you're engaging the consultants and they need it and they need a 30 day, 30 to 60 day runway to finish their support, their support. |
| 02:51:29.02 | Brendan Phipps | Thank you. |
| 02:51:34.62 | Brendan Phipps | I think that it is more accelerated than that. Okay. One of the elements that we have built in that I think is going to be helpful is |
| 02:51:39.00 | Councilmember Cox | Okay. |
| 02:51:43.45 | Brendan Phipps | a a working session with a council working group members and potential community members or planning commission members so that we can really start them off strong . I That may take some time to schedule, but we may be able to finish this in just a couple of weeks. |
| 02:51:59.78 | Councilmember Cox | Okay. I would encourage acceleration of that to the best of our ability so that we can properly agendize this item. And with that, I'm going to suggest that we move on to our next business items because we do have two more to hear. But I'm going to offer a break if we need a period of convenience, and we will resume at 8.05. Thank you so much to all of the members of the public and the council for this discussion. We'll be back at 8.05. |
| 02:52:19.63 | Sophia Collier | Bill. |
| 02:52:22.21 | Councilmember Cox | All right, we're gonna get started again. Do we have our Zoom? participants. guys. going to bring it back. I'm going to get started again. Okay. So we're going to begin. Thank you, council member Sobieski. I will note that it's probably 5 AM where council member Hoffman is. So thanks for hanging in with us. Item five B authorize the city manager and finance director use section 115 trust funds to smooth the peaks of unfunded accrued liability payments for the next 10 years to address budgetary challenges, starting with fiscal year 2026, 2027 through fiscal year 2035, 36 in Angeline Loffler, our finance director will get us started after we hear from our city manager, Chris Zapata. |
| 02:53:06.93 | Chris Zapata | Thank you, Mayor, members of the council and members of the public that are with us. This is important, but we will try to streamline this as much as possible. So it will be mostly myself speaking. So next slide, please. |
| 02:53:19.47 | Unknown | you |
| 02:53:21.63 | Chris Zapata | We are going to present two items tonight in the presentations, item 5B and 5C, so we don't have to jump back and forth between them because they're both related. So one of the overviews is coming straight from me. The second one is from our financial advisors, NHA advisors. And then we will get your direction on the smoothing policy, the affirmation of it. And then we will absolutely get your direction on the management of the funds if that's the direction you choose. Next slide, please. The story of our pensions is a 25-year story. Let me be very clear with you. What started out in the early 2000s is a retirement benefit, which was $300,000 to $400,000 per year. is now about $3.4 million of our budget. |
| 02:54:13.18 | Councilmember Cox | City Manager, just a moment. I just heard from Council Member Hoffman that she's not yet a panelist. She got disconnected and joined back. She's in, okay, great. Sorry, apologies. Go, please continue, City Manager. |
| 02:54:22.99 | Chris Zapata | So going back 25 years when you're pension payment was three or four hundred thousand dollars it's now three point four three point five million dollars so it's very serious it's about 15 of our general fund that goes out as we start every year but the good news is you know the city of sausalio has very wise people and foresight and they started to adjust this problem over 10 years ago they were one of the first persons to adopt the Section 115 trust, which is a specific program to address pension costs, other post-employment benefit costs. And when this was set up, there was a goal that was set up that when the day that we are getting close to got here, where pension costs started to rise in a way that would challenge, really challenge city budgets, that there would be $6 million to address this challenge. We are in that $6 million. Good faith efforts have been made to do that. We currently have a little over $4.4 million, not $4.3 million, in the 115 pension trust and another $2 plus million in the post-employment benefit fund. So you've been doing that so that when you got to this point in time in the pension cost, there would be that resource there for future councils to work on and. That's what we're trying to do today. set this up for future councils, future administrations. Next slide, please. So one good thing you've done is you've reconstituted the finance committee. That's Mayor Woodside and Councilmember Sobieski. They've been working with city staff and our consultant team of NHA advisors to look at the section 115 trust. And one of the things that we've advocated and they've listened to is to use the smoothing approach that was advocated for and decided to be a strategy in 2018. That was wise then it's wise now. So it's 2026 now. But the one thing that we didn't do was a prior council action a couple of years ago when we heard a presentation from PARS was to remove the money from PARS and allocate it to CalPERS. Because of some staffing changes, we were not able to do that, and I think that's going to work out in our favor when you see the presentation. So the smoothing process, the review of that tonight, the actual administration of the funds and who should do that, that's another item on the agenda tonight. And the Finance Committee has worked on both of those in the past couple of months, culminating last week with the meeting to review who might manage the funds if the smoothing policy is the approach the City Council affirms. Next slide, please. |
| 02:57:17.93 | Chris Zapata | So. That concludes my comments. I want to introduce how this is all going to play out. We're going to have NHA advisors and the principal, Craig Hill, to do the presentation on the pension and the smoothing recommendation. Then there's going to be a second item presented, which is related to the management of the funds, which is the Schuster Advisory Group. So with that, I'll turn it over to Craig. Craig, you're ready to go. |
| 02:57:39.12 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:57:39.14 | Councilmember Cox | fun. |
| 02:57:43.78 | Councilmember Cox | Just to clarify, after we hear from Craig, that will be the end of item 5B. Then we'll discuss and then I'll reintroduce 5C. |
| 02:57:51.56 | Kieran Culligan | You can. |
| 02:57:52.05 | Councilmember Cox | Okay. Fantastic. Yeah. Pardon me. |
| 02:57:55.97 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. |
| 02:57:57.67 | Craig Hill | Good evening. Good to see you all again. Yes, as the city manager mentioned, we've been working with staff over the last year to really along with the budget and forecasting work that we're doing for the city. Revisit the city's section 115 trust and how we might incorporate that into some of your budget strategies so. We've got a short presentation that I'm going to have Matt Phillips, who is in our pension group walk through. Um, it, We're happy to answer any questions once we get done, but again, this is at a big picture. What we're going to be talking about is with the funds that are in the trust, how to best potentially draw them down or apply them towards some of the obligations that you'll have, the payments you'll have with CalPERS. So with that, Matt, would you... I'd like to run through the slide. I think it's the other presentation. |
| 02:58:53.83 | Matt Phillips | Yes, yes, I'm going to share my screen now. And thanks, Craig, and good evening council members. Just give me one second while I pull up the correct file here. |
| 02:59:10.96 | Craig Hill | There you go. |
| 02:59:12.86 | Matt Phillips | Okay, everyone should be seeing today's discussion slide on their screen. |
| 02:59:20.19 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 02:59:20.36 | Matt Phillips | So we'll get right into it. City Manager touched on several of these points but What we'll just start with is the city, like many CalPERS agencies in California, has an unfunded accrued liability, also known as, we'll reference it as the UAL in this presentation. As of the most recent actuarial valuation, that amount is about $38 million. And over time, the city makes payments on that UAL. So there's an annual payment along with the city's normal costs that they make. So As the city manager was saying early 2000s that UAL payment was 400,000 it's been rapidly growing since then, and as of 2025 three and a half million projected to even grow higher. with up to $4 million in 2030. The city has been proactive with the section 115 trust being uh, one of the strategies that the city has implemented. The city was one of the earliest adopters of the Section 115 trust, and that's a trust restricted for pension related uses. And the trust balance currently sits at about $4.4 million. And we're just gonna talk in a few slides about how to strategically use that trust, talk about the smoothing approach that the city manager referenced. So there's several ways that the trust could be leveraged. We're really going to focus on the starred item here, the budget stabilizer, calling it smoothing the peak, too. So as you're going to see, the UAL payments, they've continued to grow. There is a peak of payments over the next several years. and the original intent with the trust was to when that peak occurred, smooth that peak out. And we'll talk a little bit about how that smoothing occurs. But there's different ways to use the trust. We're really focusing on this budget stabilizing approach. This is a continuation of strategies that we were analyzing last year's budget process. And we've had ongoing presentations and discussions with both staff and the finance committee related to this. |
| 03:01:41.05 | Councilmember Sobieski | Are you showing your screen? |
| 03:01:44.30 | Matt Phillips | I am. |
| 03:01:44.71 | Councilmember Sobieski | Thank you. I suddenly can't see it on Zoom, but... Can you see it, Jill? Yeah. |
| 03:01:49.03 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Yeah, we see it here in the boardroom. Chancellor Hoffman, do you see it? Thank you. |
| 03:01:54.04 | Councilmember Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 03:01:55.57 | Jill Hoffman | Are you, are your, how's your gallery set, Ian? |
