City Council Mar 5, 2024
City Council Meeting Summary
| Time | Item | Item Summary | Motion Summary | Comment Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 00:00:10 | None: None | The meeting is called to order at 5:30 PM on March 5th, followed by a roll call. Three items were addressed in the closed session: existing litigation regarding Whiskey Springs Villa HOA versus City of Sausalito, existing litigation regarding Yes in My Backyard versus City of Sausalito, and significant exposure to litigation. The Mayor mentioned that they have hired an FPPC expert and have been advised to recuse themselves from the third item due to a conflict of interest related to their property's value and enjoyment. Public comment was then opened for the closed session items, followed by a reconvening of the session at 7 PM. The meeting then commenced with the Pledge of Allegiance, followed by a motion to approve the agenda. | Motion to approve the agenda. (00:04:59) | 1 Total: 1 In Favor 0 Against 0 Neutral |
|
00:01:35 Stephen Woodside was In Favor: Stephen Woodside, a Sausalito resident, expresses support for the council's housing element efforts. He encourages the council to affirm and defend the housing element against criticisms of doing too little or too much. He specifically mentions an application that has caused concern in the community and advises the council to review their options with legal counsel, particularly regarding historic districts and building standards. He emphasizes the importance of adhering to designated numbers for opportunity sites, suggesting that the council stick to the original number of 20 for the site that has stirred community concern and maintain the two to three-story height limit.
|
||||
| 00:05:04 | 1: SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS/MAYOR’S ANNOUNCEMENTS - 7:02 PM | The Mayor confirmed the agenda was approved and stated there were no special announcements. The council then transitioned to adopting the draft minutes from February 20th (00:05:09). | No Motion | 0 Total: 0 In Favor 0 Against 0 Neutral |
|
|
||||
| 00:05:15 | 2: ACTION MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING - 7:05 PM | The council discussed taking public comment on the minutes from the February 20th meeting. Councilmember Hoffman inquired about the procedure for taking public comment on the agenda as a whole, and Sergio clarified that it's not a separately listed item and not required, but an opportunity to rearrange agenda items for convenience (00:05:48). Hoffman also asked about when councilmembers should note recusals, and Sergio responded that it should be noted when the agenda item is called (00:06:33). | Motion to approve the minutes (00:08:38). | 1 Total: 0 In Favor 0 Against 1 Neutral |
|
00:06:53 Unknown was Neutral: The speaker urged the council to reinstate democracy in the council chambers and expressed disappointment that the minutes didn't reflect the diverse range of people present at the last meeting. They felt the current recording process is abbreviated and doesn't provide a realistic record.
|
||||
| 00:08:40 | 3: CONSENT CALENDAR - 7:08 PM | Mayor Sobieski introduces the consent calendar, explaining that these items are considered routine, non-controversial, and expected to have unanimous council approval. The consent calendar includes: 3A National Women's History Month 2024 Proclamation, 3B adopt a resolution to cure incorrect respect to Council actions on January 22nd, 2024, 3C adopt a resolution approving the third professional services contract Amendment with BKF engineers for design services related to the ferry landing improvement project, Item 3D adopt a resolution authorizing the city manager to execute the first amendment to the agreement with the county of Marin to increase the total amount available to the city of Sausalito to expanded homeless and housing opportunities in the mountains, not to exceed $1 million. An unidentified councilmember requests item 3D regarding homelessness funding be removed to add direction to staff and be considered as item 5E (00:09:45). Councilmember Hoffman requests item 3B be removed and be considered as item 5F (00:10:00). The council then opens the floor for public comment on the remaining items, 3A and 3C (00:10:19). | Councilmember Cox moves to approve items 3A and 3C of the consent calendar (00:11:04). The motion is seconded (00:11:11). | 1 Total: 0 In Favor 0 Against 1 Neutral |
| 00:11:29 | 4: PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS - 7:12 PM | This public hearing item concerns an appeal of an administrative citation for unauthorized tree alterations at 230 Santa Rosa Avenue. (00:12:02) Brandy Phipps, CDD Director, introduces the item, explaining that 10 mature heritage bay laurel trees were significantly altered in violation of Sausalito municipal code. Matthew Mandich, Associate Planner, and Paul Van Hook, Code Enforcement Officer, provide details. (00:15:15) Van Hook explains that he received complaints in October 2023 regarding unauthorized alterations. His investigation revealed that approximately 10 mature bay laurel trees had been significantly altered, with 100% of the canopies removed, exceeding the allowed 25%. (00:18:35) Councilmember Cox raises the issue of a tree removal/alteration permit application submitted in February 2023, which Mandich says will be addressed later in the presentation. (00:19:03) Mandich details that permits are required for tree alterations, and the bay laurel trees in question qualify as protected heritage trees. He presents visual evidence of the alterations and notes that no permit was obtained. He also mentions the Planning Commission hearing in December and the factors they considered, resulting in a $1,000 per tree fine and a remedial order for erosion control. (00:23:21) Mandich concludes with a staff recommendation to impose a $500 per tree fine and rescind the bi-weekly erosion reports, instead having staff perform periodic site visits. (00:24:22) Councilmember Cox inquires about the overall health of the trees after the topping and whether they will re-sprout, given the severity of the alterations. (00:25:23) Mandich clarifies that the note about re-sprouting is from the appellant and that staff does not have an arborist report. Cox also asks about prior violations and the typical fines assessed. (00:26:03) Mandich admits that there was an illegal amount of tree removal and they wanted to set a precedent. (00:27:12) Mandich states the fine is for altering the trees but they are still alive and present and half the maximum fine available would be a reasonable amount. (00:28:17) Councilmember Kelman expresses concern about the verticality of the road cut near a storm drain. (00:29:16) Mandich states several neighbors were concerned with the erosion in the area. (00:31:50) A councilmember asks why the Planning Commission recommended $1,000 versus $500 per tree. (00:32:33) Mandich responds the Planning Commision had a discussion about the appropriate fine, with several members stating the fine should be $1,000. (00:32:59) Councilmember Kelman comments that replacement of a 25 gallon bay tree is about 600 dollars. (00:33:46) Andrew Bickford presents his appeal, stating that he has merit. (00:34:37) Bickford explains the trees were in poor condition, a fire hazard, and historically repeatedly reduced. (00:35:50) Bickford states that the consensus of tree experts was to remove the damaged crowns and that the new growth that has emerged is restoring the trees. (00:36:13) Bickford states he submitted the permit application on February 8, 2023. (00:37:52) Bickford was issued a citation on October 17, 2023 for unauthorized tree alteration. (00:39:46) Bickford lists the basis for his appeal, citing prejudgement and bias of planning staff and misleading reporting. (00:41:57) Bickford claims staff was pursuing a false premise by planning staff and failure to document existing conditions in staff reports. (00:47:50) Bickford states the complaining residents, planning staff, and commissioners do not like the temporary appearance of the trees. (00:49:33) Councilmember Kelman asks what Bickford thinks is fair. (00:50:39) Bickford says a fair fine would be given the motivation is restorative, and a good faith effort to get a permit and if staff would have met him half way they wouldn't be there. (00:51:12) Councilmember Cox asks how he intended to pay the fee associated with the permit application. (00:52:50) Council is now at the point of closing public comment. (00:52:50) Staff has the opportunity to respond to any new issues that arose. (00:53:12) Sandra Bushmaker states she doesn't endorse unpermitted work, and thinks more enforcement is needed. (00:53:27) Bushmaker comments bay laurels are filthy and grow like weeds and we should reconsider them as an undesirable tree. (00:54:15) Councilmember Kelman asks if staff whether we've checked that portal and whether that online submittal format is working. (00:55:46) Councilmember Cox asks about the Dropbox Portal, and ensures that has been removed from the Google Search engine so that no one is misdirected. (00:56:56) Council is informed there is information on the website about the fees and all related information. (01:03:04) One councilmember believes that given there was a clear violation of the code, a fine is warranted. (01:04:02) Councilmember Cox is concerned that staff did not communicate to the Planning Commission that an application had been transmitted in February of 2023. (01:04:38) Councilmember Cox believes there is a lack of transparency for residents to actually avail themselves of staff services. (01:05:21) Councilmember Cox moves to adopt the appellants recommendation of $250 per tree. (01:06:47) Councilmember Hoffman expresses the fact that an application was submitted was an indication a permit was required. (01:09:25) Councilmember Kelman expressed the view that Bay Laurels are important bird habitats, and there wasn't an arborist that could confirm the tree was healthy to be pruned. (01:10:16) Councilmember Kelman states the applicant lucked out with antiquated system because they are not going to endorse $5,000 staff had suggested. (01:16:42) The 2nd motion was the $250 motion with the stipulations mentioned previously. | Motion to uphold the administrative citation for the illegal alteration of 10 protected heritage bay laurel trees without a city issued permit, amend the planning commission ruling mandating a $1,000 fine per tree and reduce that to $250 per tree, to follow Staff's recommendation to rescind the biweekly erosion control reports required by the Planning Commission and instead instruct staff to perform periodic site visits following significant rain events to determine if additional remedial actions are required by the appellant until April 15th (01:16:42) | 1 Total: 0 In Favor 0 Against 1 Neutral |
| 01:18:39 | 5: BUSINESS ITEMS - 7:45 PM | The meeting moved on to business items after closing the public hearing with a motion passed four to one. Item 5B will be heard immediately after item 5A. | No Motion | 0 Total: 0 In Favor 0 Against 0 Neutral |
|
|
||||
| 01:19:04 | 5.A: Review the Draft Management District Plan Associated with the Proposed Downtown Sausalito Property Business Improvement District, Provide Feedback on the City’s Support of the District During the District Petition Process, and Authorize the City Man | Item 5A involves reviewing the draft management district plan for the proposed Downtown Sausalito Property Business Improvement District (PBID). The council aims to provide feedback on the city's support during the petition process and authorize the city manager to initiate the district petition process. The main points of discussion included concerns about the city's contribution to the district, the inclusion of city-owned parks in the district, the definition of 'special benefits' for city-owned properties, and the overall governance and decision-making structure of the PBID. There were also questions regarding duplication of efforts between the proposed PBID and existing city services, such as park maintenance and parking management. The steering committee's composition and the process for setting priorities within the district were discussed as well. Councilmember Hoffman raised questions about the process of increasing the city's contribution from 20% to 50% and whether property owners should decide without the city's influence (01:49:43). There were concerns the boundaries were intentionally drawn to boost the city's contribution to 50% (01:47:31). Councilmember Kelman asked specific questions about city-owned property within the district and wanted clarity on specific benefits (01:30:39). Vice Mayor Cox wanted to understand the recourse of the city once the voters vote to form the improvement district (02:01:19). Mayor Sobieski was trying to clarify the voting procedure and how the district could be disestablished (01:53:04). | Councilmember Cox moved to approve the draft management district plan with revisions to: increase the amount going to infrastructure, address the vacancy rate, provide for more wayfinding, lighting, and trash cans, protect historic resources, explore partnering with the Chamber to administer the PBID in an effort to reduce the administrative fee, house the PBID offices at the Sausalito Center for the Arts. Also to authorize the city manager to begin the assessment district petition process and sign the petition on the city's behalf, exercising up to 40% of the city's total voting power as set forth in the staff report (03:37:08). Councilmember Kelman seconded the motion (03:41:09). The motion carried 4-1 (03:42:17). | 21 Total: 19 In Favor 1 Against 1 Neutral |
|
02:31:40 Unknown was In Favor: Expressed concerns about the lack of trust among entities involved in the project. Emphasized the city's initiative to explore a business improvement district. Stressed the importance of the city's follow-through and the need to address bottom-line issues while maintaining citizen control. Believes that the prestige of the business representatives involved warrants serious consideration.
02:33:06 Adrian Brinton was In Favor: A Sausalito resident, noted missing the previous meeting and wanted the council to follow through with the budget and boundary as unanimously agreed upon. Emphasized the importance of downtown improvements for residents and discouraged revisiting previously decided matters. 02:34:27 SPEAKER_11 was In Favor: Highlighted the PBID's alignment with EDAC's goals. Urged the council to test and learn, emphasizing that it involved a small amount of money relative to the overall business tax contributions. Asked the council to support a project that businesses are willing to invest in downtown, but also stated that Edac will continue to serve businesses in other areas of the city. 02:35:35 Unknown was In Favor: Highlighted the importance of maintaining trash, and stated the trash and gutter sweeping are not current city benefits. Called for special benefits with increased business activity. Urged the council to move the petition forward, emphasizing the future financial decision. 02:36:32 Unknown was In Favor: EDAC member, spoke in support of the PBID. Believes it leverages benefits downtown to create the most tax revenue. The city has other people putting skin in the game making easier business decisions. Recommended council approve plan. 02:37:23 Daryl DeMoureux was In Favor: The Sausalito Chamber of Commerce's President. He thanked the council, staff, chamber board and community members for the time invested. Reiterated the Chambers commitment to advocating for members and supporting economic growth. Noted how its process has renewed to commitment to partnership building between members. Urged the council to vote in support for a general impact on the local business community and our future economy. 02:38:40 Unknown was In Favor: A long-term resident, commercial landlord, and business owner. Noted that Sausalito reaped the benefits but now there are less people in town. Stated hospital business communities haven't been well acknowledged. There hasn't been much outreach to the city residents, and those businesses were paying all for that. Stated that now its business community have not been well organized but is now, as the best proposal had all three. With the many ways to do this, it supports moving forwards at this time. 02:41:09 SPEAKER_01 was In Favor: Is a new homeowner to the town, and has had past experiences as part of BIDs, which tested approaches as good to replicate around the nation. Not seeing any reason Sausalito should not participate, and adopt management plan to go as drawn. 02:42:27 Carolyn Revell was In Favor: On board for Sausalito beautiful, and Board has voted to endorse the PBID and asked that the council adopted the management plan presented and authorize to the city manager sign and being a petition on the City's behalf. Because the Board has agreed its due diligence, and now wants improvements, tree planting, etc at the higher standard. 02:43:53 Charles Melton was In Favor: A resident of the city, who believes in our business is doing good, city council as well. It will provide a vibrant heartbeat back to our downtown businesses. That's what the PBID does. Question what happens if we move forward? And believes we should endorse the plans tonight. 02:45:40 Jenny Silva was In Favor: As a Houseboat resident and someone who wants to hang out to Sausalito. There truly is no place that is more spectacular than downtown Sausalito to be in the world. So many residents supported the last meeting to make downtown a nicer place. Pleads the panel to move it forward now. 02:46:46 Daniel Chodor was In Favor: Has four historic buildings and wants to emphasize your partnership and what if its trash well we wouldn't be putting so much skin of the investment is not. There we want a return on investment. Thank you. 02:47:36 Unknown was In Favor: A local business owner, that is now a member of the Commerce. What do the town's have to do to make it work. Well if it's not, you have to make a choice. The bid itself can be mitigated from any imperfect parts as we know today. 02:48:29 Sharna Brockett was In Favor: A resident is happy to say yes and it can happen. Plenty of case studies have proved BIDS that worked for struggling downturns can be a success. The more people here for this, and the 50k is a small fraction so we need the vote to pass. 02:50:37 Ines Ponyay was In Favor: Has been in business here for 42 years, which they said yes there on board, and all their successful buildings have made this work. So now with this new successful partnership, they look forward to have it consistent downtown area. 02:52:02 Stephen Woodside was In Favor: I'm a resident that has worked in assessment business, that is not a business owner. Great that the mayor had all these assessments that worked. It can see the benefits for the entire town because it is a public benefit. 02:53:47 SPEAKER_10 was In Favor: As a property owner and business owner to the area. Requesting the council this evening to provide equal part partnership to other businesses so their process can move this ballot forward. 02:54:33 Sandra Bushmaker was Against: I do believe in a vibrant community. But now, with a bit, is when priorities are not projected. I have not seen public comments that was to see this ballot for 20K for 40 plus, it says the side we need to clear answered from that. 02:56:51 Vicki Nichols was Neutral: Talked about being a historic part that has some significance. Wonder if in the process if those parts have said there, or would they be reviewed by HP so any changes that are made there can you discuss before putting this board to process, and in case there should be any standards. 02:59:21 Kieran Culligan was In Favor: This is a great project and is looking forward to seeing in other parts of city and get a good point of having some improvements. 03:00:22 Ron Albert was In Favor: In response, let's keep all to yourself and have multiple meetings at the extreme public support to take for their time. They all approve. |
||||
| 03:42:29 | 3.B: Adopt Resolution to Cure and Correct with Respect to Council Actions at the January 22, 2024 Meeting | The council addresses a need to "cure and correct" actions from the January 22, 2024, meeting due to a potential Brown Act violation. This involves Councilmember Blaustein's remote participation without proper notice. City Attorney Sergio Rudin explains the process and the demand received from Ms. Bushmaker. Councilmember Hoffman raises concerns about the process and previous similar issues. Mayor Sobieski seeks clarification on the facts and the scope of the correction. Rudin clarifies that the public hearing item regarding 426 Pine will be rescheduled, and other agenda items will return for action later. Councilmember Hoffman emphasizes that this is the second time they've had this issue, and that there was a failure to go through the motions, if applicable, and that there was a decision not to do that. Mayor Sobieski is confused about the facts of the item. Rudin clarifies that the public hearing item with respect to 426 Pine, that will be rescheduled to come back to you for action (03:46:17). Councilmember Hoffman points out the process issue (03:46:32), saying this is the second time we've had this kind of issue at the council level. Mayor Sobieski asks if this the only way to cure and correct is to rescind all the actions (03:47:56). Councilmember Hoffman raises concerns about misdemeanor penalties for not following notice requirements (03:57:08). City Attorney Rudin states that the only criminal penalties that I'm aware of are in 54959 (03:57:29). Councilmember Hoffman believes that if we have a member that's appearing that hasn't complied with the rules under the Brown Act, we're all liable for that (03:57:57). Councilmember Hoffman asks if the city attorney is suggesting she should be reported to the DA's office (03:58:11). Councilmember Cox discusses that staff implemented a correction to the agenda setting approach. She said that there is now a placeholder on every single agenda in which to identify the remote participation, if any, by any council member (03:53:24). | Motion by Councilmember Cox to adopt a resolution of the Sausalito City Council, curing and correcting under the Brown Act by rescinding prior actions made at the January 22, 2024 City Council meeting, and giving staff direction to correct (04:14:29). Seconded by Mayor Sobieski. The motion carries unanimously (04:23:17). | 7 Total: 5 In Favor 0 Against 2 Neutral |
|
04:02:04 Unknown was In Favor: The speaker expresses concern over repeated violations of meeting legality and urges the council to reinstate a parliamentarian, noting their past use and value in ensuring proper procedure.