| 03:01:58.98 | Councilmember Sobieski | Okay, I'll figure it out. If it's user, I'll figure it out. Thanks, sorry to interrupt. |
| 03:02:02.42 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:02:02.53 | Councilmember Sobieski | Yeah. THE FAMILY. |
| 03:02:03.77 | Matt Phillips | I'll figure it out. |
| 03:02:04.79 | Councilmember Sobieski | Okay. |
| 03:02:04.82 | Matt Phillips | Okay. |
| 03:02:05.18 | Unknown | Tech. |
| 03:02:07.28 | Matt Phillips | Okay, we'll keep it moving. So here's the example of how the smooth and its strategy could work. We'll take a look at the blue bars. Those are the projected UAL payments that the city would be making over the next 20 years. you can see that peak if you include the blue bars plus the shaded bars above the orange line which we'll talk about in a second you can see that peak over the next several years the orange line much more predictable stable payment over those several years and so the shaded portion above that orange line is where the 115 trust funds would be used so this would be the budget stabilization the the smoothing that we're talking about. So for all of those. is where the 115 trust funds would be used. So this would be the budget stabilization, the smoothing that we're talking about. So for all of those years where UAL payment is above the orange line, you're dipping into the trust funds, using those to absorb that peak and really stabilize the cost to the direct cost to the city. Um, you get the more predictable level annual payment. Um, One thing we really want to hit is the last bullet. and saying that the UAL is not a static uh, payment or amount. So depending on how CalPERS performs with their investments or any other actuarial assumptions that they make, the UAL is going to change. So this is just a snapshot in time based on the latest actuarial report. the UAL will be changing, and that's where there are advantages to... this 115 trust approach with stabilizing the budget and smoothing the peak is you know, making planning for 2027 and then doing some sort of annual evaluation to realize, based on changes to the UAL, how do we need to change that withdrawal from the trust to still implement the smoothing strategy, but those withdrawal amounts will differ depending on how CalPERS performs with their investments or any other changes that they make to their assumptions. And we can look at that in the next slide. So, There's... A lot of numbers on this screen, but at a high level, different investment scenarios we ran that assuming far left is status quo, current picture. Next one to the right is based on what we think the impacts could be from the 12.1% returns that CalPERS earned in 2025 And then just some sensitivity scenarios in the teal and purple with a 0% returns in 2027, negative 5% returns in 2027. what you will see is in the, three, the orange, blue, and teal. even though there's different return scenarios, the withdrawals still occur within 2027, fiscal year 2027 through fiscal year 2036. The amounts do differ though. Um, and if we just, even on that far right column with the purple, Uh, in that extreme scenario where CalPERS earns negative 5%, that's a little bit of a different withdrawal strategy, but again, you're That's the benefit of having this 115 trust and evaluating on a year by year of being able to be flexible. and adapt that strategy, both the amounts and the timing So, There is some sort of consistency of we think based on just the sensitivity. There's probably withdrawals between 2027 and 2036. And that's what we were seeing for smoothing the peak. Those amounts are going to differ based on CalPERS assumptions. But. that's the benefit of using this 115 trust. and the smoothing approach. |
| 03:06:03.20 | Matt Phillips | And last slide to wrap it up, Just to reiterate the, original intent with the trust was to smooth the peak, exhaust the trust to really cut off that peak in payments that was seen down before. Before we got to this point right now, we saw it coming. The plan was to smooth that peak and that budgetary predictability. This approach with the 115 trust really allows the city to do that. And part of that is also what will be the next item related to how the investments actually work within the 115 trust, maintaining local control of those investments and the investment strategy to align with that annual evaluation of what is the withdrawal amount, when do withdrawals need to occur. But ultimately it's an adaptive dynamic strategy. There's gonna be changing circumstances with the UAL, but both the strategy and the investment strategy should be aligned with that in an annual, some sort of annual or ongoing review will be part of that as well. So with that, I'll either turn it back to the city manager or open it up for questions and comments. |
| 03:07:17.89 | Craig Hill | Yeah, and I just... |
| 03:07:17.99 | Matt Phillips | and I- |
| 03:07:18.90 | Craig Hill | real quick, sorry. Just like to highlight that I think from a a practical perspective as Matt just laid out on the graph, what you're really doing is in looking forward over the next six or seven years, only needing to budget. for the pension payment of around three and a half million right that's the idea of drawing out of the trust to cover whatever that delta is between what calpers is asking for in that fiscal year you're doing long term budgeting. you know, assuming under our current analysis of approximately $3.4 million a year. So that's kind of the real application of this strategy is just to, Be able to and and that could you know we have cities who say well let's let's make it have a slight increase like we could handle that payment going up 5% a year versus flat. But that's really the number one objective of trying to use this trust now to, balance out the payments. |
| 03:08:24.16 | Councilmember Cox | Okay. Thank you very much. I'll bring it back, but I'm just going to ask one. A clarifying question. It seems like you're seeking direction for us to continue with the strategy that we have been enacting since 2020, correct? |
| 03:08:38.26 | Craig Hill | Well, I'll let this imagine your answer, but I think what we're looking to do is potentially implement the strategy where you would, starting in the next fiscal year, draw from the trust. |
| 03:08:45.06 | Councilmember Cox | Right. |
| 03:08:45.22 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:08:45.23 | Sarah Yatze | Thank you. |
| 03:08:49.77 | Craig Hill | as opposed to just making deposits to the trust. |
| 03:08:49.84 | Councilmember Cox | That's right. And that speaks to the second item more than this first item or. |
| 03:08:57.48 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. They're both related, vice mayor. And so just making sure that that's what you want to continue to do, because there was some conversation about, you know, the five different options that NHA showed at the first, paying down unfunded, the crude liability, growing it, doing nothing with it. So the bottom line is, is what you were talking about in 2018, 2019, 2020, we believe is accurate. And it's time. It's next year that you're going to start to figure out how to use those funds. And so affirming the smoothing policy is important. And then managing the funds is the second part of the presentation. |
| 03:08:59.27 | Councilmember Cox | Okay. |
| 03:09:35.52 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 03:09:35.54 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Councilmember Cox had a question. Thank you. So when we looked at our bell curve in 2018 and we adopted this smoothing. So the Council did adopt a smoothing strategy in 2018. which is different from what we're seeing tonight. The smoothing strategy in 2018 entailed continuing to contribute to the 115 trust for a longer period of time. rather than starting to draw it down and as the city manager mentioned, it also contemplated that we would have contributed more to it by now so that by now, we would have more in the 115 trust than we do. I understand that the challenges that have, prevented that from happening, but um, One of the. One of the concerns that we had when adopting the smoothing strategy in 2018 was the volatility of CalPERS Um, finances and the therefore unpredictability, as you mentioned this evening, gentlemen. of what the UAL will actually be and your table. on page seven of your presentation, points out the varying withdrawal schedule depending on CalPERS returns. And so my question to you. is why when we have the ability now to continue to mate. the 3.5 or 3.6 or 3.7 million dollar Um, payment. start to draw down on the trust now, particularly since your 2020, your 2020, your purple schedule indicates a zero withdrawal in fiscal years 26, 27, and 28 to hedge against a potential negative THE END OF So why is the recommendation to to do something different from what we agreed in 2018. would do Um, and what we, And why are you recommending that we start now to draw down on the on the 115 trust rather than continuing to hedge against the very volatile CalPERS rate of return. |
| 03:12:05.98 | Craig Hill | Yeah, that's actually a really great question. And it goes to the policy I think as part of your budget building process for 2627, What? you believe should be programmed into the budget. We are not suggesting that the strategy should require a draw in fiscal year 2627 unless you're trying to hold as is if you look at that the orange series right where we were intentionally trying to hold the budget number at 3.6 million. And we figured that at that level, Right. We could ride out the hump through 2036. Now, If Council and staff as part of the budget building process feel that There's capacity in the budget to handle you know, the 3.787 or 3.8 million that's anticipated to be the charge from CalPERS for the next fiscal year, then you're absolutely right. There's no need to draw down I think as Matt mentioned, should this strategy be implemented, It's kind of got two components to it. One is it has to be revisited every year to see what new assumptions or what new calculations are based off of CalPERS performance. It's also going to affect how the investment strategy inside of the 115 is going to work. And so that kind of plays to the second agenda item. where you're trying to marry up, What is our investment strategy for this trust while we aren't actually drawing you know, all or a portion of it out. So it's a three-dimensional chess game a little bit here, but we were just simply trying, as part of this exercise, working with staff, trying to come up with, kind of an impact analysis on what if we were to actually start drawing it down How. low could we make those projected payments potentially go or theoretically go? |