04:03:27 Sandra Bushmaker was In Favor: Ms. Bushmaker expresses relief that the council is addressing the Brown Act issue, clarifying that rescinding actions doesn't fully address the improper Zoom appearance without proper notice, citing the need for just cause or emergency deliberation. She references Government Code section 5495.9, emphasizing serious consequences, and appreciates future remedies but warns of continued liability risks. 04:05:40 Kieran Culligan was Neutral: Kieran expresses frustration over the lengthy and costly cure and correct process, suggesting that a simple email could have resolved the issue. He highlights the wasted council and staff time, including report writing and question answering. He urges more collaborative and civil approaches to avoid such expenses, cautioning that this issue consumed a significant portion of the PBID budget. 04:06:39 Ron Albert was In Favor: Mr. Albert expresses disbelief at the extensive time spent on the issue. He argues that the previous speaker and the city attorney confirmed the requirement of intent to deprive the public of participation, which he sees as absent. He urges the council to heed the city attorney's advice and end the prolonged discussion. 04:08:40 Stephen Woodside was In Favor: Mr. Woodside supports the city attorney's position, criticizes Councilmember Hoffman's actions as obstructionist and time-wasting, and expresses disappointment in her behavior. The commenter's audio was garbled and repeated. 04:10:41 Vicki Nichols was Neutral: Vicki Nichols agrees that such issues deserve public discussion but expresses concern over meeting recordings, specifically the repeated speakers, hoping it's a technical issue and not the final recording. She finds the situation embarrassing and disagrees with calling out council members, finding it unnecessary and in bad form. 04:11:47 Fred was In Favor: Fred apologizes for late comments due to unmuting issues and appreciates the council's work. He finds it hard to believe any council members conspired with intent to deprive participation. He supports the council's hard work and expresses regret over unjustifiably calling out someone, thanking the council for their efforts. |
||||
| 04:23:35 | 5.C: Authorization to Close Tracy Way for the 2024 Season; Authorize the Police Department to Manage the Bicycle Parking Operation and Staff | Chief Sam presented the request to authorize the closure of Tracy Way for the upcoming bike season and to allow the Police Department to manage the bicycle parking operation, including hiring seasonal staff. He noted that the previous contractor, South Slido Bike Return, is no longer able to provide the service. He cited significantly decreased bike parking numbers since the pandemic, with 2023 seeing only 10,540 bikes parked compared to over 54,000 in 2019 (04:25:17). The Police Department proposes managing the service themselves, estimating employee costs between $20,000 and $35,000. The operation would function similarly to last year, charging $5 per bike, with experienced staff acting as city ambassadors. He predicts that the numbers will be similar to last year. (04:25:34) | Councilmember Cox motioned to approve the resolution authorizing the temporary closure of Tracy Way for bicycle parking from March 1 through October 31, 2024, and to authorize the Police Department to manage the bicycle parking operation and staff as described by the Police Chief. (04:29:40) | 1 Total: 1 In Favor 0 Against 0 Neutral |
|
04:27:20 Jeff Sears was In Favor: Jeff Sears from Blazing Saddles supported the program, highlighting its success in relieving congestion since its inception by Herbie Wiener. However, he noted a significant decrease in numbers post-COVID. He suggested lowering the parking fee to $3, arguing that the $5 fee discouraged some bikers, leading to increased sidewalk congestion. (04:28:13)
|
||||
| 04:30:06 | 5.D: Introduction and Waiver of First Reading of Ordinance No. 03-2024, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Sausalito Amending Sausalito Municipal Code Section 2.58.040 Relating to Residency Requirements on City Boards, Commissions, and Committ | The item concerns amending Sausalito Municipal Code Section 2.58.040 regarding residency requirements for city boards, commissions, and committees. The proposed ordinance would modify the code to allow the City Council the flexibility to modify residency requirements for boards and commissions via resolution rather than ordinance, where deemed appropriate. City Attorney Sergio explained that this change was prompted by questions about residency requirements for EDAC (04:30:35). Mayor Sobieski clarified that the ordinance itself doesn't change residency requirements but grants the council flexibility (04:31:22). | Motion to introduce by title only and waive first reading of ordinance number 03-2024, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Sausalito, amending Sausalito Municipal Code Section 2.58.040 relating to residency requirements on city boards, commissions, and committees. (04:35:46) | 2 Total: 0 In Favor 1 Against 1 Neutral |
|
04:31:55 Unknown was Neutral: The speaker discussed the Business Advisory Committee, the predecessor to EDAC, which included members who were not Sausalito residents but had businesses in town. The speaker questioned why the local business criteria was thrown out (04:33:12), and suggested revisiting this approach to include established business owners in the solution.
04:33:59 Vicki Nichols was Against: The speaker questioned the need to expand the residency requirement due to business owners that don't live in the city that are a major contributor to the committee (04:34:10). She raised concerns about changing the requirements for all commissions, suggesting a change specific to the EDAC might be more appropriate, as residency is important for other committees (04:34:22). She felt it could open up a big loophole for a lot of other committees (04:34:52). |
||||
| 04:36:29 | 5.B: Receive and file a report regarding the development of 2024 Building Facility Assessment Study | There was no presentation or discussion on this item. The council was asked to receive and file a report regarding the development of the 2024 Building Facility Assessment Study. | No Motion | 0 Total: 0 In Favor 0 Against 0 Neutral |
|
|
||||
| 04:36:31 | 3.D: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the first amendment to the Agreement with the County of Marin to increase the total amount available to the City of Sausalito to expanded homeless and housing opportunities to an amount not to | This item concerns a resolution to authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Marin County to increase funds available to Sausalito for homeless and housing opportunities, specifically concerning the Dorothy Gibson property. The city was granted $167,000 a year ago and was granted another $500,000 by the state of California through the county of Marin. The city has expended $193,000 of that on reimbursing ourselves for encampment expenses and set aside $307,000 for the Dorothy Gibson house conversion into housing for the unhoused and homeless persons. The city would then get matching funds from the county in the amount of five hundred thousand dollars which the board of supervisors approved this morning, so in total there are eight hundred and seven thousand dollars that the city has to work with in terms of providing housing for unhoused persons at the Dorothy Gibson site. Kevin McGowan presented details about the Dorothy Gibson property, including its small size and the potential for two units, one of which needs to be accessible. There was also discussion about the possibility of installing an ADU (accessory dwelling unit) on the property, but its feasibility would need further study due to space constraints and accessibility requirements. Councilmember Cox asked about how much of the funds available to us have we already committed, and how much is not yet committed? (04:42:02). The City Manager responded that none of the Board of Supervisors' money, that $500,000 has been spent (04:42:14). Councilmember Blaustein pulled the item to explore the possibility of adding a third or fourth unit to the property, maximizing its use for workforce housing (04:47:57). | Motion to move forward with the staff report and authorize the city manager to execute the million-dollar agreement with the county of Marin with the addition of direction to staff to consider and explore the option of a third unit or an ADU on the property as well. (04:53:52). The motion passed unanimously (04:54:20). | 2 Total: 1 In Favor 0 Against 1 Neutral |
|
04:46:22 Sandra Bushmaker was Neutral: Inquired whether neighbors had been informed about the change of use of the Dorothy Gibson property from housing for city employees to housing for the unhoused, and suggested that they be informed if they haven't been.
04:47:03 Vicki Nichols was In Favor: Expressed that Dorothy Gibson would have wanted the house to be used to help others, urged the council to proceed with the existing plan, and emphasized honoring Dorothy's intentions. |
||||
| 04:54:23 | 6: COMMUNICATIONS - 9:30 PM | This agenda item is a period for the City Council to hear from citizens regarding matters not on the agenda. Babette McDougal encouraged the council to restore full democracy to the council chambers. Sophia Collier, representing Save Our Sausalito, expressed opposition to the luxury condo development at 605 Bridgeway, citing concerns about its impact on the city's heart and heritage, and the potential domino effect of ultra-luxury housing on the waterfront. She highlighted a petition against the project with over 662 signatures from Sausalito residents (04:57:26). Kelman suggested the city manager reach out to Sophia (04:57:48). Barbara Brown and Dan Chagru also voiced serious concerns about the Bridgeway condo development. Barbara Brown, an architect, referenced Jerry Holen's assessment that the proposal is not in compliance with the Secretary of Interior's standards and is out of scale with the existing waterfront (04:59:25). Dan Chagru felt that the building site did not receive the scrutiny and due diligence that every other site seems to have received (05:00:39). | No Motion | 4 Total: 0 In Favor 3 Against 1 Neutral |
|
04:54:57 Babette McDougall was Neutral: Encouraged the council to restore full democracy to the council chambers.
04:56:25 Sophia Collier was Against: Representing Save Our Sausalito, she expressed opposition to the luxury condo development at 605 Bridgeway, citing concerns about its impact on the city's heart and heritage, and the potential domino effect of ultra-luxury housing on the waterfront, urging the council to heed the petition against the project. 04:58:49 Barbara Brown was Against: Expressed serious concerns about the Bridgeway condo development, referencing Jerry Holen's assessment that the proposal is not in compliance with the Secretary of Interior's standards and is out of scale with the existing waterfront. 05:00:09 Dan Chagru was Against: Expressed concern that the Bridgeway condo development site did not receive the scrutiny and due diligence that other sites received, highlighting the potential negative impact on the historic district and surrounding neighborhood, as well as the limited number of affordable units. |
||||
| 05:01:22 | 7: COUNCILMEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS - 9:45 PM | Mayor Sobieski opened the floor for councilmember committee reports. Councilmember Kelman reported that Marin County identified a non-competitive grant (SB1) for Bay Wave sea level rise, and the city can apply for it. The minimum amount the city could receive is $200,000, and the maximum is 1.2 million. (05:01:43) Mayor Sobieski asked if the city would be applying and Kelman confirmed they would. | No Motion | 0 Total: 0 In Favor 0 Against 0 Neutral |
|
|
||||
| 05:01:51 | 8: CITY MANAGER REPORTS & OTHER COUNCIL BUSINESS - 9:50 PM | Mayor Sobieski opened the floor for city manager reports and other council business and then inquired whether public comment was needed for the reports. (05:01:52) | No Motion | 0 Total: 0 In Favor 0 Against 0 Neutral |
|
|
||||
| 05:01:56 | 8B: City Manager Information for Council | City Manager Chris provided updates to the Mayor and Council. He mentioned the February 10th meeting report has been issued by the consultant and will be made public. He also stated that the city is still working on insurance and has reached out to multiple providers, with a possible agreement with a private provider and one last attempt at a pool (05:01:57). He also said they are hiring interns to assist with a state and property audit and to revamp the city's website (05:02:40). | No Motion | 0 Total: 0 In Favor 0 Against 0 Neutral |
|
|
||||
| 05:03:00 | 8C: Future Agenda Items | Under future agenda items, Councilmember Hoffman raised concerns about the current practice of not attaching written public comments to the agenda, suggesting a return to the previous method used by the Planning Commission where public comments are added contemporaneously with the person's name. (05:03:17) Councilmember Kelman requested that the six priority items identified during Amy's strategic planning session be woven into the agenda in a balanced manner. (05:04:16) The Mayor confirmed that this was the direction given to staff. (05:04:41) | No Motion | 1 Total: 1 In Favor 0 Against 0 Neutral |
| 05:05:29 | 9: ADJOURNMENT - 10:00 PM | Mayor Sobieski adjourned the meeting at 12:15 AM on Wednesday, March 6th. (05:05:34) | No Motion | 1 Total: 0 In Favor 0 Against 1 Neutral |
City Council Meeting Transcript
| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:10.07 | Mayor Sobieski | Good evening, is it on? Yes. Good evening, everyone. Let's call this meeting to order at 530 on March 5th and conduct the roll call, please. |
| 00:00:11.08 | Unknown | Is it on? |
| 00:00:22.22 | Council Member Kellman | Alrighty. |
| 00:00:23.91 | Mayor Sobieski | just come down to, we'll just come down, okay. |
| 00:00:26.19 | Council Member Kellman | We can hear you. Yeah. Okay. Council Member Kellman. |
| 00:00:30.29 | Council Member Kellman | Here. |
| 00:00:31.18 | Council Member Kellman | Councilmember Rothstein? Here. Councilmember Hoffman? Here. Vice Mayor Cox? Here. Mayor Sobieski? |
| 00:00:37.44 | Mayor Sobieski | Here. |
| 00:00:39.97 | Mayor Sobieski | We have three items on closed section. Conference with legal counsel, existing litigation. |
| 00:00:45.70 | Mayor Sobieski | The name of the case is Whiskey Springs Villa HOA versus City of Sausalito. |
| 00:00:50.08 | Mayor Sobieski | Item number two is conference with the legal counsel existing litigation. |
| 00:00:53.80 | Mayor Sobieski | Government code section 54956. Yes, in my backyard versus city of Sausalito. |
| 00:00:59.35 | Mayor Sobieski | And then third item, confidence with legal counsel, government code section 54956.92, significant exposure to litigation. |
| 00:01:08.16 | Mayor Sobieski | one case and just a comment I take matters of conflict of interest seriously I've hired an FPPC expert legal counsel and have been advised that I should recuse myself from the third item. As I believe that it will affect the value enjoyment of my property and hence creates a conflict of interest. We now open the floor to public comment on the closed session items. |
| 00:01:32.35 | Mayor Sobieski | There's one commenter in the audience here. |
| 00:01:35.41 | Mayor Sobieski | Hello. |
| 00:01:35.58 | Stephen Woodside | Thank you, Mayor Sobieski and members of the council. I'm here to help. My name is Stephen Woodside. I'm a resident of Sausalito, and I suspect that at least one of the items on your closed session has something to do with the housing element. and to that I want to say that I'm a supporter of virtually everything you've done in the housing element I spent a rainy weekend going through 197 pages or something trying to figure it out a little more closely than what had been everything you've done in the housing element. I spent a rainy weekend going through 197 pages or something, trying to figure it out a little more closely than what had been presented as a summary. And I think it's worth you doing everything in your power to support it, affirm it, and make sure that it remains viable against attacks that say you haven't done enough or you're doing too much, et cetera, et cetera. |
| 00:01:36.74 | Mayor Sobieski | home. |
| 00:02:23.10 | Stephen Woodside | And specifically, lately, I'm sure many of you are aware that there was indeed one application that startled virtually everyone in the community. |
| 00:02:33.31 | Stephen Woodside | And because of that, |
| 00:02:35.67 | Stephen Woodside | I think you would be wise to focus specifically on that and review with your counsel |
| 00:02:41.93 | Stephen Woodside | your options, you may have many, as to what you might do. |
| 00:02:46.18 | Stephen Woodside | to make it very clear to the public and to the applicant and to any other applicants that in particular with respect to historic districts that you expect and the state expects that you'll meet historic standards for building. |
| 00:03:02.06 | Stephen Woodside | And I think everyone that I've talked to agrees that this latest proposal does not. |
| 00:03:07.97 | Stephen Woodside | Secondly, more generally, |
| 00:03:12.83 | Stephen Woodside | When you designated opportunity sites, you had numbers attached to each one. |
| 00:03:19.87 | Stephen Woodside | And I think at least for the time being, unless something else changes, I think you should do everything you can to stick to those numbers and encourage applicants to stick to those numbers. And in particular, the site that's stirred so many people lately, I think the number was 20. |
| 00:03:37.53 | Stephen Woodside | and two to three stories. Thank you very much. |
| 00:03:39.19 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you very much. |
| 00:03:40.50 | Mayor Sobieski | Is there anyone online? |
| 00:03:44.03 | Mayor Sobieski | All right, no public comment online. We'll close public comment. We will return to closed session. We will resume here at 7 p.m. |
| 00:04:25.22 | Barbara Brown | recording in progress |
| 00:04:34.45 | Mayor Sobieski | We convene this session of the city council on March the fifth. There are no announcements from closed session. We'll begin with the pledge of allegiance, please stand. |
| 00:04:44.93 | Unknown | President Biden, to the flag, the United States of America. |
| 00:04:46.77 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:04:46.92 | Mayor Sobieski | I know. |
| 00:04:47.60 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 00:04:49.00 | Unknown | To the Republic of Poland, for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. |
| 00:04:49.08 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 00:04:49.15 | Karen | and so. |
| 00:04:50.67 | Mayor Sobieski | really. |
| 00:04:51.19 | Karen | So... |
| 00:04:51.88 | Karen | One day. |
| 00:04:58.94 | Mayor Sobieski | I'm not sure. |
| 00:04:59.39 | Mayor Sobieski | Could I please get a motion to approve the agenda? |
| 00:05:02.65 | Unknown | second. |
| 00:05:03.43 | Mayor Sobieski | All in favor? |
| 00:05:04.36 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:05:05.27 | Mayor Sobieski | Posts. |
| 00:05:06.06 | Mayor Sobieski | The agenda is approved. |
| 00:05:07.44 | Mayor Sobieski | There are no special announcements. |
| 00:05:09.21 | Mayor Sobieski | May we have a motion or we're going to now adopt the draft minutes for the February 20th. |
| 00:05:15.80 | Mayor Sobieski | City Council meeting. |
| 00:05:17.03 | Mayor Sobieski | Can we open the floor for public comment? |
| 00:05:20.62 | Babette McDougall | We have Babette with Lugo. |
| 00:05:23.15 | Mayor Sobieski | These are comments on the minutes from February 20th, Ms. McGuigal. OK. |
| 00:05:28.40 | Councilmember Hoffman | Sorry, point of order. Take public comment for the agenda. |
| 00:05:34.80 | Councilmember Hoffman | When we vote, not the consent calendar agenda, but for the agenda as a whole, don't we take... |
| 00:05:40.75 | Councilmember Hoffman | don't we? Aren't we supposed to? |