| 03:14:12.39 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | So if we can staff go back to the prior slide, slide six. |
| 03:14:16.81 | Chris Zapata | And while that's being discussed, I want to just be clear. We're not talking about starting withdrawing from the 115 trust this upcoming budget year. And today, |
| 03:14:25.74 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 03:14:25.85 | Chris Zapata | Sure. |
| 03:14:26.27 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:14:26.31 | Chris Zapata | Thank you. |
| 03:14:26.46 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:14:26.76 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | The charts on page seven all show zero for the upcoming year. They show withdrawals starting in 27. However, when you look at this chart and you look at the dashed blue lines, The dashed blue lines don't reach their zenith over 4 million until three years down the road. um, Our next item talks about a different investment strategy to help. You know, one of the beauties of a 115 trust is we get to invest it how we like, so long as we don't spend it for anything other than its intended purpose. And so why not allow... our proposed investment strategy, which we had wanted to undertake two years ago to enhance the body of the trust. Why not give that a couple of years to increase and actually start to use it when the UAL is projected to exceed 4 million. So why not continue to build on it, allow it to continue to grow, particularly under a better investment strategy, rather than just starting to draw down, not this year, but next year. That's my question of NHA. |
| 03:15:41.37 | Chris Zapata | Let me address that, Craig. You could. You absolutely could do that. You know, we took $3.5 million as a baseline. That's probably what the budget has gotten strained by, and that's what we could absorb anything over that. You've been saving this money for that purpose, so you could, you know, take $200,000, $300,000 of it and do it, or you could not. But, you know, that's going to be a factor of variables, and we all know that CalPERS does good and CalPERS does bad. And when they do bad, that number could be higher. When they do great, it could be lower. So you may not even need to, because last year they had a 12% rate of return on their investments. But when you did this in 2018 and 2019, my recollection was their rate of return was 7%, down from 8% in the early days. And- It was lower than that. Now it's 6.8%. Yeah. So, so what they need from the cities is usually predicated on what they don't have, and we have to fill in the gap, and that's the gap that we're projecting, and 3.5 million was seen. |
| 03:16:28.87 | Unknown | It was a good time. Yeah. |
| 03:16:43.20 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:16:43.62 | Chris Zapata | You know, that's a gift to the city for the next five years that you could budget, you know, in 2027, 2028, 29, all the way to 3034 and say, you know, we're not going to have any costs that are going to strain the budget over 3.5 million for pension costs because we would have the 115 trust to use at that time. But you could absolutely hold off on that. That's your call. |
| 03:17:05.14 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | So, and I want to ask just a couple of follow-up, and I see the mayor has questions too, but, you know, we are facing higher insurance costs for another year, after which they will drop. So that is part of what has caused some volatility for us is our requirement that we add. that we join PRISM and the initiation fee that we pay for three years as new members of PRISM, that's gonna drop off our balance books. When we did these projections in 2018, we were looking at 6% rate of return on CalPERS because they were projecting you know, Warren Buffett like returns, but they weren't realizing those returns. And so... My question really is, we have a 25% reserve We have some of the higher expenses in our budget expected to drop off in the next couple of years. Why not? And we still have unassigned fund balance. each year. And so why not plan, hope for the best, but plan for the worst. Why not delay? drawing down that 115 trust until we absolutely have to when it jumps over the 4 million mark. So that's just, given the track record of volatility of calipers, given the really challenging financial times and the challenging worldwide situation we find ourselves in now, Why draw down our rainy day fund until we absolutely have to? So that's the question. and why I'm questioning the recommendations. |
| 03:18:45.78 | Mayor Woodside | I think I'm not going to answer the question other than the comment, because I think this is appropriate. This is sort of a predicted path, making an assumption about volatility. I think what you're saying is be cautious, be careful. Don't start smoothing. It could get worse, and I'm assuming since we don't know the answer, but to start now and to say how much can we afford out of the general fund is another way of looking at it. So I think this is going to come up, unless I'm wrong, each and every budget cycle. We're going to decide how much money to put in, how much to take from the trust. And if you're right, if we have a better return on investments, not just with this trust fund, but with other things, we might be able to look at it differently and retain that rainy day fund for the hopefully not to surpass if the stock market really dove and CalPERS cost went way up. I think that's what I'm hearing you say. |
| 03:19:53.04 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Yeah. And, you know, I see that we're not going to do anything that each of the projections on slides on the show. |
| 03:20:00.18 | Councilmember Sobieski | Are we asking questions or are we having discussion? |
| 03:20:03.74 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | I'm asking questions. I'm asking why the strategy... |
| 03:20:06.34 | Councilmember Sobieski | history. |
| 03:20:07.81 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | I haven't got an answer yet. So I'm asking why. This is showing that in fiscal year 2027, we're going to start drawing down on the trust. My question is, why not wait until fiscal year 2029 when the projected expense greatly exceeds $4 million? |
| 03:20:35.23 | Chris Zapata | I can answer that question, please. Again, you can, but the purpose of saving this money was start to address the hump. And if you want to address it at the onset or you want to address it early on or at the middle when you think it's at a point where it's a problem. But I really believe if you accrue the money, if you do the math, Craig, you can do the math for me on all four of the shaded blue and what that amount is. I don't know that that's $4.3 million, but I've always said to the folks I work for, including this council, that the city has done a great job, you know, planning for the future. And I have not had the concern about the pensions as I've had with other things like infrastructure and deferred maintenance as I've had with the pension because you've put this in place and you have money. And this will, in fact, allow you to predict your budget for the next five years easily and say, you know, we're going to spend 3.5 million on pension and no more. But if you say we're not going to spend or we're going to spend our general fund or some revenue stream that is outside of the pensions to make up 200,000 or 300,000 or 400,000, you certainly can do that. But that's not really what this is about in my mind. It's you have the money, you've saved it for a good reason. You're at the doorstep of that reason. And so you need to figure out if, in fact, 3.5 million is your ceiling. If you're saying it's 3.7 million. |
| 03:20:35.28 | Adrian Brinton | I can answer that. |
| 03:20:36.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:20:36.09 | Adrian Brinton | SHELBY TRAVERS. |
| 03:20:36.28 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:20:36.33 | Adrian Brinton | Exactly. |
| 03:22:00.18 | Chris Zapata | then OK. |
| 03:22:01.61 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | I'm saying in 2018, we said it was four. In 2018, we did not plan to start drawing down our 115 trust until our pension obligation exceeded 4 million. |
| 03:22:14.27 | Chris Zapata | Yeah. Okay. Well, that's what you're sticking to, and that's your policy direction. |
| 03:22:18.91 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | No, this is a question for the council. I wanted to know why staff? So one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. There's already eight years at which it will be over 4 million. Why are we now extending our smoothing to 10 years, reducing our ability to smooth rather than focusing on the eight years when it's particularly high? Again, especially because of the volatility. That's just my question. and that the council has to consider. |
| 03:22:49.49 | Councilmember Cox | Okay. Do we have any further questions from the dais? Obviously that's something we'll discuss together as we go ahead and conversation did council members Sobieski or Hoffman have any questions? Okay, I'm taking the lack of hand raise as a no. So I'm going to go ahead and open it up now to public comment. Again, we are on item 5B and we'll move to 5C after. We discussed this per Councilmember Cox's questions. See you then. Okay, there is no public comment, so I will close it and bring it back up to the dais. And I think that council member Sobieski He would like to get us started. He has his hand raised. So please. |
| 03:23:24.92 | Councilmember Sobieski | Thanks. It's actually a question for my colleague Cox. Remember Cox, I'm just curious if you happened perchance to watch the Finance Committee meeting on the tape as you are. |
| 03:23:31.51 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | So I can't hear, maybe it's the fan. I can't hear so be, Thank you. |
| 03:23:35.10 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 03:23:35.12 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Councilmember Sobieski. |