| 00:05:42.37 | Mayor Sobieski | Sure. |
| 00:05:42.58 | Unknown | you |
| 00:05:42.61 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:05:42.85 | Councilmember Hoffman | We don't ever. |
| 00:05:43.54 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:05:43.56 | Unknown | There were no amendments. |
| 00:05:44.97 | Mayor Sobieski | Sergio, is there any comment on that question from Councilmember Hoffman? |
| 00:05:48.70 | Sergio | No, and I will note that the approval of the agenda is not actually a separately listed agenda item. It's just something that you guys typically decide as to whether or not you're going to rearrange the agenda items that are listed. |
| 00:06:00.68 | Sergio | No, you don't need to take public comment. |
| 00:06:02.29 | Mayor Sobieski | actually even voting on the agenda is not necessary in the future? |
| 00:06:05.27 | Sergio | No, it's not. It's something you guys typically, most agencies do it, and it's fine to do so. But again, |
| 00:06:12.12 | Sergio | You know, you can just |
| 00:06:14.05 | Sergio | It's the opportunity you guys have to discuss whether you want to move things around for the purposes of convenience. |
| 00:06:17.31 | Mayor Sobieski | So, |
| 00:06:19.52 | Mayor Sobieski | Okay, we might save five seconds in future meetings. |
| 00:06:23.06 | Mayor Sobieski | Please. |
| 00:06:23.97 | Councilmember Hoffman | If so. |
| 00:06:26.77 | Councilmember Hoffman | Sorry. |
| 00:06:27.82 | Councilmember Hoffman | If somebody's going to recuse themselves from a later item on the agenda, do they need to note that recusal now? No. |
| 00:06:33.57 | Sergio | No, they would normally note it at the time the agenda item is called under the FBPC regulations. |
| 00:06:38.96 | Councilmember Hoffman | Hold on. I didn't hear that. At the time. |
| 00:06:40.59 | Sergio | Internet. |
| 00:06:41.25 | Sergio | They would normally note that at the time the agenda item is called. |
| 00:06:44.14 | Councilmember Hoffman | Oh, thank you. I'm sorry. I was making noise, I think. Pardon me. |
| 00:06:47.76 | Councilmember Hoffman | Sorry, thank you for that clarification. |
| 00:06:49.99 | Mayor Sobieski | So are there public comments on the, |
| 00:06:51.68 | Mayor Sobieski | Missing people. |
| 00:06:53.06 | Mayor Sobieski | Please go ahead. |
| 00:06:53.67 | Unknown | Thank you very much for recognizing me. If I understand correctly, we're inviting comment on the 20 February meeting minutes, correct? |
| 00:07:02.02 | Mayor Sobieski | That's correct. |
| 00:07:02.77 | Unknown | Okay. So, and it's toward that issue that, as you know, in my late arriving mail, I would like to speak |
| 00:07:09.21 | Unknown | And that is that, |
| 00:07:10.41 | Unknown | Again, I want to urge you to think about reinstating democracy in the council chambers. You will |
| 00:07:15.51 | Unknown | blessed with an incredibly rich assortment of people from the community at the last meeting, |
| 00:07:20.45 | Unknown | We could have had a really wonderful, productive, engaged |
| 00:07:24.11 | Unknown | Discussion. |
| 00:07:25.33 | Unknown | and arrived at probably an area of consensus not previously thought of. |
| 00:07:30.27 | Unknown | And it was a missed opportunity. And I'm really sorry about that. And the minutes don't reflect that at all, the kind of people who were present to testify. |
| 00:07:38.68 | Unknown | or just be present. |
| 00:07:40.48 | Unknown | And I'm, again, asking you to think about how we're recording this whole thing. It's all being so circumvented and so abbreviated that I'm not sure that we have a very realistic record. |
| 00:07:50.35 | Unknown | Like, for example, I'm pretty sure Ms. Cox must have |
| 00:07:53.11 | Unknown | kind of gotten it backwards when she said, |
| 00:07:56.18 | Unknown | the most |
| 00:07:57.58 | Unknown | Enduring, she's saying, no, I didn't get it backwards. |
| 00:08:01.19 | Unknown | which I find really fascinating that empirical standards of ethics, which are evergreen, like the Constitution itself, |
| 00:08:08.17 | Unknown | And yet it's all this. |
| 00:08:10.01 | Unknown | fine detail about kinfolk deals and, you know, whether to do it for a dollar or something less or something more. |
| 00:08:16.21 | Unknown | These are the things that tie the hands of future councils, not the empirical standards. Thank you. |
| 00:08:22.38 | Mayor Sobieski | Are there any other public comments? |
| 00:08:25.39 | Babette McDougall | No further public comment. Also, just one statement. Anybody that would like to make any public comments, if they're in-house, you can fill out one of these sheets and hand it back over here. And if anybody is on Zoom, you can use the raise hand function. |
| 00:08:38.80 | Cox | Move approval of the minutes. |
| 00:08:40.84 | Cox | Second. |
| 00:08:41.49 | Mayor Sobieski | All in favor? |
| 00:08:42.60 | Cox | Bye. |
| 00:08:43.64 | Mayor Sobieski | Opposed minutes are approved moving on to the consent calendar, these are items that are considered routine and non controversial and require no discussion. |
| 00:08:50.39 | Mayor Sobieski | and are expected to have unanimous council approval. There will be no separate discussion of these items. However, |
| 00:08:55.27 | Mayor Sobieski | Before we go to a motion to adopt these items, |
| 00:08:57.90 | Mayor Sobieski | The city council members may request an item to be removed from the consent calendar. Items removed will be discussed later on the agenda. Do any, let me just go over the. |
| 00:09:06.90 | Mayor Sobieski | list. 3A National Women's History Month 2024 Proclamation. 3B adopt a resolution to cure incorrect respect to Council actions on January 22nd, 2024. |
| 00:09:17.14 | Mayor Sobieski | 3C adopt a resolution approving the third professional services contract. |
| 00:09:21.45 | Mayor Sobieski | Amendment with BKF engineers for design services related to the ferry landing. |
| 00:09:26.22 | Mayor Sobieski | improvement project |
| 00:09:27.76 | Mayor Sobieski | Item 3D adopt a resolution authorizing the city manager to execute the first amendment to the agreement. |
| 00:09:33.34 | Mayor Sobieski | of with the county of Marin to increase the total amount available on the city |
| 00:09:37.48 | Mayor Sobieski | available to the city of Sausalito |
| 00:09:39.38 | Mayor Sobieski | to expanded homeless and housing opportunities in the mountains. |
| 00:09:42.56 | Mayor Sobieski | not to exceed $1 million. Many of my colleagues have |
| 00:09:45.95 | Unknown | Yes, thank you, Mayor. I'd like to pull item 3D. I'd just like to add some potential direction to staff. So if we could entertain it at the beginning of the meeting, it's the resolution on the execution of the million dollars for homelessness funding. |
| 00:09:58.08 | Mayor Sobieski | 3D will become item 5E. |
| 00:10:00.29 | Councilmember Hoffman | And I'd like to remove 3B, B as in boy. |
| 00:10:02.99 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:10:03.01 | Mayor Sobieski | But... |
| 00:10:04.64 | Mayor Sobieski | Okay, 3B, as in boy, removed and will be put as 5F. |
| 00:10:12.10 | Mayor Sobieski | Okay, so a motion to approve the consent calendar item with two items, women's. Can we do public comment? Thank you very much. |
| 00:10:19.72 | Mayor Sobieski | Public comment, please, on those two items, National Women's History Month 2024 Proclamation and adopt a resolution approving the professional services contract. |
| 00:10:27.51 | Babette McDougall | We have Babette McDougall. |
| 00:10:35.15 | Unknown | I think I signed up for everything tonight. |
| 00:10:38.62 | Unknown | So I just want to point out that March 8 actually is International Women's Day. And that's actually what got the whole thing started in the first place. And I'm glad to know that we now celebrate it as a month of history. |
| 00:10:48.84 | Unknown | But I just want to make sure we know for the record. |
| 00:10:52.03 | Unknown | Maybe in the future we'll do a March 8th International Women's Day event in Sausalito. |
| 00:10:56.89 | Unknown | That would be fun. Thank you. |
| 00:10:59.95 | Mayor Sobieski | Any other public comment? |
| 00:11:01.67 | Mayor Sobieski | See none. |
| 00:11:02.97 | Mayor Sobieski | You get a motion to approve this consent calendar. |
| 00:11:04.91 | Cox | I move approval of items 3A and 3C of the consent calendar. |
| 00:11:11.34 | Unknown | Second. |
| 00:11:11.86 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 00:11:11.96 | Unknown | All in favor? |
| 00:11:13.17 | Cox | Hi. |
| 00:11:14.05 | Unknown | Can I just ask that we hear 3B, or sorry, the consent calendar item on the Cure and Correct now because it's timely given some of the events of the upcoming, and it's |
| 00:11:22.44 | Cox | We noticed the appeal for a time certain of 7, 12 p.m. We're already late on that. |
| 00:11:29.09 | Mayor Sobieski | Okay. |
| 00:11:31.18 | Mayor Sobieski | All right, so the consent calendar item is approved. And we will move on to the public hearing item. |
| 00:11:38.03 | Mayor Sobieski | appeal of an administrative |
| 00:11:39.67 | Mayor Sobieski | citation issued by |
| 00:11:42.61 | Mayor Sobieski | the Sausalito Planning Commission for unauthorized tree alterations at 230 Santa Rosa Avenue. |
| 00:11:48.82 | Mayor Sobieski | This is an opportunity for any members to state ex parte communications or recusals. Does anyone have any? |
| 00:11:57.17 | Mayor Sobieski | All right, the public hearing item is open. Director |
| 00:12:00.10 | Mayor Sobieski | Phipps, you have the floor. |
| 00:12:02.80 | Brandy Phipps | Yes, thank you. And good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council members, members of the public and staff. Happy to be joining you this evening, as always, this evening to introduce Council Item 4A regarding an appeal of administrative citation, as mentioned, for unauthorized tree alterations at 230 Santa Rosa Avenue. This case was initially reported to the Code Enforcement Department in October of last year, following which report and inspection was conducted by our code enforcement officer. And it was determined that 10 mature heritage bay laurel trees had been significantly altered, which is in violation of Sausalito municipal code, particularly code section 11.12.030 related to preservation of trees, preservation of protected trees, that is. This project has been led by CDD's Associate Planner, Matthew Mandich, and CDD's Code Enforcement Officer, Paul Van Hook. |
| 00:12:49.90 | Unknown | Um, |
| 00:12:59.83 | Brandy Phipps | They are both in attendance this evening and will be providing council additional details on this item as well as staff's recommendation to council. So with that, I will give Mr. Mandich and Mr. Ho. |
| 00:13:11.22 | Brandy Phipps | Mr. Van Hook, excuse me, the floor. And Mayor, would you like me to summarize public hearing appeal format or will you do that? |
| 00:13:18.03 | Mayor Sobieski | Please go ahead. |
| 00:13:18.89 | Brandy Phipps | Okay, excellent. So typically, the mayor will invite council members to make ex parte communications. |
| 00:13:26.72 | Brandy Phipps | The mayor will open the public hearing. There will be a staff presentation. Council will follow with questions for staff. There will be an appellant presentation. Council will follow for questions to the appellant. The mayor will ask for and open public comment. There will then be an opportunity for staff to respond to any new issues raised during the public comment period. And there will be an opportunity for the appellant to respond to public comment based on any reserved rebuttal time. Thank you. |
| 00:14:04.69 | Brandy Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:14:12.84 | Matthew Mandich | Hello, council. Good evening. Happy to be here with you all tonight. So we'll just jump right in, get started. So as. OK, there we go. I'm just going to first discuss the location of the site a little bit just to make you all aware. |
| 00:14:25.36 | Matthew Mandich | Is this pointer working? Yes, fantastic. Okay, so here we are at the plot, the parcel 230 Santa Rosa. This is part of town, Santa Rosa here that hooks up with Glen Drive, very sharp corner there. The property extends from Santa Rosa here to Glen Drive down below. And here's an image of that same property from Google Earth. Next slide, please. |
| 00:14:49.21 | Matthew Mandich | Just to give you a little background on this project that was mentioned by Director Phipps, this is a code enforcement issue. So I'm going to have Mr. Paul Van Hook, our code enforcement officer, present a little background on this and some of the things that he experienced and witnessed while visiting the site and the reason for the citation. And then I'll jump back in and take over some of the analysis from there. Thank you. |
| 00:15:14.15 | Paul Van Hook | Thank you, Matthew. |
| 00:15:15.87 | Paul Van Hook | Good evening, counsel. My name is Paul Van Hook. I'm the code enforcement officer for the city of Sausalito. I've been here for about a year. I've had the chance to meet most of you. And just to give you a little bit of background on the case regarding 230 Santa Rosa and the tree alterations. On October 11th of 2023, I received multiple complaints from... |
| 00:15:36.68 | Paul Van Hook | residents and, um, just concerned neighbors around the area regarding, um, the, um, unauthorized alteration of, uh, several trees at two 30 Santa Rosa. Um, on October 17th, I performed a, um, site investigation, um, and, uh, |
| 00:15:54.87 | Paul Van Hook | viewed trees that were altered both on Santa Rosa Avenue and on the, um, bottom property from Glenn Avenue as well, too. Um, there were approximately 10, uh, mature, uh, |
| 00:16:06.12 | Paul Van Hook | bay laurel trees that were altered significantly. Pictures will be provided later to show you exactly what was going on. But essentially, the section of the code, South Sluton Municipal Code, 11.12.030 on heritage trees restricts foliage reduction to not exceed one quarter of the total tree foliage. Upon my visit there, the entire canopies were moved from the tree. So 100% was removed as opposed to just 25%. On October 17th, an administrative citation was gandied out, as well as the notice of public hearing, was listed via mail, certified mail. |
| 00:16:50.03 | Paul Van Hook | and posted on site at 230 Santa Rosa. |
| 00:16:52.53 | Paul Van Hook | The public hearing was initially set for November 15th, but was held on December 13th. |
| 00:17:00.07 | Paul Van Hook | They're the planning commission. |
| 00:17:04.01 | Paul Van Hook | opted to go ahead and cite the resident $1,000 per tree. There was 10 mature bay laurel trees that were altered for the total amount of $10,000. |
| 00:17:17.84 | Paul Van Hook | On December 19th, 2023, the property owner filed for an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, which brings us to today, where we are today. |
| 00:17:29.47 | Paul Van Hook | So I'm going to go ahead and ask questions from the diocese. |
| 00:17:33.22 | Cox | I did want to note that we haven't made, we haven't disclosed any ex parte communications. I invited that. |
| 00:17:39.09 | Mayor Sobieski | I invited that at the head of the meeting. |
| 00:17:40.49 | Cox | So I just wanted to confirm there were none. Sorry. I had a comment from a member of the public concerned that we hadn't closed anything. |
| 00:17:47.51 | Mayor Sobieski | I see. |
| 00:17:47.69 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:17:47.71 | Mayor Sobieski | I'm not sure. |
| 00:17:48.29 | Councilmember Hoffman | None. |
| 00:17:49.03 | Mayor Sobieski | For the record, yeah, I invited that and there were no volunteers. |
| 00:17:49.40 | Councilmember Hoffman | THE RECORD. |
| 00:17:54.87 | Mayor Sobieski | So. |
| 00:17:55.29 | Cox | Okay, the staff report says that following the planning commission meeting, it was determined that the appellant |
| 00:18:01.97 | Cox | had submitted a tree removal alteration permit application |
| 00:18:05.67 | Cox | on february 8 2023 |
| 00:18:08.16 | Cox | via email. |
| 00:18:09.95 | Cox | And so your presentation didn't address that, but... |
| 00:18:14.44 | Matthew Mandich | Um, |
| 00:18:15.17 | Matthew Mandich | If I may, Councilmember, the presentation is just getting started. |
| 00:18:18.29 | Cox | Oh. |
| 00:18:19.03 | Matthew Mandich | This isn't, this is not the end, but rather the beginning. |
| 00:18:19.27 | Cox | isn't. |
| 00:18:22.34 | Cox | Well, this timeline, |
| 00:18:24.52 | Cox | does not include at the very top |
| 00:18:26.95 | Cox | the February |
| 00:18:28.48 | Cox | 8, 2023, submission of an application. |
| 00:18:31.99 | Matthew Mandich | Okay. |
| 00:18:32.43 | Cox | And that's why I raised it. I think that's a really important point. |
| 00:18:35.72 | Matthew Mandich | Mm? |
| 00:18:35.76 | Cox | that this applicant did attempt to try to follow the rules. |
| 00:18:39.54 | Matthew Mandich | Okay. Yeah, we'll discuss that. I'm sure that'll be a point of the appellant. And it's also contained in this presentation as well. We were going to touch on that and we'll do questions after the presentation as far as I understood that was customary. |
| 00:18:52.77 | Mayor Sobieski | Please proceed. |
| 00:18:53.22 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. So brings us to March 5th today, City Council, to review the record of decision and consider relevant evidence and hear testimony. So moving on. Next slide, please. |
| 00:19:03.53 | Matthew Mandich | So analysis again this section has been quoted already by the director and also by our code enforcement officer so I don't think need to repeat all of that but it is unlawful for any person to remove or alter any protected tree as defined her end without a permit issued and posted as provided in this chapter except for the purpose of routine pruning. So just to go through some of the definitions that are found in this title, alteration equals the significant change or damage, cutting of trunk or branches, changing drainage, cutting of roots, removal of upper portion of trunk, whereas routine pruning is just the removal of dead branches. And a protected tree in this case is the only species that we have in Sausalito as a protected tree is the coastal live oak. However, any heritage tree, which has a diameter of over 10 inches, that is considered a heritage tree, is also considered a protected tree, unless it's on this list of undesirable trees. These are the undesirable trees which you can remove without a permit. The trees in question, which is a bay laurel, are not on this list. So just want to make that point there. So they do qualify as protected protected heritage trees next slide please um visual photographic and documentary evidence show that at least 10 bay laurel heritage trees with a diameter at breast height ranging from 28 to 80 inches were significantly altered without the required permits i have some images here for you showing the canopy that existed downslope from 230 santa rosa glenn drive prior to the removal and the situation that we observed after from our court enforcement officer I'm just going to go through a couple of photos here yeah next slide please thank you as you can see and as our code enforcement officer already discussed many of these trees were significantly altered all the canopies were entirely removed and no permit was obtained for this we had nine trees in the back and one bay laurel tree in the front. You can see some of the images again and from before and after the alterations. Next slide, please. So this was obtained from the appellant. This is from Leo's tree service. This is when the application for a tree removal permit was submitted back in February of 2023. that permit was not acted upon by staff at that time. It was sent via email, which is not a traditional method of delivering applications. The application, the appellant made no attempt to follow up on this in the time since the email was submitted. The appellant also came to the counter for code enforcement violations, never brought the permit up, never contacted staff about the permit. The permit was never paid for there was never a planning commission hearing to approve a permit. So that's where we stand on that. Moving to the next slide. The Planning Commission hearing was held in December as discussed, pursuant to Title 11-12050. If it is determined that a violation occurred, the Planning Commission may impose an administrative fine for a legal removal or alteration of up to $1,000 per tree. They may also issue a remedial order or both. |
| 00:22:00.48 | Matthew Mandich | Back one, please. The Planning Commission is also set to consider these factors when they're determining what kind of fine or remedial order to consider. Those factors are listed below here. Severity of violation, value of trees, impact on community, number of violations that occurred, frequency, economic impact of remedial order, and good faith efforts of the violator. Based on these factors and based on the evidence presented to the Planning Commission, they opted to fine the appellate $1,000 per tree for a total of $10,000, as well as issuing a remedial order for a break. these factors and based on the evidence presented to the planning commission they opted to find the appellate $1,000 per tree for a total of $10,000 as well as issuing an remedial order for erosion control and bi-weekly erosion reports to be submitted to the city so that was the ruling of the commission in December 2023 next slide please in as far as erosion control is concerned staff is in the possession of four erosion control reports from Thomas Reagan hard licensed civil engineer. The report state that there is little potential for significant erosion even after significant rain events report also states that the straw waddles are completely in place and intact no evidence of erosion or surface runoff. Staff performed a site visit several weeks ago on February 22 and observed some erosion and site but not considered significant to impact the right of way or adjacent properties next slide please. |
| 00:23:10.97 | Matthew Mandich | You can see some images from that site visit here. You can see that there is some straw and some wattles coming off on the side, a little bit of undercutting here, but again, nothing that was considered significant enough to warrant |
| 00:23:21.90 | Matthew Mandich | considerable mitigation efforts following what was provided in the erosion reports next slide please so this brings us to the conclusion of this presentation staff recommendation worth reminding here that permits are again required for true alteration altering protected heritage trees without an approved permit is a clear violation of the Sausalito municipal code staff recommends that the city and council impose an administrative fine of 500 per legally 500500 per legally altered tree for a total of $5,000 since the trees were illegally altered but not removed. This mirrors staff's original recommendation to the Planning Commission in the report presented on December. I believe it was 17th. Staff recommends that the city council rescind the remedial order that requires the violator to prepare and submit biweekly erosion reports due to the conditions observed on the site and instead have staff perform periodic visits to determine if a soils report is needed to further mitigate any erosion issues in the future. |
| 00:24:15.95 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you very much and I'm happy to address any questions. |
| 00:24:18.49 | Mayor Sobieski | Questions please from the dice. |
| 00:24:19.97 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 00:24:20.36 | Mayor Sobieski | Goodbye, Samir. |
| 00:24:22.45 | Cox | Thank you. One of the handwritten pages in our packet |
| 00:24:26.28 | Cox | seems to be a dangler, it's just labeled H through M. |
| 00:24:30.77 | Cox | And it says tree alteration topping application. And it says tree will re-sprout new growth within 60 days that can be managed. Overall tree health is improved. |
| 00:24:43.66 | Cox | Was there any evaluation? Because when you look at the pictures, it's really startling to see the amount of topping that occurred. And so I wanted to know if staff had any opinion or any consultants had any opinion about |
| 00:24:58.46 | Cox | about the overall health of the tree, since one of the things we have to |
| 00:25:03.22 | Cox | evaluate is the severity of the violation and so |
| 00:25:07.47 | Cox | Is it true, in staff's opinion, that the tree will re-sprout |
| 00:25:12.94 | Cox | With growth, you know, they said that the prior canopy was a tangled mess. Is it true that the new canopy will sprout and that the overall tree health will be improved? |
| 00:25:23.10 | Matthew Mandich | So what you're reading from there is from the appellant, that is his writing. We do not have an arborist report on file about these trees. So we we we don't have a professional opinion. I'm not a professional arborist, so I will hold back from stating my opinion on the regrowth. But that is, you know, again, that's the appellant's opinion. I have no opinion. I'm not an arborist, so I think an arborist report might be necessary to confirm. |
| 00:25:47.43 | Cox | and then for prior violations. |
| 00:25:50.54 | Cox | It hasn't been the practice of the city to assess $1,000 or more when a tree is removed. |
| 00:25:58.23 | Cox | but to assess $500 when a tree is overly pruned. |
| 00:26:03.23 | Matthew Mandich | There's actually very little record on this. I've been through the file on this. I mean, our typical tree removal permit costs $1,065. That's the standard fee for removal of protected tree for planning commission approval in a public hearing. The citations that we have on file date back, there's only a couple from 2013 to now, which is as far as the records on the webpage can go back. But the last one that was handed out was in 2016, and it was for $175. That's what I was able to find. However, that being said, staff has observed both in the field and heard from residents of the city that empirically, there has been a lot of illegal tree removal going on in the city consistently. And this was such an egregious act. And there were many complaints on this, that we decided maybe this was a time to kind of reinforce this administrative citation process and try to, you know, kind of mitigate some of the illegal tree removals that we've been seeing around the city. And this kind of maybe could set a tone and a precedent for that to discourage that in the future going forward. |
| 00:27:04.79 | Cox | And did you believe that the $500 amount of fine per tree was adequate to accomplish those goals that you've just enunciated? |
| 00:27:12.45 | Matthew Mandich | Yes, that was my original opinion in the staff report that was presented to the planning commission. I believe that the maximum fine available $1,000 per tree was more warranted for an illegal removal. These trees were significantly altered, but not removed. So they are still alive, still there. So I thought that, you know, maybe half that fine would be a reasonable amount. That's why I suggested $500 to begin with. And that's what I was suggesting again to you today. But of course, council may take any action they please. |
| 00:27:36.23 | Cox | Thank you so much. That ends my questions. |
| 00:27:39.06 | Mayor Sobieski | Any other questions from the dais? That's from Everhoffman. |
| 00:27:42.37 | Councilmember Hoffman | Good evening. And thank you for your presentation. |
| 00:27:48.17 | Councilmember Hoffman | And so it's $1,000. The permit cost $1,000 per tree. |
| 00:27:53.95 | Matthew Mandich | So it's $1,000.65 for the first tree. And then any additional tree is $80 on top of that. |
| 00:28:00.16 | Matthew Mandich | For removal, yes. |
| 00:28:03.73 | Councilmember Hoffman | And do you have to have a permit if you just want to top? |
| 00:28:07.78 | Matthew Mandich | Uh, up to 25%, anything more than that requires a permit, yes. |
| 00:28:11.65 | Councilmember Hoffman | So. |
| 00:28:12.46 | Matthew Mandich | It's the same. Yeah. |
| 00:28:14.26 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:28:14.59 | Kelman | Thank you. |
| 00:28:17.47 | Mayor Sobieski | Any other questions, council member? |
| 00:28:20.49 | Kelman | Just one, so you probably know we are |
| 00:28:23.44 | Kelman | in progress looking at a geologic hazard study around the city. I'm not sure exactly what status of that is right now, but I know |
| 00:28:31.81 | Kelman | On page two of the erosion control report, it says, although nearly vertical, the road cut slope appears highly stable with little potential for erosion and little to no eroded soil was observed in the gutter system. |
| 00:28:45.10 | Kelman | Um, |
| 00:28:47.17 | Kelman | I'm not a soils expert and I'm not an erosion expert. |
| 00:28:50.56 | Kelman | But I have to feel that just seeing the verticality of that right over by a storm drain and by one of our roadways concerns me. And I'm wondering if you've seen anything to the contrary. I certainly have around the city, maybe in this particular instance, the soils are such that that isn't a problem. Yeah. |
| 00:29:10.27 | Kelman | That, I mean, that is just a... |
| 00:29:11.56 | Kelman | full on vertical right there on a major road. Any thoughts on that? |
| 00:29:16.45 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, I mean, one of the reasons that this was brought to the planning commission originally was due to the fact that there were multiple neighbors in the vicinity that were concerned with the erosion that was occurring there. That was something that was brought to the planning commission. The planning commissioners also believed that there was significant erosion occurring there. |
| 00:29:31.48 | Matthew Mandich | We've since received erosion reports from a civil engineer that seemed to be contradicting some of those opinions and views. But as far as the verticality they cut is indeed very steep. As I mentioned, I was able to go with Code Enforcement Officer Paul Van Hook a couple weeks ago to view the site. And again, saw some undercutting, saw some of the strong hay coming down and some of the waddles. But no significant pileup on the right of way and nothing that looked like an immediate danger to any adjacent properties. |
| 00:30:00.90 | Kelman | And have you gone to the site recently? I mean, we are in an era of unprecedented soil saturation and multiple day hundred year storm events. And I note that this erosion control report is dated December 16th, 2023, which is, in fact, prior to the Christmas storms, which caused flooding much of California. And I don't know when the soils were, in fact, inspected. So any up to date inspections? Yeah. |
| 00:30:22.97 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, so I think I hope that I was able to attach all four of the erosion control reports. I think the most recent one is from February. If I'm correct, maybe February 15. I'm just saying that off the top of my head. But so there are some, is it the 15th? Yeah. So there were some more recent reports than that. |
| 00:30:40.55 | Kelman | Sorry, I didn't. |
| 00:30:41.11 | Matthew Mandich | No worries. Yeah, they pretty much they all repeat each other. It's very similar. |
| 00:30:45.63 | Kelman | So then the obligation, Matthew, is for the homeowner to install the straw wattle and disperse straw mulch and to keep it. |
| 00:30:55.42 | Kelman | up to standards on some regular basis. Do we have a plan for that? |
| 00:31:00.65 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah. So, I mean, that was kind of, I guess, one of the reasons the planning commission ordered bi-weekly reports on this was to see how, you know, the erosion was progressing over especially the winter months and whether or not those mitigation efforts and measures that were ordered as part of the remedial order were in place and staying there. Again, from the erosion control reports we have on file are the specialist, the civil engineer said that the waddles and the erosion control blankets were completely in place and intact. That's, |
| 00:31:28.24 | Matthew Mandich | Mostly true. Some of them were off, you know, there was some waddle coming down and hay and some of the erosion blanket. So there has been some soil movement. We've had some considerable storms in the last several months. So, you know, I wouldn't say it's completely entirely intact, but not seeing, you know, any significant piles of earth or big undercuts coming out of there. |
| 00:31:49.64 | Mayor Sobieski | Please consider. |
| 00:31:50.97 | Unknown | Thank you. Along those same lines, I'm just trying to understand why the Planning Commission recommended the $1,000 versus the $500 per tree cost. And the staff recommendation at the time in the Planning Commission was the $500 fine. And in your opinion, do you think that these erosion reports demonstrate that your initial projections about the impact were correct? So that's why you're recommending, again, a return to the $500 in tonight's staff reports? |
| 00:32:16.93 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, I'd agree with that, yeah. |
| 00:32:20.49 | Mayor Sobieski | That's right. |
| 00:32:20.59 | Matthew Mandich | Right. |
| 00:32:20.67 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 00:32:20.76 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 00:32:20.79 | Mayor Sobieski | HOFFMAN? |
| 00:32:21.37 | Councilmember Hoffman | Sorry, can I follow up on that? The first part of the question was, why did the Planning Commission decide 1,000 per tree as opposed to 500? |
| 00:32:29.73 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, thank you for that. |
| 00:32:30.56 | Councilmember Hoffman | Yeah, is it somewhere written down? I mean, is it- Yeah, I mean, well- |
| 00:32:33.43 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, I mean, well, yes, there's minutes. And, you know, of course, the hearing was recorded and televised. There was some deliberation on the dais about that there. It started at 500. There was discussion. And I think there were several that moved maybe to 750 and then even to a thousand after that. There was discussion on the dais about what the appropriate fine would be. And I think several commissioners felt strongly that it should be a thousand. And that was what the final vote turned out to be. |
| 00:32:58.84 | Mayor Sobieski | No more questions? |
| 00:32:59.94 | Kelman | So one more thing, the cost of a 25 gallon bay tree, I think if we were to buy one is 600 bucks. |
| 00:33:05.61 | Mayor Sobieski | So I think that, at least when I was on the Planning Commission, would often guide this. And we have some in our ordinance, some guidelines that when people come in for design review, we may ask them to do a one-to-one tree replacement. And we also often look at the gallon size and the cost. So that might have guided some of the costs. |
| 00:33:05.61 | Kelman | So I think that, at least when I was on the Planning Commission, would often guide this. And we have some in our ordinance, some guidelines that when people come in for design review, we may ask them to do a one-to-one tree replacement. And we also often look at the gallon size and the cost. So that might have guided some of the costs. |
| 00:33:24.58 | Mayor Sobieski | There are no more questions. We will move on to the appellant presentation. |
| 00:33:28.41 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 00:33:28.88 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 00:33:29.00 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 00:33:31.28 | Babette McDougall | How many minutes do you want input? |
| 00:33:34.06 | Mayor Sobieski | I think 15 is the standard. |
| 00:33:38.01 | Mayor Sobieski | Yes, and if you don't want all 15, you're allowed to reserve your time for a bottle. So up to 15 minutes, but if you want to reserve any, |
| 00:33:46.03 | Andrew Bickford | Andrew Bickford, Thank you, thank you mayor mayor ice mayor Council members, thank you for your attention to this matter this evening, I think my appeal has merit as this presentation will will demonstrate. |
| 00:33:46.75 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 00:34:03.64 | Andrew Bickford | I ask that the that the presentation be be put up on the screen, if possible. |
| 00:34:16.00 | Andrew Bickford | If not, I've given you each hard copy of the presentation. |
| 00:34:31.28 | Andrew Bickford | Okay, next slide, please. |
| 00:34:37.90 | Andrew Bickford | Thank you. So after moving to Sausalito about, to my current residence in Sausalito almost five years ago, |
| 00:34:47.15 | Andrew Bickford | I've been troubled by the condition of the trees on the lower part of the property. |
| 00:34:51.69 | Andrew Bickford | Historically, the trees were cut, they were reduced. |
| 00:34:56.11 | Andrew Bickford | And they had been repeatedly reduced. |
| 00:34:59.33 | Andrew Bickford | Um, |
| 00:35:00.07 | Andrew Bickford | over time. |
| 00:35:02.79 | Andrew Bickford | And with that, |
| 00:35:04.24 | Andrew Bickford | created was a thick tangled growth of dead wood, |
| 00:35:09.37 | Andrew Bickford | And, um, |
| 00:35:10.64 | Andrew Bickford | deformed crowns |
| 00:35:13.19 | Andrew Bickford | that would, that |
| 00:35:16.38 | Andrew Bickford | you know, occurred considerably high above the ground |
| 00:35:20.51 | Andrew Bickford | But again, was a flat |
| 00:35:24.02 | Andrew Bickford | thick band of foliage, mostly dead. |
| 00:35:28.05 | Andrew Bickford | Some living growth. |
| 00:35:30.92 | Andrew Bickford | But the trees were not in good condition. They were in very poor condition. And I have a slideshow that will demonstrate this later. |
| 00:35:42.82 | Andrew Bickford | And in fact, I considered it to be a serious fire hazard because there's power lines down slope and then the house is up slope of the trees. |
| 00:35:50.92 | Andrew Bickford | I met with several tree services regarding the problem and how best to repair the damaged California Bay trees. The consensus among experts was to remove the damaged crowns to allow new growth to emerge. The new growth that emerges will grow vertically, restoring the natural appearance of the trees. |
| 00:36:08.27 | Andrew Bickford | That new growth is occurring now. |
| 00:36:10.88 | Andrew Bickford | I'm not sure if you're |
| 00:36:11.88 | Andrew Bickford | On February 8th, |
| 00:36:13.65 | Andrew Bickford | 2023 I submitted an application to the Dropbox, Dropbox link as instructed by the city of Sausalito tree committee's tree alteration permit instructions. The Dropbox was dysfunctional and the tree committee apparently no longer active. I submitted the permit application form to CDD at Sausalito.gov. I provided an explanation that the Dropbox was not working and provided my phone contact number. |
| 00:36:44.82 | Andrew Bickford | UM, |
| 00:36:46.69 | Andrew Bickford | Next slide, please. |
| 00:36:48.82 | Andrew Bickford | In late summer, Leo's tree service removed the crowns of the trees as a corrective measure to restore the trees to natural form. |
| 00:36:56.90 | Andrew Bickford | Allow sunlight to reach the ground as needed to grow ground coverage. |
| 00:37:01.76 | Andrew Bickford | The foliage and deadwood was removed and deposited onto Glenn drive and chipped and disposed prior to the onset of rains, I spread six bales of rice straw under the trees to prevent the possibility of any topsoil erosion. |
| 00:37:17.76 | Andrew Bickford | from the area. This was not done to stabilize the slope, as no stabilization had occurred. |
| 00:37:25.60 | Andrew Bickford | The trees were not removed. |
| 00:37:28.74 | Andrew Bickford | The straw was only intended to ensure that should a heavy rain occur on dry soil, no silt. |
| 00:37:38.66 | Andrew Bickford | would be carried off site. |
| 00:37:40.40 | Andrew Bickford | for stormwater pollution prevention plan best management practices. |
| 00:37:44.88 | Andrew Bickford | standard practices for anybody that's done any erosion control. |
| 00:37:50.06 | Andrew Bickford | Next slide, please. |
| 00:37:52.96 | Andrew Bickford | On October 17, 2023, I was issued a citation for unauthorized tree alteration. A hearing was set for November 15, 2023. |
| 00:38:03.15 | Andrew Bickford | In early November, I called Planner Mandich |
| 00:38:06.34 | Andrew Bickford | and resent the application form that I had previously submitted to CEDD |