| 03:23:35.14 | Councilmember Cox | COUNSELOR. Did you watch the Finance Committee meeting? |
| 03:23:38.58 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | I did not watch the finance committee meeting. |
| 03:23:40.40 | Councilmember Sobieski | you Yeah. |
| 03:23:40.85 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 03:23:40.87 | Councilmember Sobieski | I usually you often do I don't know where you find the time but you often watch a lot of these |
| 03:23:45.21 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | It was a special meeting and I wasn't able to change my schedule to attend. |
| 03:23:48.68 | Councilmember Sobieski | That's good. That's fine. you know, I wouldn't if I wasn't on the committee. But you often do, and former Mayor Withey was there, who I know you've worked with, in setting the trust for them. So your recollection of what the ground rule was for when to use a trust and his, I think Differ Unfortunately, he's not here to to provide that reconcile those distinctions. But he was in attendance at the meeting and and when this was all discussed and where the Finance Committee made the recommendations that you see here in this staff report. |
| 03:24:24.02 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. And everybody knows I greatly respect Mayor Withy. But if I were I'll just since we are discussing this now, I will say it were I to be the mayor this year, as I was in 2018 when we first adopted the smoothing strategy. I would. started in 2029 when fiscal year 2029, which starts in 2028. when this goes above 4 million. So that's just how I would plan it because we do have the wherewithal to bear a $200,000 variance if that occurs. If CalPERS does 12% again, then this chart will change. |
| 03:25:02.82 | Councilmember Sobieski | So if I might just comment, The sacrifice you make for doing that is that you're not paying in 20... You can see this chart here, right? the hatched marks in 27 and 28. come out of what we pay our librarians or civic events or other kinds of investments in our town And what you might very well have happened, other side of the risk is that you end up having too much money in the trust and that you actually You know, you're benefiting the years 2037, 38, and 39. So it is about balance for sure. uh, What you have here is a proposal from staff the finance full-time paid staff that we have. to have a predictable balance of payments so that for future forecasting, of just north of three and a half million dollars a year. |
| 03:25:58.52 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | I'm not. |
| 03:25:59.13 | Councilmember Sobieski | PROPOSED. |
| 03:25:59.58 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | It is predictable unless... you have the purple scenario. I mean, the purple scenario models what I'm recommending, which is no withdrawals for the next three years so that we are hedging against a negative return. |
| 03:26:17.54 | Councilmember Sobieski | There's an article in the Wall Street Journal today about some towns here in Wyoming that have accumulated gold and they're keeping it in warehouses. So, you know, there are of course, Edge cases. is strategies. And so, you know, there's no, you can't, predict the future. But you had the pressients to set this trust up the previous councils for the purpose of smoothing this out. |
| 03:26:41.94 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. And listen, I'm the child of parents who lived through the Depression as one of the older people on the council. And so probably my... |
| 03:26:43.21 | Councilmember Sobieski | Bye. |
| 03:26:53.08 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Um, tolerance for risk and my investment strategy is influenced by that, admittedly. |
| 03:27:00.92 | Councilmember Sobieski | I mean, you gotta bear in mind that, and we'll talk about it the next thing too, if you If we adopt this policy and we plan to exhaust the funds over 10 years, you can make very sort of deterministic investments with that certainty that you're going to exhaust a fund over 10 years. and you have relatively less volatility risk. aren't sure what your time horizon is, if it's more than 10 years, if it's 15, if it's 20, well now you're gonna be compelled to invest in different kinds of instruments. which have more volatility, actually. That can work out well. Things go a certain direction. not work out so well if things go in another direction. I'm not sure. There's no free lunch, for sure. |
| 03:27:45.68 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Can we agree that our strategy is to keep the 115 Trust intact you know, if you go back to slide, there were different potential options for leveraging the 115 Trust. Can we... all agree that we are using it as a budget stabilizer and we're just not yet aligned on how best to use it as a stabilizer. |
| 03:28:10.25 | Mayor Woodside | I think that's well put because I think we are, and I would look at it from a slightly different point of view. When you go to the 3.5, I think we're also trying to model. how much revenue will be available going forward so we can plan for such things as infrastructure and other things that we |
| 03:28:22.62 | Sarah Yatze | We can. |
| 03:28:26.58 | Mayor Woodside | We don't have a whole lot of money. In fact, we're very tight when it comes to those things. It's kind of two sides of the coin, hedging against risk in the pension area, but then also being able to spend |
| 03:28:41.28 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Having confidence in cash flow. |
| 03:28:43.07 | Mayor Woodside | in cash flow and also being able to achieve things in every year. I mean, this the last two years we spent more on infrastructure. And it's showing. |
| 03:28:51.74 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:28:51.78 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:28:51.98 | Mayor Woodside | and we're way behind in certain areas, and we know that. This may not be the most relevant factor as we go forward for those types of things, but I think it's gonna be that kind of judgment every budget year. How much do we draw down? But I think they're projecting you know, it's going to be used over a period, that kind of a period of time. |
| 03:29:13.29 | Councilmember Cox | Is there a path where we can reassess after the first year and if we need to make changes accordingly to shift our peak smoothing strategy so that we can find a middle ground? Because I have immense respect for the Finance Committee and their recommendation and partnership with the city manager, so I'd like to see it through. But I also recognize the legitimate concerns of Councilmember Cox with regards to the period of time and the expectations and also |
| 03:29:19.77 | Babette McDougall | Bye. |
| 03:29:19.79 | Mayor Woodside | . |
| 03:29:19.87 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. |
| 03:29:36.78 | Councilmember Cox | being familiar with the volatilities of CalPERS and some of their, with regards to investment predictions. So I would recommend, and I haven't heard from Council Member Hoffman at all, I don't know if she wanted to weigh in, But my recommendation would be that we accept this proposal from the city manager and the finance committee with the caveat that after the first year, we review investment status and determine if this path is still the best path forward, especially after we complete our budgeting process. |
| 03:30:06.99 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | I'm totally fine with that. Every single scenario on slide seven shows zero in fiscal year 26 and shows the first potential withdrawal. in fiscal year 27, so I am fine with that. Great. |
| 03:30:21.20 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 03:30:21.32 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Councilmember Hoffman, did you have anything you wanted to say? |
| 03:30:22.97 | Councilmember Cox | to add |
| 03:30:23.88 | Jill Hoffman | I'm happy to weigh in. I mean, the problem is just the volatility, right? And one of the things that I actually talked to Chris about, more forward leaning on the volatility is if we have a really great year on the returns. Do we want to do something even more aggressive, which is maybe even pay off in a lump sum more of our unfunded liability? But I hesitated to even bring that up because it was such an aggressive move. And it only happens if you have a very good return. And we actually talked about it the first year that Chris even came on board because we had an incredibly great year with Without stock might return and had we been positioned with ready to pull the trigger on something like that we would have saved millions of dollars in our paying back our unfunded liability but we weren't ready to go. So now, and the issues that Councilmember Cox brought up, I do remember, obviously, when we formed the Pension Trust Fund, we were forward leaning when we did that. And it turns out it was a good thing that we did that. But now how to use the fund, it was underfunded, frankly, a couple of years without the knowledge of the council, even though we had given direction to do it, for whatever reason, for a couple of years, it wasn't funded in the way that we had directed. Here we are. So there's pluses and minuses to how to approach it. And I'm happy to see where we are in 2027, I think, because we're not going to fund it in 2026, obviously, or not use it in 2026. So 2027, we'll see where we are and what the, you know. where the returns are, I think. |
| 03:32:16.89 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | So then I'm going to make a motion that we authorize the city manager and finance director to use section 115 trust funds to smooth the peaks of unfunded accrued liabilities payments for the next 10 years to address budgetary challenges. starting fiscal year 2026 to 27 through, sorry, starting fiscal year 2027 to 2028. You're 20. Exactly. with the proviso that staff returns to us at the commencement of fiscal year 2027 to 2028 to identify how much we to confirm that we can want to continue this 3.5 million smoothing strategy. |
| 03:33:04.73 | Mayor Woodside | I'll second that. |
| 03:33:06.07 | Councilmember Cox | Okay, City Clerk, will you please call the roll? |
| 03:33:09.64 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Cox. |