| 00:38:11.81 | Andrew Bickford | on February 8th. |
| 00:38:13.34 | Andrew Bickford | planner manager asks for proof of submission. |
| 00:38:16.85 | Andrew Bickford | I'm |
| 00:38:17.63 | Andrew Bickford | Um, |
| 00:38:18.64 | Andrew Bickford | you know, on that earlier date. |
| 00:38:20.72 | Andrew Bickford | However, at the time, I couldn't provide a record of that transmittal. I was told that the hearing was postponed until December 13th. |
| 00:38:28.61 | Andrew Bickford | I was not informed that erosion was even a concern. |
| 00:38:33.26 | Andrew Bickford | during the period between the receipt of complaint on October 11th |
| 00:38:37.95 | Andrew Bickford | to December 13th. |
| 00:38:40.43 | Andrew Bickford | Um, |
| 00:38:41.44 | Andrew Bickford | No city staff contacted me for information. |
| 00:38:46.97 | Andrew Bickford | or re or requested to enter the property. I was never contacted by any of the concerned neighbors. |
| 00:38:54.57 | Andrew Bickford | Next slide, please. |
| 00:38:57.71 | Andrew Bickford | Following the hearing on December 13th, I received an invoice for $10,000 to be paid on December 14th. The very next day, I was told the payment date was... |
| 00:39:07.24 | Andrew Bickford | was later told to payment, |
| 00:39:08.84 | Andrew Bickford | date was in error. |
| 00:39:10.79 | Andrew Bickford | At 2.40 p.m. on December 14th, Planner Mandage, |
| 00:39:15.19 | Andrew Bickford | and informed me |
| 00:39:17.16 | Andrew Bickford | by email that I must perform immediate erosion control work at my expense and would be legally obligated to engage in erosion control specialist. To assess the site institute mitigation measures and provide weekly updates under threat of fines and citations beginning the morning of December 18. |
| 00:39:35.42 | Andrew Bickford | Three days later. |
| 00:39:37.50 | Andrew Bickford | Okay, so next slide, please. |
| 00:39:40.72 | Andrew Bickford | The basis previous slide, please. |
| 00:39:44.45 | Andrew Bickford | Basis for appeal. |
| 00:39:46.43 | Andrew Bickford | pre-judgment and bias of city planning staff insufficient and misleading staff reporting |
| 00:39:51.71 | Andrew Bickford | and failure by staff to present |
| 00:39:54.51 | Andrew Bickford | All relevant information to commissioners. |
| 00:39:57.75 | Andrew Bickford | pursuit of |
| 00:39:58.68 | Andrew Bickford | A false premise by both planning staff and commissioners and failure to consider existing conditions, sound engineering practices and failing to rely on factual evidence when issuing an order. |
| 00:40:11.65 | Andrew Bickford | Um, orders exceeding the authority of planning commissioners due to issuance on incorrect assumptions and without reasonable finding a factor documentation. |
| 00:40:21.39 | Andrew Bickford | Next slide, please. |
| 00:40:24.31 | Andrew Bickford | Um, |
| 00:40:25.19 | Andrew Bickford | prejudgment, indifference of planning staff and insufficient and misleading reporting. |
| 00:40:30.37 | Andrew Bickford | staff report provided to commissioners at at the hearing contained information submitted to CDD. |
| 00:40:37.68 | Andrew Bickford | The arborist estimate and site map. |
| 00:40:40.53 | Andrew Bickford | um, |
| 00:40:41.72 | Andrew Bickford | uh, |
| 00:40:43.16 | Andrew Bickford | It's, |
| 00:40:43.80 | Andrew Bickford | And this was not disclosed as being submitted by the property owner in the application. |
| 00:40:49.84 | Andrew Bickford | Um, |
| 00:40:50.53 | Andrew Bickford | yet it was presented in the SAF report. |
| 00:40:55.06 | Andrew Bickford | Staff refused to check CDD Sausalito government inbox for applications submittal prior to hearing |
| 00:41:01.13 | Andrew Bickford | Even when requested by resident. |
| 00:41:03.70 | Andrew Bickford | Staff then expressed doubt to the commission of the submittal of an application. |
| 00:41:08.29 | Andrew Bickford | It is entirely reasonable to expect staff |
| 00:41:11.34 | Andrew Bickford | to check and respond to CDD email and not have to do so is entirely irresponsible and unresponsive. I have since |
| 00:41:20.47 | Andrew Bickford | sent documentation to CDD showing that I had |
| 00:41:26.88 | Andrew Bickford | Um, |
| 00:41:27.68 | Andrew Bickford | sent that to CDD on the 8th. |
| 00:41:31.66 | Andrew Bickford | of February 2023. |
| 00:41:34.24 | Andrew Bickford | Staff selectively used information from application, but excluded |
| 00:41:39.67 | Andrew Bickford | The provided site, |
| 00:41:42.07 | Andrew Bickford | pre-conditioned photographs |
| 00:41:44.20 | Andrew Bickford | or the explanation in the application justifying the tree alteration. |
| 00:41:49.02 | Andrew Bickford | Steph never communicated. |
| 00:41:51.20 | Andrew Bickford | The staff recommended fine amount. |
| 00:41:53.65 | Andrew Bickford | or erosion concern in advance of the hearing. |
| 00:41:57.07 | Andrew Bickford | Was this an ambush or just indifference? |
| 00:41:59.99 | Andrew Bickford | would have been really useful to know that there were concerns |
| 00:42:04.70 | Andrew Bickford | about erosion prior to |
| 00:42:07.37 | Andrew Bickford | receiving an order that |
| 00:42:10.55 | Andrew Bickford | If, if, |
| 00:42:13.20 | Andrew Bickford | If mitigations weren't in place within roughly 72 hours, I would be fined. |
| 00:42:19.23 | Andrew Bickford | Um, |
| 00:42:20.82 | Andrew Bickford | Pursuit of false premise by planning staff and failure to document existing conditions and staff reports. |
| 00:42:26.97 | Andrew Bickford | Planning staff offered the opinion that the removal of tree canopies would lead to site erosion and destabilization. |
| 00:42:33.42 | Andrew Bickford | This assertion is |
| 00:42:35.11 | Andrew Bickford | This assertion is unsubstantiated. |
| 00:42:37.93 | Andrew Bickford | is there was no technical report indicating removal of the tree canopy |
| 00:42:41.98 | Andrew Bickford | would cause site destabilization, destabilizing erosion |
| 00:42:45.99 | Andrew Bickford | Tree canopies have at most a minimal effect on soil stabilization. |
| 00:42:50.24 | Andrew Bickford | Most effective is ground cover. |
| 00:42:52.47 | Andrew Bickford | But due to tree canopy density in this case, no ground cover was present. |
| 00:42:56.79 | Andrew Bickford | To compensate the residents spread sufficient rice straw |
| 00:43:00.15 | Andrew Bickford | to more than compensate for both canopy removals |
| 00:43:04.22 | Andrew Bickford | and lack of ground cover. |
| 00:43:06.45 | Andrew Bickford | This was done prior to any notice from the city to do anything. |
| 00:43:10.99 | Andrew Bickford | It was done on my own volition because I wanted to make sure that the site |
| 00:43:15.83 | Andrew Bickford | was 100% stable. |
| 00:43:18.28 | Andrew Bickford | Um, |
| 00:43:19.25 | Andrew Bickford | Uh, |
| 00:43:20.30 | Andrew Bickford | Because I believe in, |
| 00:43:23.71 | Andrew Bickford | I'm a big believer in water quality and runoff. |
| 00:43:28.37 | Andrew Bickford | can have, um, |
| 00:43:29.89 | Andrew Bickford | very negative effects on water quality. |
| 00:43:32.86 | Andrew Bickford | The purpose of the straw was to prevent any silt from reaching the gutter system on Glen Avenue. Site stability was never in question because the root system of trees was never compromised. Soil was not disturbed. No grading or changes in topography or drainage patterns occurred. |
| 00:43:53.00 | Andrew Bickford | Next slide, please. |
| 00:44:02.42 | Andrew Bickford | Bye. |
| 00:44:03.31 | Andrew Bickford | Erosion, removal of canopy is caused from |
| 00:44:07.26 | Andrew Bickford | The cut as cause of erosion is a false premise resulting in substantial costs borne by resident. |
| 00:44:14.15 | Andrew Bickford | erosion control |
| 00:44:16.07 | Andrew Bickford | report ordered by city at residence expense clearly states |
| 00:44:22.01 | Andrew Bickford | that the site is highly stable. |
| 00:44:23.93 | Andrew Bickford | Lack of ground cover due to excessive density of canopy is compensated for by dispersed rice straw. Additional mitigations are unnecessary. |
| 00:44:33.13 | Andrew Bickford | The erosion control mitigations that were suggested by staff and ordered by the Commission |
| 00:44:37.99 | Andrew Bickford | would be necessary only when soil is disturbed by grading, change in topography, or drainage patterns. |
| 00:44:46.16 | Andrew Bickford | I'm not sure. |
| 00:44:46.75 | Andrew Bickford | Staff suggested |
| 00:44:48.44 | Andrew Bickford | Dave Kuntz, extensive mitigations and Commission ordered same without an expert technical report no documentation has been presented that staff even conferred with an expert or that an expert visited the site. |
| 00:45:03.86 | Andrew Bickford | Next slide, please. |
| 00:45:08.54 | Andrew Bickford | One more, please. |
| 00:45:12.01 | Andrew Bickford | Just, um, |
| 00:45:14.80 | Andrew Bickford | the commissioner referenced the prevalence of groundwater and the potential for landslides as a rationale for ordering |
| 00:45:22.37 | Andrew Bickford | erosion mitigations. This is almost entirely irrelevant |
| 00:45:26.76 | Andrew Bickford | to the site conditions as no trees removed, no grading occurred. |
| 00:45:30.42 | Andrew Bickford | And no changes in drainage resulted from the removal of the tree canopies. |
| 00:45:35.38 | Andrew Bickford | The ordered biweekly minimum mitigation monitoring reports at residents expense |
| 00:45:42.13 | Andrew Bickford | um, report the complete lack of, of effective mitigations, conclusive proof that mitigations were unnecessary. |
| 00:45:51.41 | Andrew Bickford | testimony and neighbors. |
| 00:45:53.41 | Andrew Bickford | are all unsupported by technical reporting, |
| 00:45:56.09 | Andrew Bickford | The photo showing silt in a driveway |
| 00:45:59.01 | Andrew Bickford | there's no |
| 00:46:00.97 | Andrew Bickford | There's |
| 00:46:02.49 | Karen | Thank you. |
| 00:46:03.31 | Andrew Bickford | There's no conclusive evidence that this has anything to do with 230 Santa Rosa. |
| 00:46:08.61 | Andrew Bickford | or wet or the trimming of the trees there. |
| 00:46:11.61 | Andrew Bickford | there's been extensive |
| 00:46:13.84 | Andrew Bickford | construction on on Glenn. |
| 00:46:16.78 | Andrew Bickford | where Caltrans replaced a culvert |
| 00:46:20.69 | Andrew Bickford | Um, |
| 00:46:21.42 | Andrew Bickford | at the |
| 00:46:22.95 | Andrew Bickford | uphill from those residents. So it's hard to say where their mud came from. |
| 00:46:30.75 | Andrew Bickford | Um, |
| 00:46:32.61 | Andrew Bickford | Glenn road cut is highly stable and any erosion is unrelated to tree trimming activities. The near vertical road cut bordering Glenn is assessed as being highly stable, but minor erosion is caused by workers |
| 00:46:45.70 | Andrew Bickford | assessing the site for various reasons, including removal of debris, |
| 00:46:49.92 | Andrew Bickford | from 2020. |
| 00:46:51.39 | Andrew Bickford | 220, 230, and 240 Santa Rosa Avenue. |
| 00:46:54.76 | Andrew Bickford | Also tree trimming and debris removal was performed by PG&E just the week of... |
| 00:46:59.66 | Andrew Bickford | of December. |
| 00:47:00.82 | Andrew Bickford | 11 through 15 and again on March 1st. |
| 00:47:03.61 | Andrew Bickford | So there's lots of there's there's lots of activity occurring above that road cut. |
| 00:47:08.60 | Andrew Bickford | Um, and, and yet, |
| 00:47:10.27 | Andrew Bickford | there's virtually no dirt in the gutter, virtually none. And that's been the case all winter long. And if Planner Mandich had really looked at the site, he would know, |
| 00:47:22.79 | Andrew Bickford | that there has been absolutely zero movement of soil on that side. Zero. |
| 00:47:28.48 | Andrew Bickford | Um, |
| 00:47:31.05 | Andrew Bickford | The Glen Avenue road cut is nearly vertical and clearly approaches the angle of repose for soil composition of on site. |
| 00:47:37.90 | Andrew Bickford | The tree trimming that occurred above Glen has no impact on the road cut. |
| 00:47:42.57 | Andrew Bickford | What's really going on here? Next slide, please. |
| 00:47:46.52 | Andrew Bickford | One more. |
| 00:47:50.45 | Andrew Bickford | Um, clearly the complaining residents planning staff and commissioners do not like the temporary appearance of the trees or the fact that a resident would act without prior approval. However, creating spurious causation to erosion. |
| 00:48:04.29 | Andrew Bickford | to |
| 00:48:05.30 | Andrew Bickford | impose unreasonable conditions on the resident as punishment is entirely inappropriate. |
| 00:48:11.09 | Andrew Bickford | The only issue here is whether the unpermitted alteration of |
| 00:48:15.65 | Andrew Bickford | previously altered trees as a restorative measure warrants the maximum fine. |
| 00:48:22.92 | Andrew Bickford | If the unpermitted alteration |
| 00:48:26.39 | Andrew Bickford | of previously damaged trees in order to restore natural form warrants a maximum fine |
| 00:48:32.57 | Andrew Bickford | What is reserved for someone who removes or alters trees that were of natural form? |
| 00:48:38.70 | Andrew Bickford | Clearly the commission misjudged. |
| 00:48:42.36 | Andrew Bickford | If erosion from canopy removal |
| 00:48:44.76 | Andrew Bickford | was such |
| 00:48:46.26 | Andrew Bickford | was of such paramount concern. Why did staff postpone the hearing for a month at the onset of winter? |
| 00:48:53.11 | Andrew Bickford | Was a month of research really required? |
| 00:48:57.21 | Andrew Bickford | Was it then risk risk reasonable to order a staff report and installation of mitigations at residents expense in 72 hours. |
| 00:49:07.15 | Andrew Bickford | Um, |
| 00:49:08.28 | Andrew Bickford | uh, |
| 00:49:09.04 | Andrew Bickford | It was not easy to pull off either, to get those in place in 72 hours. I spent all day working. |
| 00:49:15.74 | Andrew Bickford | Friday. |
| 00:49:17.31 | Mayor Sobieski | Sorry, sir, you're out of time. So now there's an opportunity for the city council members to ask me any questions they have from your presentation. Please stay at the podium, sir, sir. I have a question for you, sir. |
| 00:49:29.22 | Kelman | Yep. |
| 00:49:30.89 | Mayor Sobieski | Please do. I think actually Councilmember Kalman had her hand up first. |
| 00:49:33.44 | Kelman | So thank you very much as a very thorough analysis. I understand where you're coming from. What do you think is fair? |
| 00:49:44.22 | Andrew Bickford | Thank you. |
| 00:49:44.24 | Kelman | Thanks. |
| 00:49:44.31 | Andrew Bickford | Excuse me? |
| 00:49:44.64 | Kelman | What do you think is fair? |
| 00:49:46.50 | Andrew Bickford | What do I think is fair? |
| 00:49:49.35 | Andrew Bickford | I have... |
| 00:49:51.63 | Andrew Bickford | This hearing cost me almost $4,000 to be able to appear before you. |
| 00:49:57.74 | Andrew Bickford | Um, |
| 00:49:58.67 | Andrew Bickford | I have spent about $20,000 in mitigations and soil analysis, site analysis, and ongoing |
| 00:50:08.64 | Andrew Bickford | ordered |
| 00:50:10.03 | Andrew Bickford | mitigation monitoring |
| 00:50:13.75 | Andrew Bickford | Um, |
| 00:50:15.19 | Andrew Bickford | So I'm into this about 20 grand right now. If there's a $10,000 fine on top of this, |
| 00:50:22.06 | Andrew Bickford | That's $30,000 now. |
| 00:50:25.33 | Andrew Bickford | Granted, these trees are going to look better than they did. |
| 00:50:29.41 | Kelman | Okay, sorry. You gave us an excellent presentation. I understand where you're coming from. You had an unpermitted tree alteration. |
| 00:50:37.24 | Kelman | What do you think is a fair fine? |
| 00:50:39.74 | Andrew Bickford | A fair fine given |
| 00:50:42.07 | Andrew Bickford | Given that it was a risk that this that the motivation is restorative, I would say a fair fine would because I did not, although I I attempted and made a very good faith effort to get a permit and if staff would have met me halfway we wouldn't be here right now. |
| 00:51:02.27 | Andrew Bickford | Um, |
| 00:51:03.45 | Andrew Bickford | I would say, I don't know. |
| 00:51:05.93 | Andrew Bickford | 250 bucks a tree. |
| 00:51:10.07 | Kelman | Thank you very much. |
| 00:51:10.98 | Cox | question. |
| 00:51:12.50 | Cox | I did. You weren't able to use the city's portal. So you emailed your tree removal application. How did you intend to pay the fee associated with that? |
| 00:51:24.92 | Andrew Bickford | I expected the city to, if the city was concerned, I thought that I was, first of all, I was not even |
| 00:51:31.89 | Andrew Bickford | even certain that this action would require a permit |
| 00:51:36.27 | Andrew Bickford | Um, |
| 00:51:37.57 | Andrew Bickford | I honestly didn't know that there was a fee |
| 00:51:41.96 | Andrew Bickford | There's nothing in the application that says there's a fee. |
| 00:51:45.10 | Andrew Bickford | I would have submitted a fee. |
| 00:51:47.24 | Andrew Bickford | So I honestly did not know. |
| 00:51:52.05 | Cox | And then staff mentioned that you had come to the window for other reasons. |
| 00:51:58.26 | Andrew Bickford | That was after. I can finish my question. |
| 00:51:58.26 | Cox | That was after. I can finish my question. |
| 00:51:59.34 | Andrew Bickford | I just finished my question. Oh, sorry. |
| 00:52:00.98 | Andrew Bickford | Thank you. |
| 00:52:01.60 | Cox | You had come to the window for other reasons after emailing your |
| 00:52:06.09 | Cox | application, why not follow up what's going on with my application? |
| 00:52:11.32 | Andrew Bickford | That's incorrect. That was that I went to the window after the tree trimming had occurred. I don't know if I had been cited at that point because there was there was some delay between the time that the that the tree trimming occurred and the citation was issued. But I can I can assure I can assure you, Councilmember, that it was after. |
| 00:52:35.32 | Andrew Bickford | other dealings I had with the city. |
| 00:52:38.80 | Cox | Thank you. And thank you for your presentation. I know it's not easy to get up there and face all of us and make a presentation. So thank you for doing a really thorough job. |
| 00:52:46.42 | Andrew Bickford | Thank you. You're welcome. |
| 00:52:50.98 | Mayor Sobieski | All right, if there are no more questions and public comments, please. City Clerk. |
| 00:52:59.45 | Babette McDougall | At this moment, anybody in house wants to make any public comments. Seeing none, but we do have Sandra Bushmaker on |
| 00:53:07.16 | Babette McDougall | Zoom. |
| 00:53:10.52 | Mayor Sobieski | Please go ahead. |
| 00:53:12.73 | Sandra Bushmaker | Good evening. Well, I don't endorse |
| 00:53:17.20 | Sandra Bushmaker | unpermitted work in Sausalito. In fact, I think we need to do more enforcement on permitted work |
| 00:53:22.82 | Sandra Bushmaker | I do want to comment about |
| 00:53:25.82 | Sandra Bushmaker | Bay laurels. |
| 00:53:27.72 | Sandra Bushmaker | I think that we need to take another look at bay laurels. I find them, I live there, they're all around my place. They are filthy trees, they drop black, |
| 00:53:38.11 | Sandra Bushmaker | growth of some sort, not only on the tree leaves itself, but also on the |
| 00:53:44.27 | Sandra Bushmaker | surrounding area. |
| 00:53:46.18 | Sandra Bushmaker | In addition, |
| 00:53:48.42 | Sandra Bushmaker | these trees grow like weeds. |
| 00:53:51.10 | Sandra Bushmaker | And I, like I said, I'm not speaking to the appeal directly. I just want to take this fact into consideration |
| 00:53:59.00 | Sandra Bushmaker | that we should reconsider this tree as an undesirable in Sausalito. |
| 00:54:03.10 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 00:54:06.17 | Mayor Sobieski | Any other public comment? |
| 00:54:08.38 | Babette McDougall | Seeing no for the public comment. |
| 00:54:09.51 | Mayor Sobieski | All right, we'll close up a comment. Now there's an opportunity for staff to respond. If you wish, no obligation to. |
| 00:54:15.56 | Kelman | Mayor, I'd like to hear from staff just whether we've checked that portal and whether that online submittal format is working. |