| 03:33:10.76 | Councilmember Cox | Yes. |
| 03:33:11.08 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 03:33:13.48 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 03:33:14.76 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Sabieski. |
| 03:33:16.19 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 03:33:17.52 | Walfred Solorzano | Vice Mayor Blaustein |
| 03:33:19.90 | Councilmember Cox | Yes. |
| 03:33:20.33 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Thank you. And Mayor Woodside. |
| 03:33:22.10 | Councilmember Cox | That motion carries unanimously, and now we'll move on to a similar item, a continuation of the discussion with item 5C, which is to authorize the city manager to execute agreements to transfer administration of the city's Section 115 trust for OPEB and pension stabilization to Schuster Advisory Group, LLC, and to transfer the trust's assets to Charles Schwab Trust Bank, and to name Alta Trust Company as directed trustee, Resend February 4th, 2025 council action directing transfer of funds from public agency retirement services, otherwise known as PARS to the CERBT and CEPPT programs operated by CalPERS. |
| 03:33:50.03 | Councilmember Sobieski | going |
| 03:33:55.29 | Councilmember Sobieski | Vice Mayor, did we take public comment on that last item? |
| 03:33:58.19 | Councilmember Cox | Yes, there was no public comment. |
| 03:34:01.91 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Yes, we did. I can't believe that something this important, we had zero members of the public. Perhaps they |
| 03:34:06.63 | Councilmember Cox | Perhaps they will weigh in now on item 5C. Okay. So do we have a presentation for item five C city manager? |
| 03:34:13.84 | Chris Zapata | Yeah, I'll go quick. And thank you for the last item. That was important. You read the mouthful of what we're recommending. The Finance Committee did some hard work to look at who could manage our funds. If you, in fact, choose a smoothing policy, it's really important that you have someone to manage those funds over the next five, 10 years. So they interviewed, reviewed a couple of providers outside of CalPERS. and one of them was Keenan, but they interviewed Schuster last Tuesday. Mr. Schuster is here. He'll provide a little presentation on his firm and what they do, and the recommendation from the Finance Committee was to hire them quickly, but this is a council decision, not solely a finance committee decision. |
| 03:35:01.68 | Mark Schuster | Thank you city manager this is Mark Schuster a pleasure to meet you all we also have Sarah Yatze on this call and I am the principal at Schuster advisory group and we presented to the committee last week our 115 trust and the the capabilities. First and foremost wanted to share a little of our our background and the cities and towns that we represent. We work, fortunately, with over 120 agencies in the state of California, both Northern California, Central California, and Southern California, working with them as a fiduciary and an investment consultant to their portfolios. What we bring to the table and have brought for the last five years to government is a very open architecture, flexible portfolio and fee and transparency design that is very unique to government, utilizing both Schwab and open architecture, but most importantly, customizing every portfolio to the city, town or agency to their desire, whether you reduce your portfolio over the next 10 years or keep it for the next 70 years. Our job is to design this to your goals, your needs. You will have a customized investment policy statement. You'll have a customized trustee for who you are and what you're trying to achieve. And of course, we will go out at that point and meet those objectives, whether you're conservative, moderate, or aggressive. |
| 03:36:51.48 | Mark Schuster | to share with you our fee structure. very inexpensive. We went over this in detail with the Finance Committee, sharing with you the broken down and fully transparent fees of both the administration. Those administrative fees get capped, as do the trust fees get capped. One basis point, And to put it into perspective, 1% equals 100 basis points. So this is one one-hundredth of a percent. And then our fiduciary services at 19 basis points, all in at 25 basis points for the fully customizable portfolio for the city. |
| 03:37:37.20 | Mark Schuster | I'm going to share with you now some investment performance over a period of time on a one, three and five year basis, going back in different allocations and investments. Sorry for the small print, but You know, to give you an example on a very conservative portfolio of 37, 30, 70 last year, it was a 12.9% rate of return and a 70, 30, which is what CalPERS invest your defined benefit plans at was an 18% rate of return through the calendar year. And so our portfolios are utilized extremely low cost, wholesale ETFs, funds, and managers. And of course, as you can see with our platform, it's very inexpensive. |
| 03:38:30.35 | Mark Schuster | Any questions? |
| 03:38:33.27 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Councilmember Cox. Thank you. First of all, just for the benefit of members of the public, I wanted to confirm You are recommending Well, first of all, I wanted to know the relationship between Schuster and Alta Trust Company. So the staff recommendation is to hire Schuster as the administrator and Alta Trust Company as the directed trustee. What is the relationship between Schuster and Alta Trust? |
| 03:39:01.01 | Mark Schuster | They are simply an independent trust company utilized significantly by Charles Schwab. and company. |
| 03:39:08.59 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | And then I just want to confirm for the public that the difference between a directed trustee and a discretionary trustee is that the directed trustee takes Direction. from, principles such as the city as opposed to a discretionary that we have to do with the make their own decisions regarding the Um, the management of the investments. |
| 03:39:41.40 | Mark Schuster | The management of the investment policy statement and inevitably the assets, but that is a correct statement. |
| 03:39:50.48 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | And so by HIRING ALTA TRUST AS A DIRECTED TRUSTEE, WE ARE Um, we are essentially hiring a custodian or a vault guard as opposed to, um, that will still carry out our direction regarding management of our assets. |
| 03:40:13.73 | Mark Schuster | Yeah, and the answer is yes, but let me clarify. The custodian is Charles Schwab. The directed trustee is Alta Trust. We are your fiduciary taking the direction when building the investment policy statement moderately, conservatively, whatever we decide to do, then we execute that. Alta Trust then confirms that direction with the investment policy and the investments that are then custodied at Charles Schwab. |
| 03:40:45.34 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | And the beauty of a 115 trust is that it can be invested more aggressively, should we so choose, to achieve higher returns, unlike our general fund or other funds. |
| 03:40:59.14 | Mark Schuster | Correct. Section 53601 of the code monitors your general account assets, as you're very aware. 115 trusts do not have any restrictions whatsoever. And you could be, again, as conservative or aggressive as you choose to be. |
| 03:41:18.34 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 03:41:18.97 | Councilmember Cox | that clarification. Okay, Mayor Woodside has a question. |
| 03:41:24.81 | Mayor Woodside | Well, I just wanted to point out that I think, if I'm correct, the slide that you actually manage about $10 billion worth of public funds. Is that correct? |
| 03:41:36.10 | Mark Schuster | The majority of them are public funds. We also do work in the private sector for both private and publicly held hospital work. But today, the government business is clearly the fastest growing business by offering these different types of services that government has not seen in the past. |
| 03:41:58.61 | Mayor Woodside | Okay. your rates are really quite remarkably low compared to other comparably funded funds that are managed, let's say, by CalTrust or LEIF or some of the other places where local governments park their money. |
| 03:42:15.48 | Mark Schuster | We have built a very low cost system to simply reduce any margins and pass those dollars on to the agencies that we represent. Thank you. |
| 03:42:28.31 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | And can I ask one more question? I am just assuming, of course, that you are registered with the SEC or the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation? |
| 03:42:39.23 | Stacey Nemo | We are. |
| 03:42:42.72 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 03:42:42.74 | Councilmember Cox | Councilmember Sobieski or yes, Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 03:42:47.88 | Jill Hoffman | Thanks, Mark, for that presentation. Can you give us some examples of some other towns of comparable size or comparable nature? to the soft spot that you've managed. |
| 03:42:58.67 | Mark Schuster | Yeah. I mean, we do the word for Moraga and Lafayette. We do the word for Beverly Hills and Palos Verdes. Um, We do the work for, you know, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ontario, very large cities. It's really across the board. And we treat all assets as important, whether they're small assets or in the billions. And so our strategies go across all levels, including, you know, as you can see, some of the agencies, which are some of the largest agencies in the United States. |
| 03:43:35.93 | Jill Hoffman | And how long have you been How long have you been in this sector of managing public agencies? |
| 03:43:42.00 | Mark Schuster | We've been in our first city, I think, we brought on in 2015 after identifying the lack of quality platforms low fee and candidly sophisticated investment strategies that government was not, um, did not have available to them. |
| 03:44:06.45 | Jill Hoffman | And so I'm looking at page two of the staff report of the fees, the difference between the administrative costs for PARS and Schuster. And it looks to me like you guys are about half of the administrative costs. Is that about 60% of PARS and less than half? You're about 0.25%. you |