| 00:54:29.92 | Matthew Mandich | So the Dropbox portal is not something that we use anymore. I think that was something that was used prior. It was really never in use since I've been a staff member here. In fact, this whole submittal and everything occurred before I was hired to CDD. um so i we use a one drive now um which is a submittal software through microsoft um that is part of you know our old teams and microsoft ecosystem um so that that one drive has been working just fine um i know they're i don't know i really can't speak to what was going on with the dropbox That is part of our old teams and Microsoft ecosystem. So that OneDrive has been working just fine. I know there, I don't know, I really can't speak to what was going on with the Dropbox prior. |
| 00:55:00.43 | Kelman | I guess my question is if I need a tree alteration permit and I went to the city's website, would it be abundantly clear that there was a OneDrive link for me to upload? |
| 00:55:09.12 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, there's OneDrive links on the city's website under the planning and building division sides. There's click here to submit, big box, clickable. |
| 00:55:17.88 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 00:55:17.98 | Matthew Mandich | And there are just to say there there are instructions on the website, too, about how to submit a tree permit, the flowchart that goes along with that, the fees associated with it. |
| 00:55:26.80 | Matthew Mandich | and all those things. So I don't want to spend too much time. I don't want to pick apart the appellant's presentation point by point. I will say that I strongly disagree with several things that were mentioned there. But I don't think it's worth anyone's time to go back through that. So I think I'll just leave it there unless there are further questions. |
| 00:55:44.03 | Cox | questions. |
| 00:55:44.42 | Karen | for the Blacksmith. |
| 00:55:45.20 | Karen | Thank you. |
| 00:55:46.49 | Cox | Have you done a search for the Dropbox portal to ensure that it has been removed from the Google search engine so that no one in the future is misdirected? |
| 00:55:59.42 | Matthew Mandich | Yes, thank you. First of all, I want to apologize earlier for referring to you as Councilmember Cox. I know that you are now Vice Mayor Cox, so apologies for that. But yes, regarding the Dropbox, I have not personally checked whether or not it's been removed from Google, but as far as I understand from our other staff, it's not an option anymore. It's a dead link. We don't pay any more Dropbox fees, so I don't think there's any ability to submit anything through a Dropbox to CDD right now. |
| 00:56:24.82 | Cox | So that's my point. If it still shows up in Google, in the Google search engine, and it's a dead link. |
| 00:56:30.69 | Cox | Then an applicant, such as the appellant here, |
| 00:56:33.88 | Cox | is left trying to figure out how to submit an application. Yes. |
| 00:56:37.36 | Karen | Yes. |
| 00:56:37.91 | Cox | I would like to undertake the steps to remove that from the Google search engine or redirect |
| 00:56:44.46 | Cox | the Google search engine to the OneDrive. |
| 00:56:47.43 | Cox | link. |
| 00:56:50.23 | Matthew Mandich | Yes, I will state that at the time, the Dropbox was the method of submittal back in February of 2023. Yes. |
| 00:56:55.11 | Unknown | Back in February of 2020. |
| 00:56:56.38 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 00:56:56.91 | Unknown | I hate to break it to you, but it is still on the website. So given the feedback that I just did a quick search, Sausalito.gov Dropbox, and it says to qualify for this Dropbox option, it says on your own time, submit revisions without the need for an appointment. Upload a zip folder with your files to a Dropbox link by a certain day and time for staffing routing within 48 hours for staff routing by Wednesday. And there's ongoing discussion. But then it says to this OneDrive by 8 a.m. And it has a link to the OneDrive. So I think there's just been a lot of amazing changes at Community Development Department and a new director and new hires. And so I would ask that we spend time just sweeping our website to make sure that all of the instructions are current and up to date. |
| 00:56:59.87 | Matthew Mandich | Okay. |
| 00:57:01.99 | Matthew Mandich | I just did a quick search. |
| 00:57:38.41 | Matthew Mandich | Absolutely. And I can add that our director has recently put together a website committee as of several weeks ago. So this can be a really hot item for them. |
| 00:57:47.59 | Mayor Sobieski | Sir. |
| 00:57:49.11 | Mayor Sobieski | Councilmember Vaismer Cox. |
| 00:57:51.52 | Cox | Thank you. So I looked at the Planning Commission report and resolution, and the Planning Commission did demand that the property owner employ an erosion control professional to perform erosion mitigation reports. Okay. |
| 00:58:14.68 | Cox | Did you at some point cease the demand for those reports? And did you realize that the appellant had spent $20,000 on this, on the required reporting? |
| 00:58:27.03 | Matthew Mandich | So regarding the reports, the planning commission did ask for immediate action on that. And we had a discussion in the office about what constituted immediate. And we thought that, you know, the hearing was Monday, the hearing was Wednesday, so |
| 00:58:41.03 | Matthew Mandich | Pretty immediate. And regarding the $20,000, I don't know what he spent on those erosion control reports. I will say that the $10,000 he was fined, that's never, we haven't collected that money. That money is just, he submitted a check. It's not been cashed. It's been sitting there the entire time. So whatever amount maybe that he's figuring that fine into, that fine has not been cashed. We've been holding it ever since the appeal was filed. |
| 00:59:04.52 | Cox | Oh, no, he was clear that his expenses were in addition to the fines. |
| 00:59:07.85 | Matthew Mandich | So it was $20,000 for the erosion reports. Okay. I, I'm, I don't have an invoice for that. I don't know what those erosion reports would have cost. They seem pretty cut and paste to me. It's kind of the same report four times over. So it seems like a lot of money. |
| 00:59:10.03 | Cox | Right. |
| 00:59:21.14 | Kelman | Agreed. |
| 00:59:21.89 | Kelman | Thank you. |
| 00:59:21.91 | Mayor Sobieski | Councilmember Kelman. |
| 00:59:23.12 | Kelman | Thank you, sir. Just one more question. So the appellant makes the argument that this was not a true removal, it was a true alteration, and therefore the erosion status of the property would not have been altered. Does staff have a point of view of that? |
| 00:59:35.96 | Matthew Mandich | Again, not an erosion control specialist, but obviously removing the canopy of the trees exposes that hillside to significant and heavy rainfall. And it's especially with the vertical cut you were discussing and the fact that the tree canopy is no longer there to redirect the water in different areas. It's just coming straight down onto that slope. Now, I would imagine that the removal of those canopies does have some effect on the erosion there. |
| 00:59:57.39 | Mayor Sobieski | My question is whether, how much did it cost the appellate to go through this process to be here, the fees? |
| 01:00:05.90 | Matthew Mandich | The appeal, I believe it's $28.50 plus a noticing fee of $600. |
| 01:00:11.42 | Cox | So he had said 4,000. |
| 01:00:13.49 | Mayor Sobieski | So approximately 3,400. You only have a check for a second, sir. Okay, thank you. No more questions. You actually do have a one-minute rebuttal period, sir. |
| 01:00:21.69 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 01:00:22.72 | Mayor Sobieski | Oh, I'm very sorry. I didn't see you. Okay, go right ahead. |
| 01:00:27.31 | Councilmember Hoffman | I'm sorry, this is for staff. So I too did a quick search on the city of Sausalito website and I'm looking at the trees and views page |
| 01:00:38.35 | Councilmember Hoffman | Is the information that's listed on there regarding |
| 01:00:41.79 | Councilmember Hoffman | Tremendous Tremendous Tremendous Tremendous Tremendous Tremendous Tremendous Tremendous Tremendous Tremendous |
| 01:00:52.00 | Councilmember Hoffman | you know, all that information is correct. |
| 01:00:57.53 | Matthew Mandich | It should be, yes. |
| 01:00:59.46 | Councilmember Hoffman | So there's no secret that you have to have a permit. In fact, the appellant knew that. That's why he submitted the application for a permit. |
| 01:01:05.86 | Matthew Mandich | I believe so, yes. |
| 01:01:05.87 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:01:06.45 | Councilmember Hoffman | Yes. |
| 01:01:06.61 | Councilmember Hoffman | Okay, thanks. |
| 01:01:09.08 | Mayor Sobieski | Sir, you have one minute for rebuttal to any of these points you wish. |
| 01:01:15.03 | Mayor Sobieski | One minute on the clock, please. |
| 01:01:16.74 | Andrew Bickford | Mr. Mayor, I had some photos that I had submitted a slideshow with some photos that I think will be very helpful to this discussion. |
| 01:01:27.49 | Andrew Bickford | Thank you. |
| 01:01:27.51 | Mayor Sobieski | the clock while you pull those photos up. |
| 01:01:40.90 | Mayor Sobieski | which |
| 01:01:42.02 | Andrew Bickford | Yes, it is. |
| 01:01:43.01 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 01:01:43.05 | Mayor Sobieski | Which one? Which photo? Or do you want to see them all? |
| 01:01:50.91 | Andrew Bickford | Okay, so- |
| 01:01:51.49 | Mayor Sobieski | Okay, so please restart the clock city clerk. |
| 01:01:53.93 | Andrew Bickford | Previous slide. Okay. So, okay. You can go through these slides quickly, but they're, they show the condition of the canopy. |
| 01:02:00.83 | Andrew Bickford | prior to removal. |
| 01:02:03.67 | Andrew Bickford | It was just a mess. |
| 01:02:05.81 | Andrew Bickford | Here's a picture taken on |
| 01:02:08.82 | Andrew Bickford | I was taken this morning and it shows |
| 01:02:11.77 | Andrew Bickford | a tree in the far |
| 01:02:14.16 | Andrew Bickford | left side that's cropped. |
| 01:02:16.12 | Andrew Bickford | The tree on the right is a is a coast live oak. |
| 01:02:19.48 | Andrew Bickford | The reason why that |
| 01:02:21.24 | Andrew Bickford | that tree was was cut there, even though the canopy was |
| 01:02:25.66 | Andrew Bickford | was normal is it was growing into this oak and |
| 01:02:29.99 | Andrew Bickford | The, um, |
| 01:02:31.34 | Andrew Bickford | the |
| 01:02:32.57 | Andrew Bickford | the bay trees are a known vector for sudden oak death. |
| 01:02:36.52 | Andrew Bickford | Next slide. |
| 01:02:41.42 | Andrew Bickford | You can see the oaks that are dying in my neighbor's yard. |
| 01:02:46.23 | Andrew Bickford | Um, |
| 01:02:46.90 | Andrew Bickford | Again, sudden oak death, that tree with the pots, the stuff. That's all the time we have. |
| 01:02:50.92 | Mayor Sobieski | That's all the time we have. Thank you very much, sir. |
| 01:02:53.62 | Mayor Sobieski | We will now close the public hearing and have deliberations here on the dais. Does anyone wish to start? |
| 01:03:01.94 | Unknown | I can start. |
| 01:03:02.55 | Mayor Sobieski | He's going to go to my robust team. |
| 01:03:04.54 | Unknown | So I appreciate the time that was put forward by staff and by the appellant. And given a number of factors, I am inclined to support staff's recommendation of the $500 fine, namely just in the appellant's description himself noted, you know, that a resident would act without permission. And given that this is a violation, a clear violation of our code, I do believe it requires a a fine of some kind but i think that the thousand dollars as assessed by the planning commission especially given the erosion reports is is um a number that is excessive and especially given the efforts that were made um but i would direct staff certainly to improve our permit approval processes and update our website and make sure that going forward we have a more clear process. But that would be my recommendation at this point. |
| 01:03:59.47 | Mayor Sobieski | Vice Mayor. |
| 01:04:02.67 | Cox | I agree with Sandra Bushmaker that removing trees without a permit is concerning. And I, after reading the staff report, was prepared to support the $500 per tree penalty. I'm concerned that at this one question that I asked of staff, that staff did not communicate to the Planning Commission that an application had been transmitted in February of 2023 to |
| 01:04:31.66 | Cox | like eight months before the complaint came in. And also that our website |
| 01:04:38.23 | Cox | evidently misdirected people. And so it was more difficult and not utterly transparent for our residents to actually be able to avail themselves of our staff services. And this is not through any fault of staff necessarily. |
| 01:04:52.86 | Cox | We've gone through lots of transition. |
| 01:04:55.41 | Cox | enjoying huge improvement. |
| 01:04:57.50 | Cox | in the level of service that we provide, |
| 01:04:59.74 | Cox | And I'm confident that these types of issues won't |
| 01:05:02.48 | Cox | occur |
| 01:05:03.35 | Cox | moving forward, but I'm concerned that |
| 01:05:05.85 | Cox | the failure to communicate to the Planning Commission that this applicant made an effort |
| 01:05:11.52 | Cox | to transmit an application that wasn't |
| 01:05:14.63 | Cox | fulfilled may have influenced them towards imposing a harsher fine |
| 01:05:21.51 | Cox | which has caused the appellant to spend nearly $4,000 to bring this back to us. And so for those reasons, I would be inclined to adopt the appellant's recommended fine of $250 per tree. |
| 01:05:36.11 | Unknown | I could support that if you, yeah. |
| 01:05:37.74 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:05:38.22 | Mayor Sobieski | Right. Council Member Huffman. |
| 01:05:40.45 | Councilmember Hoffman | So, |
| 01:05:42.98 | Councilmember Hoffman | I might have the opposite view. |
| 01:05:44.53 | Councilmember Hoffman | and the fact that |
| 01:05:46.70 | Councilmember Hoffman | an application was at least submitted, indicates to me that the appellant respectfully |
| 01:05:51.92 | Councilmember Hoffman | knew the permit was required. And he, there's, you know, the phone number's on the website, right? It's not that hard to walk down to City Hall and go up to the desk and say, hey, I submitted this application. |
| 01:06:05.25 | Councilmember Hoffman | Where's my application? |
| 01:06:06.62 | Councilmember Hoffman | There's plenty of time. There's no exigent circumstances, clearly, because he did the application and |
| 01:06:12.52 | Councilmember Hoffman | whenever it was February, |
| 01:06:14.28 | Councilmember Hoffman | And the hearing was in December. |
| 01:06:16.64 | Councilmember Hoffman | There doesn't seem to be or any indication or any evidence that he before he |
| 01:06:21.10 | Councilmember Hoffman | started cutting down the trees that he again engaged with the plan, sorry, with the staff |
| 01:06:28.64 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:06:28.69 | Councilmember Hoffman | in CDD to our community development to get the permit. |
| 01:06:33.04 | Councilmember Hoffman | So to me, it indicates |
| 01:06:37.55 | Councilmember Hoffman | you know, knowledge that he needed the permit, yet he didn't confirm he didn't need a permit. I know that's a negative, but the indication was, hey, you need a permit. |
| 01:06:46.22 | Councilmember Hoffman | Um, |
| 01:06:47.57 | Councilmember Hoffman | understand sometimes uh it's frustrating to deal with any city government um and apologies for that but that doesn't excuse the behavior of moving forward and cutting down trees in a quite you know a significant manner and certainly was evident to anybody who might have driven down there that that would require to permit which is why there were complaints |
| 01:07:08.92 | Councilmember Hoffman | very quickly to the staff. And so |
| 01:07:12.63 | Councilmember Hoffman | I'm happy that, you know, it appears that there isn't soil erosion, but that's one of the reasons why you need a permit. That's one reason why you need to go to planning. That's one, you know, so I think. |
| 01:07:24.41 | Councilmember Hoffman | I can't speak to the mindset of the planning commission, but |
| 01:07:27.91 | Councilmember Hoffman | Um, |
| 01:07:28.78 | Councilmember Hoffman | I think, |
| 01:07:30.17 | Councilmember Hoffman | that moving forward with this significant cutting, |
| 01:07:34.49 | Councilmember Hoffman | knowingly, |
| 01:07:35.82 | Councilmember Hoffman | without a permit. |
| 01:07:37.22 | Councilmember Hoffman | may have played into the maximum fine that they established. |
| 01:07:42.16 | Councilmember Hoffman | I'm not |
| 01:07:44.04 | Councilmember Hoffman | And then. |
| 01:07:45.74 | Councilmember Hoffman | You know, we can talk about what's an appropriate fine level, but |
| 01:07:49.20 | Councilmember Hoffman | But... |
| 01:07:49.67 | Councilmember Hoffman | Um, |
| 01:07:51.18 | Councilmember Hoffman | the erosion, the bi, I'm sorry, it's biweekly. |
| 01:07:54.67 | Councilmember Hoffman | So. |
| 01:07:55.97 | Councilmember Hoffman | None of us here are erosion experts. So there's a reason why the Planning Commission, I'm sure issued that because it wasn't known at the time what this soil erosion aspect was and what the impact was. It seems that maybe we've got four reports, right? Have I got that right? |
| 01:08:16.22 | Councilmember Hoffman | you know, maybe... |
| 01:08:18.43 | Councilmember Hoffman | maybe there's an indication that the soil erosion concern, you know, isn't as, isn't as, isn't as, uh, |
| 01:08:28.03 | Councilmember Hoffman | emergent as the planning commission thought. So, you know, I, I think we're being asked also that whether or not we want to lessen that or maybe make it, |
| 01:08:39.98 | Councilmember Hoffman | you know, not biweekly or maybe some other sort of |
| 01:08:43.39 | Councilmember Hoffman | recommendation from maybe the staff or or maybe even the appellant of what i think you asked what the appropriate fine was but |
| 01:08:50.29 | Councilmember Hoffman | We didn't get any indication on that. So I'm thinking that that might be under consideration. So those are my thoughts. |
| 01:08:57.56 | Mayor Sobieski | Those are my thoughts. |
| 01:08:58.57 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:08:59.00 | Kelman | Great, yeah, thank you. That was a really helpful, excellent presentation from our staff and from the appellant. So, |
| 01:09:08.50 | Kelman | First of all, certainly true removal, you need a permit you submitted. |
| 01:09:13.36 | Kelman | You were thwarted by some antiquated technology that we had on our website, but you were aware of it. And so then when you proceeded without the permit, you knew you were proceeding without the permit. |
| 01:09:25.78 | Kelman | That's sort of one piece of it. The second piece of it is this erosion. You showed us some really great slides of a very thick canopy. And you probably know bay laurel are a significant habitat for birds to make their nests and actually have a significant contribution to Sausalito's natural environment, which we haven't really spoken to. And so I don't see an arborist report telling me that the health of the tree needed to be pruned. And I don't see a biologist telling me that nothing was in the tree when it was pruned. And that's concerning for me. |
| 01:09:57.37 | Kelman | um so uh where i am however going to come out on this um is uh you sort of lucked out that we had an antiquated system um because i do think that you deserve that five thousand dollar fee and i think it should be mitigated by the fact that we had a system in place that didn't enable you even though it was your obligation |
| 01:10:16.27 | Kelman | ignorance of the law is not a defense, right? You knew it was there and you knew you didn't have it. I also think we should keep the erosion control measures in place through the end of the rainy season and then actually phase those out because for your pictures, that is a significant canopy that no longer exists. And I think part of this is just the knowledge of the tree removal, but I do think you have a mitigating circumstance with um the fact that you you put something forward and it wasn't received by by staff and it is your obligation to follow up obviously you know that you're you work in regulation but um at the same time it's something we need to improve upon so i could be convinced towards a more downward uh fine but with the statement that i actually think that the 5 000 staff is recommending is uh is appropriate |