| 03:44:26.85 | Mark Schuster | That is correct. |
| 03:44:26.87 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. All right. Okay. cost savings. It looks like that's the main one. At least that's the one that's called out in the staff report. Are there any other cost savings other than the administrative cost savings? |
| 03:44:45.57 | Mark Schuster | Yeah, I mean, inevitably, when you look at the difference between PARS and CalPERS, PARS uses mutual funds, so you probably will realistically see a reduction in expense ratios. For our equities, we primarily only use low-cost ETFs. When it comes to bonds, we do take advantage of the elite bond managers in the world and active bond management, which will typically outperform ETFs and our index bond management. CalPERS is very unique in that they only offer three and two strategies and only offer State Street index funds. There is very little flexibility, very low cost, but very little flexibility or customization. Again, your portfolio will be fully customized, as I shared with the Finance Committee several years ago. In fact, it was in 2022 during the Silicon Valley collapse. We were implementing an investment policy statement with a city in Northern California. And there was a great fear. And at the time we suggested to buy US treasuries. And one of the council members said, I thought we couldn't do that. Well, with our platform you can you can customize this to who you are and what the current scenario is and just based upon the discussion I've heard for the last 45 minutes I think there will be a lot of flexibility and different decisions over the year based upon clearly some of the performance of not only the city but of CalPERS. |
| 03:46:18.64 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thanks so much. Appreciate that explanation. |
| 03:46:21.82 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | I had a couple of Go ahead, Councilmember Cawthorne. If we take if we adopt the city staff recommendation to execute to transfer administration what is the timing of the transfer? And when would we be a... when would we be presented with a proposed investment plan from Schuster? |
| 03:46:48.11 | Mark Schuster | Okay, I'm gonna let Sarah, somebody far greater in telling you how the money moves because it is difference between CalPERS and PARS. I'll let her share that, but I will share with you right up front, as soon as you're ready to get started on an investment policy, we do a deep dive into Clearly, all of the analytics that are available in the industry and long term projections of performance in all investment sectors that were candidly mentioned by some of your council. Individuals earlier and we do a deep dive until we come up with a solution and that can start as soon as you're ready. I'll let Sarah share with you the timing of monies being transferred. |
| 03:47:36.80 | Sarah Yatze | Great. Thank you, Mark. The transfer itself can run parallel with the process that Mark described, finalizing the investment policy. And the timing really is dependent on the transfer requirements from PARS. That notice requirement is a 30-day notice, and then assets are able to transfer at the end of a month. Um, so with that, it usually is, you know, 30 to 60 day. process purely just based on the transfer requirements, but the actual account setup is usually a week or two. So we handle that process as far as getting all of the paperwork ready. Everything pre-filled, ready for signature, work with Schwab to get the account set up. And then it's simply waiting for the assets to transfer over. And in the meantime, we're finalizing that policy so that it's ready to invest once the dollars hit. |
| 03:48:45.18 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Um, and so with the plan B to come back to us within that 30 to 60 day period with a proposed investment strategy. |
| 03:48:54.37 | Mark Schuster | Yes. |
| 03:48:55.79 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Okay. And then I just wanted to cover the competitive procurement requirements of public agencies. So Um, the, Um, Government Finance Officers Association recommends... a competitive and merit-based procurement process when hiring Um, A financial when a city hires a financial advisor, I know that the Finance Committee looked at the performance of CalPERS and PARS and Schuster in coming to us with this recommendation, did you consider any other private firms. Mr. City Manager. |
| 03:49:34.52 | Chris Zapata | Kenan. Kenan. |
| 03:49:35.36 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Kenan. Thank you. OK. All right, those were my questions. Thank you. Thank you for this very thorough presentation. |
| 03:49:42.72 | Councilmember Cox | I see that Councilmember Hoffman has her hand raised. |
| 03:49:46.91 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you for this implementation slide. Is the reverse process also true? So if the council decides to go, we want to make a reverse decision or go with somebody else. Is there any penalty or anything if we want to go with a different investment firm or anything like that? |
| 03:50:14.29 | Mark Schuster | Absolutely not. If we don't deliver, fire us. |
| 03:50:17.32 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, well, excellent. Thank you. I didn't mean excellent that we would fire you. I just meant |
| 03:50:23.93 | Mark Schuster | No, no, I look at we are at will and our job is to execute what your strategy is and to bring you best of class. |
| 03:50:25.45 | Jill Hoffman | We're at |
| 03:50:37.53 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. |
| 03:50:37.55 | Mark Schuster | Okay? And I will share, we've done this for 10 years and we've retained 100% of every city and agency and town in the state of California. |
| 03:50:48.84 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | That's a really great record. That is truly a testament. |
| 03:50:49.07 | Councilmember Cox | THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. Absolutely. Okay. I am now going to open it up for a public comment. |
| 03:50:57.65 | Walfred Solorzano | Seeing that, sorry, Sandra Bushmaker. |
| 03:51:01.04 | Councilmember Cox | Okay. Good. at least one public comment on this very |
| 03:51:05.04 | Sandra Bushmaker | important item. Hi, Sandra. Welcome back. |
| 03:51:06.86 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:51:07.60 | Sandra Bushmaker | I couldn't let this go by with that one comment. When I left the council in in 2002, our unfunded pension liability was 300,000. And so it was up to subsequent councils. to, to do something about it. And I was very disappointed to see over the years that it was not addressed aggressively. So I'm very happy to see at 38 million or 39 million, whatever it is now, that we're really getting on top of this. Because if we don't, we're going to drown. And so I do want you to know that there are a few of us out here in the ethers that are watching this and that have had some experience. with it when it was a baby debt. And we didn't address it at the time. subsequent to my time on the council, And I'm happy to see that we're having to go to these lengths to address it now. So thank you. Thank you, Sandra. |
| 03:52:08.12 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 03:52:08.83 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 03:52:08.84 | Councilmember Cox | Any further public comment? |
| 03:52:10.41 | Walfred Solorzano | No further public comment. |
| 03:52:11.76 | Councilmember Cox | Okay, I'll bring it back to the dais. Councilmember Cox, you look eager. |
| 03:52:15.03 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | to get us started. Yes, so I'm actually going to go reverse order. I'm going to move first that we rescind the February 4, 2025 Council action directing transfer of funds from the public agency retirement services, PARS, to the CERBT and CEPPT programs operated by CalPERS. Second. |
| 03:52:36.36 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Cox. |
| 03:52:37.61 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Yes. |
| 03:52:38.02 | Walfred Solorzano | Mayor Mrakas- Councilmember Huffman. |
| 03:52:40.48 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | you |
| 03:52:40.50 | Babette McDougall | Yes. |
| 03:52:40.80 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 03:52:41.83 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Sobieski. Yes. Vice Mayor Blavstein. Thank you. |
| 03:52:45.63 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Yes. |
| 03:52:45.95 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. And in Mayor West Side. Yes. |
| 03:52:47.64 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. I move. And I first, I also do want to thank the Finance Committee for their hard work and the city manager in putting all of this together and bringing this to us. It's really comprehensive. And I'm very appreciative. I move we authorize the city manager to execute agreements to transfer administration of the city section 115 trust for open and pension stabilization to Schuster advisory group LLC and to transfer the trust assets to Charles Schwab trust bank and to name out a trust company as directed trustee. Second. |
| 03:53:22.91 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Cox? Yes. Council member Hoffman. |
| 03:53:27.55 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 03:53:28.86 | Walfred Solorzano | Sorry, Councilmember Hoffman? |
| 03:53:30.48 | Jill Hoffman | She said, Oh, yes. |
| 03:53:31.53 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Sobieski. |
| 03:53:33.03 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 03:53:34.85 | Walfred Solorzano | Uh, Mayor, Vice Mayor Blostein? Yes. Mayor Will Tide? Yes. Yes. |
| 03:53:40.34 | Councilmember Cox | That motion, is that it? Do we have another one? We do go through them all? Okay. The motions carry unanimously. Thank you very much to the finance team and the... |
| 03:53:49.43 | Chris Zapata | Mayor, if I can, Vice Mayor, if I can, I'd like to make sure that we don't miss the opportunity to thank our new finance director, Angeline Loeffler, and certainly our advisors, NHA advisors, Craig and his team, but also the city councils from 2015 and the administration from 2015 up that set up the 115 trust so that you could find someone to manage it. And I'm really happy that you unanimously approved this so that Schuster can get on the ball with us and we can start doing what you asked us to do a year ago. |