| 01:11:03.25 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you for everyone's comments. Because of all the difficulty in the application and the substantial amount of money that the applicant had to spend that the city's collected as part of this process, which is a kind of fine, I'm more inclined towards the level that the vice mayor articulated in terms of the fine. The staff, I guess I would just personally, I would accept the staff recommendations at the $250 fine. |
| 01:11:33.05 | Mayor Sobieski | request all the other stuff recommendations on erosion control everything else so the period so |
| 01:11:33.40 | Kelman | Thank you. |
| 01:11:33.44 | Kelman | THE FAMILY. |
| 01:11:33.50 | Cox | the question. |
| 01:11:33.60 | Kelman | question. |
| 01:11:37.40 | Cox | So the period, so rescinding the biweekly erosion control reports and replacing it with periodic site visits by staff following significant rain events. |
| 01:11:48.02 | Mayor Sobieski | I think the Council Member Kellman suggestion to just to the rainy season, which is what one more month really, one and a half. I think that's a reasonable ask. And then and then having go away. So let's say April one or April 15 and then reduce the fine to 250 that's and then accept all other recommendations would be where I am, but respectfully. |
| 01:12:02.53 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:12:02.55 | Cox | I'm sorry. |
| 01:12:11.29 | Cox | My only concern is that these four reports cost him $20,000. So I'm concerned that staff is recommending we rescind the erosion control reports based on their observations on the site, and that staff perform periodic site visits following significant rain events. |
| 01:12:30.27 | Cox | I feel as though this guy has been punished enough, so I would tend to follow staff's recommendation on the... |
| 01:12:38.54 | Cox | erosion control and |
| 01:12:40.75 | Cox | adopt the appellant's recommendation on the $250 per tree. |
| 01:12:46.81 | Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:12:46.98 | Unknown | . |
| 01:12:47.99 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 01:12:48.01 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:12:48.09 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 01:12:48.14 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:12:48.65 | Councilmember Hoffman | So I think he probably would have had to have this erosion reports anyway, even if he got permission to |
| 01:12:57.78 | Councilmember Hoffman | remove the canopy in the way that he did and it's quite possible that he might have gotten that permission had he gone through um |
| 01:13:03.80 | Councilmember Hoffman | appropriately the process. But he still would have had to have those reports. And the issue of the fine goes to |
| 01:13:12.34 | Councilmember Hoffman | you knowingly went forward and trimmed. |
| 01:13:16.85 | Councilmember Hoffman | you know, only $2,000 per tree is really close or at what he would have had to pay anyway for his permit. And so there has to be some sort of, |
| 01:13:26.92 | Councilmember Hoffman | you know you don't pay you know the same the permit fee that you would have paid had you gone through the process the fine is to address the fact that you went forward and cut the trees without um without |
| 01:13:38.26 | Councilmember Hoffman | going through the process when you know that you needed to have a permit. So that's my |
| 01:13:42.48 | Councilmember Hoffman | That's my issue with the fine. The fine is fine. The fine is because you violated the process. And so, and I understand that all these other costs have flowed from that. And I'm, you know. |
| 01:13:54.04 | Councilmember Hoffman | you know, |
| 01:13:55.71 | Councilmember Hoffman | I, |
| 01:13:56.69 | Councilmember Hoffman | I'm sorry for that. Like, I understand your frustration that, that |
| 01:14:01.40 | Councilmember Hoffman | Other things have flowed from you trying to trim your trees, but on the other hand, that's why we as a city and we as a policy want people to follow. The rules and why you need to have notice and why your neighbors need to have a notice and your neighbors shouldn't drive down the street, you know and see. |
| 01:14:20.43 | Councilmember Hoffman | this kind of drastic cutting of the trees and the potential impacts without it having going through planning. So, you know, I think that also addresses concerns of other people in Sausalito who are concerned with illegal tree removals that may |
| 01:14:37.20 | Councilmember Hoffman | have occurred in the past and that they're concerned about and that we're serious about. |
| 01:14:40.98 | Councilmember Hoffman | getting permits and you have to have permits or you're going to be fined. So that's sort of my |
| 01:14:48.88 | Mayor Sobieski | That's my last thing. |
| 01:14:50.03 | Unknown | I just would like to see us come to consensus on this. So I'm willing to work with all of the council members to get to a place where we feel comfortable with the fine. So I'm open to. So we're stationed about, I mean, my feeling is I really respect council member Hoffman's comments about that. It is a fine. So, and, |
| 01:15:00.64 | Cox | it was. |
| 01:15:00.71 | Karen | Thank you. |
| 01:15:00.73 | Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:15:05.59 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:15:05.71 | Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:15:05.74 | Unknown | you |
| 01:15:05.77 | Woodside | Thank you. |
| 01:15:06.21 | Unknown | I agree. |
| 01:15:06.97 | Cox | but he did pay $4,000 to bring this to us. And so for me, that's... |
| 01:15:12.15 | Cox | that's a penalty in and of itself. |
| 01:15:15.97 | Cox | So I'll make a motion and see if I get a second that we... |
| 01:15:20.30 | Cox | uphold the administrative citation for the illegal alteration of 10 protected heritage bay laurel trees without a city issued permit that we amend the planning commission ruling |
| 01:15:30.53 | Cox | mandating a $1,000 fine per tree |
| 01:15:33.38 | Cox | and reduce that to $250 per tree. |
| 01:15:36.65 | Cox | that we follow |
| 01:15:37.99 | Cox | Staff's recommendation to rescind the biweekly erosion control reports required by the Planning Commission and instead instruct staff to perform periodic site visits following significant rain events to determine if additional remedial actions are required by the appellant. |
| 01:15:54.36 | Unknown | She wants to make a friendly amendment. |
| 01:15:57.18 | Kelman | I would like to, yes, I can support that if you would entertain the additional month of the. |
| 01:16:02.37 | Cox | We want to reach consensus. Absolutely. I just was making a stab. Thank you. Until when? |
| 01:16:02.46 | Kelman | I want to. |
| 01:16:04.33 | Kelman | I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT. |
| 01:16:07.25 | Cox | Until April 15th. April 15th that you discussed your friendly amendment. Okay. |
| 01:16:08.45 | Kelman | Yeah. |
| 01:16:10.12 | Councilmember Hoffman | that you'd suggest |
| 01:16:12.04 | Councilmember Hoffman | I think Jill had one as well. Yeah. Yes. OK, so my friendly memory is to |
| 01:16:13.09 | Cox | Yes. |
| 01:16:17.21 | Councilmember Hoffman | go up to the 500 per tree. Fine. Everything else, I agree. |
| 01:16:23.82 | Kelman | I just want to be clear, the only reason that I'm not supporting the 500 per tree is because we had a technical issue, and it's a balance of that, even though it is his responsibility to go and get the permit, I want to acknowledge that. |
| 01:16:34.03 | Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:16:34.84 | Cox | So does anyone want to second my motion as amended? |
| 01:16:38.52 | Unknown | I will second the motion as amended. Is that with the 250 or the part? |
| 01:16:42.01 | Cox | That's with the amendment proposed by Councilmember Kalman. With respect and understanding, I decline the amendment proposed by Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 01:16:42.30 | Mayor Sobieski | with the |
| 01:16:54.87 | Mayor Sobieski | So that's the seconded motion, $250 with all those other stipulations, including the biweekly till April the 15th. |
| 01:17:06.45 | Mayor Sobieski | Okay. |
| 01:17:06.53 | Sergio | And counsel, if I may interject here, you do have to make a decision in writing on this particular item. And there is a draft resolution in your packet. That draft resolution in Section 2 sets a fine of $500 per tree for a total amount of $5,000. |
| 01:17:07.22 | Mayor Sobieski | It's like, |
| 01:17:22.65 | Sergio | and suggests per the staff recommendation that staff be directed to perform |
| 01:17:27.19 | Sergio | periodic site visits following the significant rate events and collaborate with DPW to determine if a soil report is needed. |
| 01:17:33.55 | Sergio | and to potentially mitigate further erosion damage to the property and public right of way. |
| 01:17:39.99 | Sergio | So with respect to the proposed motion, I think the intent would then be to |
| 01:17:46.49 | Sergio | adopt the proposed resolution with changes to Section 2 to reduce the fine amount to $250 per tree |
| 01:17:54.12 | Sergio | and to change Section 3 to direct staff perform periodic site visits through April 15th. |
| 01:18:00.60 | Mayor Sobieski | You said it. Yes. |
| 01:18:01.78 | Mayor Sobieski | that's the best. |
| 01:18:01.80 | Cox | that. |
| 01:18:02.81 | Cox | Yes, I thought that was the motion I made since I, anyway, that was my intended motion. Thank you, City Attorney. |
| 01:18:07.75 | Kelman | I'm sorry, but Vice Mayor, did he include my friendly amendment? Yes, he did. Through April 15th. Okay, he said the site visits, but that's not what I was intending. It was the bi-weekly erosion control reports. |
| 01:18:10.15 | Cox | Yes, I did. |
| 01:18:19.08 | Mayor Sobieski | Did you get that city attorney? The biweekly erosion control reports continue until April 15th, and then the periodic site visits after that. |
| 01:18:26.98 | Mayor Sobieski | Did you get that city attorney? |
| 01:18:29.03 | Sergio | I did, yes. And that is also the movements motion, yes? |
| 01:18:34.30 | Cox | Yes. |
| 01:18:36.10 | Mayor Sobieski | Okay. |
| 01:18:36.88 | Mayor Sobieski | All in favor of that motion. |
| 01:18:39.14 | Cox | Bye. |
| 01:18:40.19 | Mayor Sobieski | Post. |
| 01:18:40.90 | Cox | No. |
| 01:18:41.00 | Mayor Sobieski | So. |
| 01:18:41.15 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 01:18:41.86 | Mayor Sobieski | motion passes four to one and that public hearing is closed and we will move on to our business items. The oh and one housekeeping note I received a note from our city attorney that because the matter does need to be heard the item that was pulled off consent calendar item. |
| 01:19:00.29 | Mayor Sobieski | B will be heard as item 5B immediately after this item 5A. |
| 01:19:04.86 | Mayor Sobieski | So we will hear that tonight, but just so you can plan, if you wish to make public comment on 5B, it will occur after 5A. |
| 01:19:10.97 | Mayor Sobieski | We're now moving on with item 5A, and I need to just announce that I take matters of conflict of interest seriously. I have hired an FPPC expert legal counsel and been advised that I do not have a conflict of interest under section 871. |
| 01:19:26.95 | Karen | Karen. |
| 01:19:34.24 | Unknown | Turn on your mic. |
| 01:19:35.56 | Mayor Sobieski | I'm going to hear you. Let's talk to you. |
| 01:19:37.56 | Mayor Sobieski | Uh, |
| 01:19:39.18 | Mayor Sobieski | I take matters of conflict of interest seriously. I've hired an FPPC expert legal counsel. Cass, and- |
| 01:19:45.46 | Cox | Cass and Brandon. |
| 01:19:47.54 | Mayor Sobieski | and been advised that I do not have a conflict of interest under section 87103 because of the clear evidence that my property is not impacted by this business improvement district. Also any effects from the business improvement district will be the same on other residential properties. So come within the public generally rule. |
| 01:20:07.41 | Mayor Sobieski | We'll now move on with 5A. I'm sorry. |
| 01:20:09.57 | Councilmember Hoffman | sorry i pardon me mayor but i have a follow-up for that a clarification for our city attorney |
| 01:20:15.28 | Mayor Sobieski | There's a question for the city attorney from Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 01:20:18.89 | Sergio | Yes. |
| 01:20:20.22 | Councilmember Hoffman | City Attorney, notwithstanding the comment made by the mayor, my understanding is the 500-foot rule under the ethics rules |
| 01:20:28.76 | Councilmember Hoffman | is a presumption of materiality that can only be rebutted by written advice from the FPPC, finding that the decision will have no measurable impact on the value of the official's property. |
| 01:20:39.32 | Councilmember Hoffman | at |
| 01:20:40.73 | Councilmember Hoffman | Am I correct that you do not have a ruling from the FPPC? |
| 01:20:45.45 | Sergio | So let me address that. |
| 01:20:48.49 | Sergio | So no, there's not a requirement that you get a written opinion letter from the FPPC. |
| 01:20:53.57 | Sergio | Yes, there is a rebuttable presumption, and you need to have clear and convincing evidence that it's not going to have |
| 01:21:00.18 | Sergio | a material impact on the on the value or |
| 01:21:04.23 | Sergio | of your property, but ultimately the decision to recuse on a business item is made individually by each individual council member. So if the mayor has consulted outside legal counsel on this, you know, ultimately this is his determination to make. |
| 01:21:21.78 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you item 5A is endorsed the draft management district plan associated with the proposed downtown. Socelito property business improvement district provide feedback on the city's commitment to vote in support of the district during the district petition process. And authorize the city manager to begin the district petition process to gauge if there is sufficient support for the district formation in order to meet the requirements to engage in a formal proposition to 18 ballot process. |
| 01:21:49.15 | Mayor Sobieski | Director Phipps. |
| 01:21:50.93 | Brandy Phipps | Hello again, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council members, members of the public and staff. Still happy to be here. Now to introduce Item 5A, which is revisiting of the proposed Property Business Improvement District. And thank you, Mayor, for reading the very long agenda title. This was last reviewed by the Council in December of last year. So at that meeting, City Council endorsed the proposed Downtown Sausalito Property Business Improvement District PBID boundary and endorsed the proposed |
| 01:22:17.23 | Cox | Hold on, we have the wrong presentation up online. |
| 01:22:20.29 | Brandy Phipps | I don't have a presentation for just the intro. However, Marco will color his presentation with a slide deck. |
| 01:22:30.65 | Brandy Phipps | Thank you. |
| 01:22:30.67 | Karen | Thank you. |
| 01:22:32.14 | Brandy Phipps | Okay, but I appreciate appreciate Vice Mayor ensuring that I have slides as needed. So, Council endorsed the downtown Sausalito property business improvement district boundary and endorsed the proposed budget and financial commitment. |
| 01:22:47.54 | Brandy Phipps | with direction from staff or excuse me with direction to staff including that staff bring the management district plan back to city council before it is finalized that is the primary reason we're here this evening for city council to review and provide feedback in connection with this draft plan which is the primary document that provides the framework for how the pbid will function once it's formed and contains details on district elements, including the district boundaries, the budget, the benefit zones, the improvements and activities the PBID will undertake, among others, which Marco will detail during his presentation with slides. |
| 01:23:25.86 | Brandy Phipps | Additional counsel feedback at the December meeting included direction to the consultant to provide greater specificity associated with the term demand creation, which has been included in the MDP before you this evening. |
| 01:23:38.52 | Brandy Phipps | and that council will review the bylaws that underlie Pbid management, which are also contained in the MDP. |
| 01:23:44.77 | Brandy Phipps | Additional council direction was provided in relation to the potential future petition and balloting process related to an explanation of the city's financial contribution. And staff's ready to carry out that direction if council endorses the MDP and we initiate the petition drive. |
| 01:24:01.39 | Brandy Phipps | In addition to reviewing and providing feedback on the draft MDP, staff is requesting City Council provide feedback on the city's voting in support of the district during the district petition process, as well as authorization of the city manager to initiate the petition drive and sign the city's petition on behalf of the city. |
| 01:24:20.93 | Brandy Phipps | To summarize, staff are seeking council feedback on three things. One, the management district plan and any attitudes towards the plan as presented. Two, the city's vote of support for the district as part of the petition process. And number three, authorizing the city manager to begin the district petition process and to sign the petition on behalf of the city. staff's recommendation to council this evening is that council review the draft management district plan provide feedback on city's potential vote on behalf of the city. Staff's recommendation to council this evening is that council review the draft management district plan, provide feedback on city's potential vote in support of the district, and authorize the city manager |
| 01:24:54.71 | Brandy Phipps | to vote on behalf of the city during the petition process, with the city exercising up to 40% of the city's total voting power. So to complement this item, as mentioned, we're joined by Cass Green, an active member and representative of the P-BID steering committee, |
| 01:25:12.68 | Brandy Phipps | and stakeholder within the proposed district as owner of the Inn Above Tide, as well as Marco Lee Mandry, president of New City America, Inc., and district formation expert. I'll also note a number of the proposed district steering committee members are in attendance this evening. |
| 01:25:27.70 | Brandy Phipps | Hello everyone. |
| 01:25:28.70 | Brandy Phipps | With that, I'll give Marco the floor, and I will be available to answer any questions from counsel. Happy to answer any questions now as well. Thank you. |
| 01:25:34.89 | Mayor Sobieski | right? |
| 01:25:34.96 | Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:25:34.99 | Mayor Sobieski | questions and answers. Well, hands race first by Smitter and then that's what I'm telling. |
| 01:25:38.77 | Cox | Director Phipps, I apologize, you caught me flat footed. I wasn't able to. |
| 01:25:44.88 | Cox | type |
| 01:25:46.47 | Cox | what it was you were saying your three requests of council are. You were reading from something. Is that something we have in front of us? |
| 01:25:53.08 | Brandy Phipps | It should be summarized on the staff report. However, I'm happy to |
| 01:25:57.22 | Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:25:57.23 | Mayor Sobieski | Is it in the recommended action? |
| 01:25:57.64 | Brandy Phipps | He's, |
| 01:25:58.90 | Brandy Phipps | It should be in the recommended action. I had just numbered them for ease of comprehension on the dais. I'm happy to repeat, Vice Mayor. |
| 01:26:05.72 | Cox | on the dais. |
| 01:26:08.54 | Brandy Phipps | Thank you. |
| 01:26:08.56 | Cox | If it is the recommended action just with three bullet points, I'm good. Yeah. |
| 01:26:12.07 | Mayor Sobieski | Yeah. |