| 03:54:23.32 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you very much, the D manager. Thank you to our finance team. Thank you to our finance director, Angelina Lafleur, and to our consultants. So now we will move on to item six, which is council member committee reports and other business. So I will start with item six, a council member committee reports. Do we have any reports? |
| 03:54:43.79 | Mayor Woodside | I think we just heard one indirectly from the finance committee. So nothing further to add. |
| 03:54:47.91 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 03:54:47.92 | Councilmember Cox | And- |
| 03:54:48.28 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:54:49.19 | Councilmember Cox | And from the task force. I will note that the PBID met this week. Yesterday, we had a meeting of the PBID. Assistant City Manager Phipps and I both participated as representatives of the city, and there was a robust and, I think, fruitful conversation around budget. We should expect to hear from them in the next few months here at council with a presentation of their budget priorities. But one thing that was clear and that was made clear from the perspective of myself and, um, assistant city manager Phipps is that they will be coming to us, um, to hopefully approve a budget for um administration so that the the burden can be lifted from some of our city staff who have been working with them so that in addition to all of the great new things that we've been seeing downtown um they're making some more bringing some new tables to tracy way doing some new lighting on tracy way and creating new committees and they are also very mindful of that they will be looking for a new uh administrator going forward so that's the |
| 03:55:45.16 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | I'm not. |
| 03:55:45.35 | Sarah Yatze | Thank you. |
| 03:55:45.47 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | SHOWS. |
| 03:55:47.93 | Councilmember Cox | PBED. |
| 03:55:48.91 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | update. Do we have an update from the Dorothy Gibson subgroup regarding the dedication, the ground, the- |
| 03:55:56.05 | Councilmember Cox | THAT'S A GOOD THING. I'm just... |
| 03:55:56.62 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | THE FAMILY. |
| 03:55:56.81 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 03:55:56.84 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Okay. |
| 03:55:56.98 | Councilmember Cox | selected Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 03:55:58.93 | Jill Hoffman | We have not settled on a date yet. We have three. We could not. We had a hard time getting even three people because I didn't. You may not have noticed it, but in the doodle poll, the doodle poll went out to me. So I don't think people realize that there were many, or the council members didn't realize there were many more pages rather than just March. We had three dates in April, April 9th, I think April 13th and April 15th were also additional dates. I'll send around, but we also didn't have council members. I sent a text and an email and I didn't have council members respond to those dates, If you could, in the next couple of days, respond to that. And if you're available, awesome. If not, then we'll kind of go back to the well again. But think about dates in May. For the rest of this month, as we council members know, the rest of this month is probably not going to be available for us. But start thinking about dates in May. And we'll send a doodle poll around again in May. you know. And so we'll go back to the well now, but we are trying desperately to get a date for the Dorothy Gibson house. And we are, I am in close contact with the, schedulers for both our, for our whole team up here. So if any, if we're available April 9th, let me know fast. Great. |
| 03:57:21.01 | Councilmember Cox | Mayor Woodside, do you want to add any additional |
| 03:57:24.50 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:57:24.52 | Councilmember Cox | No. OK, we'll move on. |
| 03:57:25.40 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | I do. I do. Okay. I am the liaison to Southern Marin Fire. Oh, yeah. And I, along with many others, attended the Board of Directors special meeting last Friday morning. at which they were considering the qualifications for the successor to Chief Tubbs, who has submitted his resignation effective July 1st. My understanding is that they went into closed session and discussed what those qualifications should be. We strongly, pretty much to a person, strongly recommended that their qualifications allow the application of existing members who have worked with Chief Tubbs for 10 years or more to apply for that position. And so, I was given to understand by one board member that they were seriously considering our recommendations. I have not heard a report out from that closed session, but I am hopeful that they will have a, careful. recruitment that will include folks who have institutional memory and long track record of success with them. I want to thank uh, Mayor. Woodside for being there, as well as Adrian Britton, Sharna Brockett, Mike McKinley, and and various other Monica Finnegan and various other interested community members. |
| 03:58:56.02 | Councilmember Cox | I'll also note that myself and Mayor Woodside, as well as Mayor Max Perry and Vice Mayor Caroline Joachim from Mill Valley sent a joint letter further reinforcing the request for more community. engagement with Sausalito and Mill Valley in the selection of a chief and the selection of the consulting firm and reinforcing the recommendations as laid out just now by |
| 03:59:14.41 | Babette McDougall | I'm not sure. |
| 03:59:16.10 | Councilmember Cox | Um, council member Cox and our city manager, Chris Zapata also sent a joint letter with the city manager of mill Valley. uh, making those similar comments. And our police chief sent a joint letter with. |
| 03:59:26.04 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | the police chief of Mill Valley. |
| 03:59:27.08 | Councilmember Cox | Yeah. |
| 03:59:27.42 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Our police chief sent a police joint letter. It was a great community feedback. I also want to remind us that the Marin Women's Political Action Committee elected women's luncheon is this Friday at Peacock Gap. I hope that some of us will be there. I will be there as well. |
| 03:59:28.99 | Councilmember Cox | No, it was a |
| 03:59:43.54 | Councilmember Cox | I don't know. Okay, and then item 6B, so now we're going to... |
| 03:59:50.36 | Jill Hoffman | I have something. Yes. |
| 03:59:51.82 | Councilmember Cox | Yes, please. Yep, Councilman Hoffman. |
| 03:59:53.90 | Jill Hoffman | I think there's a dinner for the Portuguese Sister City program. I believe you're, I'm not going to be able to attend, but it's at Spinnaker on March 21st. It's a Michelin star chef. It's part of the program, the Portuguese program. It's going to be fabulous. If anybody, just Google it, Portuguese chef Spinnaker, but it's going to be amazing. And I think- I'm going, I'll be there. Mayor's going, so it's going to be a great, wonderful, and I'm sorry to miss it, but- |
| 04:00:05.88 | Sarah Yatze | 24. |
| 04:00:21.83 | Councilmember Cox | I'm going, yeah, I'll be there. |
| 04:00:27.99 | Councilmember Cox | And Bernardo, who is the tourism director from Kaish Kaish and an honorary Sausalito citizen, will also be attending. He's here from Kaish Kaish, so he will be here this week. So that's also very amazing. Okay, so now future agenda items. |
| 04:00:39.38 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:00:44.69 | Councilmember Cox | I had one. Well, I believe we heard from discussion that we want to hear a, we want a report back on the marineship visioning. as it's ready. And I also believe we heard we want to have a discussion about how we are proactive in our approach to housing. I don't know how we would properly agendize that, but that needs to be up for consideration. I have one other item I'd like to add to future agenda items. In my PBID meeting, they also had a request about, one of the items of focus for them is waterfront access. And they have discovered a number of grants for which they would like to proactively apply. However, only the city of Sausalito itself is eligible for these grants. And so that's an item that should be fairly non-controversial, but I'd like us to review their perspective grant and see if we can endorse it and send it on their behalf to get some funding. So that's, those are the ones from me. Anybody else, uh, an investment strategy for. |
| 04:01:40.03 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | with Schuster. |
| 04:01:42.00 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. |
| 04:01:42.02 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Okay. |
| 04:01:42.84 | Mayor Woodside | That's a good one. And then I don't think we've specifically agendized a discussion of the possibility of an enhanced infrastructure financing district specifically. and that's a lot of work, but it may be appropriate to move that forward sooner than later so that if there is, in fact, an increased tax increment available to be spent on infrastructure, we can have sorted that out in advance of new buildings and some other things that are already, I guess, approved in terms of zoning in certain parts of the Marin shift. |
| 04:01:51.79 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 04:02:09.81 | Sarah Yatze | and have... |
| 04:02:20.29 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you. Okay, council member Hoffman and council member Sobieski both have their hand raised. |
| 04:02:26.25 | Jill Hoffman | I'm just, I'm going to ask again that we, the forensic audit, we received a bunch of several emails. I have, I didn't count them, requesting a forensic audit. So I'm going to request that again. |
| 04:02:40.14 | Councilmember Cox | Okay, and I will note that we have agendized on the April 7th meeting a significant report from the city manager addressing those concerns and sharing some information and then we also I see Mount Sinver Sobieski has his hand raised. |
| 04:02:52.86 | Councilmember Sobieski | to Councilmember Cox, we actually have the Schuster Investment Strategy agendized for a future finance committee meeting, just so you know. I'm sure I'll come to city council also. For my part, I'll be specific just Thank you. since this is the appropriate time to do so. I think We show agenda is creating a plan B so we have other options. in our, RFP process. and in our affordable housing process. And specifically that Plan B should include how to rezone sites along Bridgeway. site 67, 68. the RV storage lot and have a roadmap for doing so, potentially doing an EIR a revamp of our community development agreement, ordinance. so that we can use that tool. to bind property owners. to our... community goals. and modifying it where it's 1022 to allow us to use a community development agreement to meet those community goals. |
| 04:03:56.88 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | I like that idea. |
| 04:04:00.21 | Councilmember Cox | Okay. Oh, Councilor Murhoff, when your hand was raised again, did we miss you? |
| 04:04:04.49 | Jill Hoffman | Miss you. So are, |
| 04:04:11.61 | Jill Hoffman | Are we thinking that I think if we're going to start delving into these issues that Councilmember Sobieski, if we're seriously going to talk about these issues, on a future Gen item this year. that I think We need to talk about that in the context of the prioritization of our schedule in general. So these aren't things that we've talked about. I don't think in our priorities setting that we had our full day retreat on. These are big issues that I think more, more Um, appropriately are within the context of a housing element. efforts. |
| 04:04:54.71 | Unknown | I disagree. |
| 04:04:55.84 | Jill Hoffman | rezoning within the context of a citywide housing element. So Certainly, we're in the middle of finishing up this housing element. We still have sites from this housing element that we have deadlines on. So we talked about, we have two that we talked about tonight. Three, if you talk about the school site, We have Measure J sites that we have to show progress on. If we don't show progress on those sites, we're also going to be subject to net zero issues. So now we're talking about prioritizing a whole new section when we haven't even showed any progress on the Measure J sites. We've got Bridgeway Marina that the mayor and I talked I have an update on that, but I haven't even had a chance to talk to the mayor on a subsequent conversation I've had. So we have a... a whole housing element full of sites that we have to show progress on this year. That's the priority this year. |
| 04:05:54.81 | Justine Kahn | Thank you. |
| 04:05:58.33 | Councilmember Cox | Why don't we agendize a conversation about the housing element process past and present, and we can address how we want, and that will include priorities as regarded here so we can get on. |
| 04:06:07.43 | Jill Hoffman | The priority this year is the housing element we have this year. |
| 04:06:10.62 | Councilmember Sobieski | Thank you. If we're going to be talking about the amendments, it sounds like we are, then we also talked about having $10 million more of annual income in EIFD. |
| 04:06:11.73 | Jill Hoffman | that we have to show movement on. |
| 04:06:18.18 | Councilmember Sobieski | and having economic development. as well as not losing 300K a year potentially and rental income. at our MLK site if it could be potentially avoided as So there are lots of ways that it ties into our strategic goals. |
| 04:06:32.52 | Mayor Woodside | And we all, |
| 04:06:33.04 | Councilmember Sobieski | Yeah. |
| 04:06:33.06 | Mayor Woodside | Yeah. |
| 04:06:33.13 | Councilmember Sobieski | I'm also hearing off that. |
| 04:06:33.20 | Jill Hoffman | Veering off that into all kinds of tangents. |
| 04:06:36.27 | Councilmember Sobieski | Oh. It's not tangents, it's all pretty much right along the line. So if we actually start in the future, |
| 04:06:40.43 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you guys. It's late. The hour is late. Let's be respectful. I think we've heard what people want to see agendized. I think we will, the agenda setting committee will get together and review everyone's comments and come forward thinking about both the strategies that we worked on as a council for a full day and what's come up this evening and do our best to tackle all that we can in the next eight months, seven months that Mayor Woodside is in his term. So thank you very much. I think that covers future agenda items and it is the hour is late. So are there I see that there's minutes from the Finance Committee. Thank you for that. Are there any other reports of significance? Okay, seeing that I'm going to take public comment on these items. The Councilman or committee reports future agenda items and other reports. Are there is there public comment? I see that there are a couple hands raised. Yes. |
| 04:07:26.32 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes. Yes. |
| 04:07:31.26 | Unknown | Good evening, Council. I would like to just bring up I know recently you had a list of your priorities, and we've talked about this a lot. And I've also written to all you, but I want to know where it is in your planning or your consideration the funding for the historic inventory. We talked about this quite a while ago. We know clearly there's implications with our housing laws if this is not done. And if you've had a change of heart and you're not interested in doing this, Um, You know, let us know. I'm going to try to strategize different ways, but this needs to be done. And I feel like you, were enthusiastic before. So on behalf of the Historical Preservation Committee, As chair, I'd like to know When this will be done, our coach, my co-chair. Our co-chair Joey Lee and I actually ended up writing the RFP draft. to try to move this along and we're being told it's stuff stuck in legal. That was months ago. So please consider an update. And again, if you're not interested in doing it, I got no responses to any of the emails that I sent all of you asking about this. So I'd just like to know what the intention is respectfully, and how we might pivot to get this done in another way. It is really important and it's not just our committee, the whole community, is interested in doing this. And if it's helpful, I can organize a group to come and lobby you. But I'd like to see it happen. Thank you. |
| 04:09:16.09 | Mayor Woodside | I think I think you're accurate that there was enthusiasm and I I don't know the steps necessary I know there are some particular things that have to be done in order to properly inventory designate historic sites. It's a little complicated, but is that typically something that comes up from the staff. I'm asking the assistant city manager. |
| 04:09:36.80 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | It's been part of our budgeting process for several years, including that as a budget item, but we haven't allocated staff resources for it. |
| 04:09:43.04 | Mayor Woodside | ITEMS. |
| 04:09:48.81 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, it's been, sorry, it has been, and it needs to get it done. It just keeps falling down in the priority list, but it's desperately needed, and we need to get it done. |
| 04:09:49.50 | Vice Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 04:09:56.24 | Councilmember Huffman | . |
| 04:10:00.67 | Jill Hoffman | . |
| 04:10:00.84 | Brendan Phipps | Yeah, if I may, I'll just keep it brief and say that the price tag is part of the Part of the delay. |
| 04:10:09.91 | Councilmember Cox | Okay. Okay, that item's not agenda. So let's not dive in too much. We're not supposed to respond to public comment beyond brief intervention. So now I see we had one more hand raised. I think Sandra Bushmaker had her hand raised. Am I correct? I did, I did. Oh. |
| 04:10:22.04 | Sandra Bushmaker | I do have my hand raised. I'm just saying that as I'm hearing over and over again, you know, let's deal with plan B to find more housing units, less or more housing sites. I am very concerned. that if we start adding elements. or sites that are not on our six cycle housing element that was approved by the state that we're putting ourselves and setting ourselves up for failure for the next round. So I would like us to stay focused on our sixth cycle. and what we've got in our existing housing element. Adding new sites now, to me, is a really, really dangerous thing for us to be doing. And I don't want to see us jeopardize our next housing element by dicking around by adding new additional sites now that's really, really a problem and I think we're asking for trouble. So please, please stay focused. on completing what we've got in our sixth cycle. Thank you. Okay. |
| 04:11:30.97 | Councilmember Cox | Look how much Adrian Britain has his hand raised. |
| 04:11:38.01 | Adrian Brinton | Thank you for taking my comment. I just wanted to say that I think we need to be considering everything that's out there in Sausalito for housing. You know, we Took a lot of sites off the housing element at the last minute in the last round. I think agendizing Conversations about sites that were not considered is extremely important So thank you, and I hope we do that. |
| 04:12:03.76 | Councilmember Cox | Thank you very much. Do we have any further public comment? |
| 04:12:06.82 | Walfred Solorzano | We do not. |
| 04:12:07.96 | Councilmember Cox | Okay. I'll close public comment. Just before we adjourn, I want to, uh, end this meeting, um, in honor of Elizabeth Nebat, who was the owner of cafe divino, which so many of us really deeply cherished and loved. Um, yeah, she, uh, she passed away, um, after a really hard battle with cancer. So You know, she really poured her heart into that restaurant. I know we all spent many evenings there enjoying the music, enjoying the food, enjoying her welcoming energy. And she did so much to make it feel like a home for all of us. She was really kind of like the quiet, I don't know, leader of the charge on Caledonia street. And I just wanted to close the meeting in her honor and say, you know, Sausalito is better because of what she did for it. So Elizabeth, this is for you and we'll adjourn at 9 30 PM. Thank you. |
Babette McDougall — Neutral: Appealed to council to uphold democratic institutions, praised mayor's flexibility, and emphasized community unity. ▶ 📄