| 01:26:12.42 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 01:26:12.49 | Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:26:13.11 | Mayor Sobieski | You need me to read back the recommended action to verify that that is the sum total of the request from staff. |
| 01:26:18.58 | Brandy Phipps | If counsel so desires. |
| 01:26:20.02 | Mayor Sobieski | The recommended action is that staff recommends the city council review the draft management district plan associated with the proposed downtown Sausalito property business improvement district. |
| 01:26:29.62 | Mayor Sobieski | provide feedback of the city's support of the petition process and authorize the city manager to begin the assessment district petition process and sign the petition on behalf of the city exercising up to 40% of the city's total voting power. |
| 01:26:43.82 | Mayor Sobieski | Perfect. That's it. Okay. |
| 01:26:46.51 | Mayor Sobieski | Councilmember Kelman. |
| 01:26:47.93 | Kelman | Thank you, Mayor. Dr. Phipps, who tonight will have a map for us to show the district boundary? Is that attachment four and five? So can we get that up on the screen or do we not have that? |
| 01:27:00.48 | Brandy Phipps | So attachment four and five are, I believe, the boundaries shown previously to counsel. Sure. |
| 01:27:06.64 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 01:27:06.89 | Brandy Phipps | Thank you. |
| 01:27:07.23 | Brandy Phipps | um, |
| 01:27:08.06 | Brandy Phipps | The primary attachment that council ought to be reviewing this evening is the management district plan, which is attachment number one, which contains... |
| 01:27:16.93 | Brandy Phipps | a number of district boundaries, including the totality of the district, as well as boundary maps for Benefits Zone 1 and 2. |
| 01:27:23.04 | Brandy Phipps | And Marco will be providing that as a slide during his presentation. |
| 01:27:27.11 | Kelman | So let me ask you, Director Phipps, I'm looking at attachment. Let's call it four. It could be five. Does the proposed district map include city property that are designated as parks? |
| 01:27:41.52 | Brandy Phipps | Yes. |
| 01:27:41.56 | Kelman | Yes. |
| 01:27:42.47 | Kelman | Can you outline those for us? |
| 01:27:44.22 | Brandy Phipps | Three Parks, Gabrielson, Ye Talk, Chi. |
| 01:27:47.29 | Brandy Phipps | And the name is escaping me at the moment. Vinyadamar. Thank you. |
| 01:27:51.93 | Kelman | I'll be in your dommer. |
| 01:27:53.16 | Kelman | You're welcome. And approximately how much of the total property do those three parks contribute to the overall? |
| 01:28:02.50 | Brandy Phipps | I'm off the top of my head, I'm not aware of the specific percentage, but those properties do not have any improvements on them. They are assessed as part of benefit zone two, their relative assessment to the total should be small. |
| 01:28:17.09 | Kelman | Okay. Maybe while others are speaking, we could see how small, because my understanding is that the 50% requested from the business owners of the contribution of the city is premised on the idea that the city has 50% of the property in the map. |
| 01:28:34.69 | Brandy Phipps | It's premised, and I'm happy, or I defer to Marco to give his expertise on this, but I believe it's premised on the fact that the city will receive special benefit equal to the amount that they are assessed, as opposed to a size-related statement. |
| 01:28:52.23 | Kelman | Okay, so then my follow-on question would be then how |
| 01:28:55.69 | Kelman | does one come up with a percentage number of contributions? |
| 01:28:58.96 | Brandy Phipps | We have an engineer who is doing the objective analysis to ensure that the general benefit and special benefits provided to the parcels within the district are appropriate. And again, that is an expert process that I would defer to Marco and his engineers consultant on. |
| 01:29:18.50 | Kelman | Okay, and did you just say that the city would be entitled to a special benefit? |
| 01:29:23.31 | Brandy Phipps | Yes. |
| 01:29:23.85 | Kelman | Okay, and what is a special benefit? |
| 01:29:27.44 | Sergio | So I can help assist on that one. So under Prop 218, you're not allowed to impose assessments on real property unless they receive a special benefit commensurate to the assessment. |
| 01:29:28.02 | Stephen Woodside | I would- |
| 01:29:39.22 | Sergio | So you're not allowed to impose property assessments on property for general benefits like, say, fixing streets or other services the city normally provides, you know, regardless of taxation. |
| 01:29:53.30 | Kelman | What's a special benefit, Sergio? |
| 01:29:55.37 | Sergio | So that would be something over and above what the city would typically provide for those parcels. |
| 01:30:03.00 | Kelman | But these are parks, so why would a park need marketing? It's not a business. So I'm just trying to apples it over here. |
| 01:30:12.97 | Sergio | Yeah, and I think that's a really good question to be asking the engineer. But my understanding is that the city will receive some additional maintenance services, potentially additional tools. |
| 01:30:23.94 | Sergio | trash cleanup, potentially some beautification projects. So I don't know the exact scope because we do not have the engineers report which would normally detail exactly what the benefits are that |
| 01:30:36.35 | Sergio | would explain how the assessments are calculated. |
| 01:30:39.40 | Kelman | So to be clear tonight, we don't have specific information as to the benefits that are being asserted as part of this program is that correct. |
| 01:30:52.66 | Brandy Phipps | We have some of the quantitative analysis completed, but there is generally an engineer's report that's provided to accompany a management district plan. This management district plan is in draft form. So as requested, we brought it back to council. The engineer's report is an in-progress document. |
| 01:31:10.10 | Kelman | Okay, and the engineer is the only one that can respond to what the special benefit would be to the city-owned property? |
| 01:31:15.33 | Brandy Phipps | I'm not sure that they're the only one who can respond, but they're most likely the most appropriate person to respond. And again, Marco may be able to speak to that as well. |
| 01:31:23.43 | Kelman | Yeah, thank you. I'm just trying to understand what the program is, so thanks very much. Thanks, Mayor. |
| 01:31:31.29 | Brandy Phipps | uh... with that i was finished with my introduction of the item so i'm happy to turn it over to mark a manjory for his uh... more detailed presentation of the other park of the fours or so |
| 01:31:39.63 | Karen | Thank you. |
| 01:31:50.14 | Scott Thornburg | Hi, folks. |
| 01:31:50.98 | Scott Thornburg | I just wanted to introduce it, the issue again, that we've, the council requested that EDAC use this as its top priority. I had some introductory slides, but the emphasis of time, I don't want to bring them up. And so |
| 01:32:06.53 | Scott Thornburg | We urge you to move forward and to accept the staff's recommendations. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Mark. |
| 01:32:25.21 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:32:25.80 | Unknown | Mark LaMandri, New City America. I'm the consultant working on this. And... |
| 01:32:32.50 | Unknown | Councilwoman, let me see if I have one on the slides. Um, |
| 01:32:38.23 | Unknown | Yeah, let's go to the next slide. |
| 01:32:40.85 | Unknown | It's just the cover of next slide. So I wanted to show you the budget and that budget. I'm sorry, can you guys see what page that is? I can't see it. |
| 01:32:49.66 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:32:51.58 | Unknown | because it's taken out of the management district plan. And you'll notice that on the management district plan, we talk about the draft. |
| 01:32:58.23 | Unknown | So that looks like that's page four. I'm not sure if you have the entire management district plan within your packet. |
| 01:33:04.54 | Kelman | We have it. Thank you. |
| 01:33:05.35 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:33:05.45 | Unknown | Okay, so you'll see on page four, we have demand creation, 132,000, which is 55% civil sidewalks, which the council wanted to ensure that that included beautification and maintenance. And that was included or emphasized as compared to the proposal that was given to you in December. Administration management, 25%, conting contingency reserve, 5%. If you go to the next page, if you would, on the slide. Yes. So I wanted, I highlighted here what the difference was between what the council had noticed and what I had inserted into the plan. For demand creation, we have now public art displays, public space design and improvements, beautification programs. And those I believe as someone who forms public spaces and has done seven in the main district that we manage, we know that we cannot have parks or public spaces unless they're maintained and managed. The city can do basic things, but what we want to do is enhance those public spaces. So they become great gathering places. Thank you. spaces unless they're maintained and managed. The city can do basic things, but what we want to do is enhance those public spaces so they become great gathering places. So we did add the public art, public space design and improvements and beautification programs in demand creation. We also put it in the civil sidewalks and you'll see that that was all highlighted. Maintenance and beautification, the district sidewalks, maintenance of existing and new public spaces, public space design and improvements, beautification programs, and then parking and transportation management. One is much more of a design. The demand creation is bringing people to the area. The civil sidewalks is the maintenance of those public, and they're two different functions. So I wanted to make sure that the council knows that we did bring those things back this is not a huge district there's not a lot of space in terms of large public parks but there are some really great little boutique parks and when it gets to the question of what is this special bench and benefit as compared to the general benefit as sergio had in the in his analysis of Prop 218. If you look at what's going on today, all up and down the proposed area, including the parks and sidewalks, that is a general benefit. |
| 01:35:24.44 | Unknown | The property owners clearly want more. The businesses clearly want more than it was currently existing within the district. That has to be funded through some mechanism. The best way to fund it, at least in the state of California, which is allowable under the state constitution, is your property assessment districts. So those general benefits within the city will stay and be maintained unless they're dropped citywide, which does happen at times during recessions. |
| 01:35:52.62 | Unknown | but we're assuming that everything will be maintained the same in terms of trash emptying, |
| 01:35:57.49 | Unknown | I don't think the city does regular sidewalk sweeping and gutter sweeping. They might do street sweeping, which is tied to the storm drain. |
| 01:36:06.45 | Unknown | But these services that are being proposed in ongoing pressure washing of the sidewalks are not current city benefits. And that would also include the parks. So if someone happened to go to park, they happened to have ice cream, they spilled the ice cream in the summer and it melted all over the place. You wouldn't have to look at it for a week. It would be taken care of within a day or two. So those are the special benefits that would be provided. There was also a discussion about the map. Let's go to the next page if we would. I think the map's, you know, the next one. |
| 01:36:36.95 | Unknown | Okay, here's the map as it now stands. And this is the proposed district. I think we have one more map too, if you can go one more. |
| 01:36:46.67 | Unknown | The blue is the city's contribution and then the, uh, |
| 01:36:52.05 | Unknown | parcels that are listed without any color are the private property owner contributions. The city does own Old City Hall, which is on Brightview. And so there is a small portion, about $12,000, if I'm not mistaken, in the private property section that is owned by the city. And the balance of the assessments would be levied on those parking lots and some of those parks. And it would also include the Spinnaker, which is part of the overall city ownership of that property. When we spoke in December, I said the committee was pretty adamant that they wanted to make sure that the city had a major part of this. So they wanted to match the $120,000 that they were putting in with $120,000 from the city. So the assessments on each of those districts are different because there's a lot more buildings on Brightview as you go down to as you get in basically at the Trident. |
| 01:37:50.32 | Unknown | and by SCOMAs. |
| 01:37:52.80 | Unknown | So the only way to equalize it, as was requested by the steering committee, is to create different methodologies. There's a lot more building square footage than in benefit zone one, which is the private property as compared to benefit zone two. And there's a lot more lot size. So the assessment shifted from one of the three factors to another. The three factors that are used right now are linear frontage, lot size and building square footage, because we can't use assessed valuation. So in order to equalize the private property versus the city, we had to create two assessment methodologies. The services that would be provided on Brightview, |
| 01:38:28.96 | Unknown | up and down in the private property area would be similar to the ones that are provided from the city. So if there's pressure washing of the sidewalk being done on the west side of the street, it would also be done on the east side of the street and include the sidewalks on the city properties. If trash needed to be emptied more than once a day because of a large event, then that's where the maintenance would come in and do that special benefit. They would not take over the regular trash emptying, but they would do supplemental. The whole point of the district is to create more activity. More activity takes the form of more people coming to the area. More people are going to create more trash and they're going to create more ice cream on sidewalks and other things that they might do while they're enjoying downtown Sausalito. So that's what we try. This is not a huge budget. This is a pretty modest budget, but we think that it would. It's a budget that's strong enough to make an impact and increase the value of all the properties, including the city properties within the downtown boundaries. |
| 01:39:32.30 | Unknown | Can you go to the next slide to Mark? This is Mark. Yes. |
| 01:39:36.06 | Chris | Marco. |
| 01:39:36.85 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:39:36.87 | Chris | I think you mean Bridgeway. |
| 01:39:36.90 | Unknown | I think |
| 01:39:38.34 | Unknown | Pardon me? Bridgeway. Bridge, what am I saying? Bridgeview? |
| 01:39:42.27 | Unknown | It's, |
| 01:39:42.51 | Unknown | Brian, it's been a really, really long day. I can just tell you that I had a pretty intense board meeting this morning at 830 in San Diego. So I apologize for that. Thank you, Chris. |
| 01:39:52.66 | Unknown | This is the schedule for what we anticipate being the timeline on the district. And I'll read off of my sheet because, again, it's a little difficult for me to read there. |
| 01:40:04.97 | Unknown | So what is being presented to the city council right now upon your request is that you would look at the management district plan prior to the approval of it. |
| 01:40:16.04 | Unknown | Normally, the process is if a city manager or a group of property owners hire someone like my company to do something, we come up with a management district plan. We present to the city manager and the city attorney. They review it to make sure it's compliant. Then we get an engineer's report. They review the engineer's report to make sure it's compliant with Proposition 218. And then petitions are circulated based upon a review by the city attorney to make sure they believe that the petitions are valid. |
| 01:40:44.25 | Unknown | What we're hoping to do is initiate a petition drive |
| 01:40:48.45 | Unknown | And normally it's done just as part of the process of the formation. It's not normally done going to a city council, but I know the city council is extremely cognizant of it because of the contribution the city will be making to this overall district. So what we're looking at today is saying that we would move forward if the council decides that they want to proceed on this basis. |
| 01:41:11.39 | Unknown | In March, we would have approval of the plan by the city attorney and the city manager. |
| 01:41:15.96 | Unknown | We would mail out petitions to all the property owners, which we wouldn't have. We just email it to the city. We wouldn't have to mail it to the city. That would be done in March. |
| 01:41:23.98 | Unknown | um the city council action and instructing the city manager to sign a petition vote in the mail belly mail balloting process ideally would be done this evening so that could be part of the package that we bring back to you once the petitions are completed we're assuming that we'll hit the 50 threshold on the petitions which means that out of a budget of 241 000 we'd have to get approximately $121,000 to sign a petition and then submit that to you. And that's by dollar amount. which means that out of a budget of $241,000, we'd have to get approximately $121,000 to sign a petition and then submit that to you. And that's by dollar amount, not by individual property owners. And that's consistent with the state constitution. So it would bring them back and submit those two in April. Council then adopts resolution of intention |
| 01:42:06.84 | Unknown | expressing its intention to form the downtown Sausalito Property Business Improvement District. |
| 01:42:13.99 | Unknown | That would happen probably in May. The first action that the city council would really take, and normally the procedure is the resolution of intent. You would then authorize the city manager to mail out all the ballots to property owners. They have a minimum of 45 days to return those ballots. This is not a general election. It's completely controlled through the process of the government code. It has to be with the property owners at least 45 days. that's a minimal amount of time that the property owners have to have the, the ballot. process of the government code, the, it has to be with the property owners at least 45 days. That's a minimal amount of time that the property owners have to have the ballots. |
| 01:42:44.98 | Unknown | When they receive the ballots, they have the option of signing yes or no and signing it. If they don't. |
| 01:42:51.22 | Unknown | Mark yes or no, the ballot doesn't count. If they mark yes or no and they don't sign it, it doesn't count. So we have to make sure that the instructions are very, very clear. |
| 01:43:00.57 | Unknown | We're assuming that the public hearing would be held sometime either in late May or June. A lot of this depends on how long it takes us to get the petition signed and approved by the not only the property owners, but also by the city council. So the actions that would be coming forward to the city, if we can move forward as of this date. |
| 01:43:23.16 | Unknown | would be we would launch the petition drive, bring it back to the city manager. City manager, they would calculate the weight of those petitions. If the city council authorizes the city manager to also sign a petition not to exceed what the legal requirement is, that no property owner can pay more than 40% within a district under the Property Business Improvement District law. So we just think that the city would have to use its authority and its weight to get us over the 50% threshold. The petition does not create the district. The balloting creates the district. The petition is just a trigger for the balloting. |
| 01:43:59.46 | Unknown | Once the ballots are in, they'll be counted by the... |
| 01:44:01.25 | Kelman | I'm sorry, Marco. There's a lot of information coming at us. So the city will need to use its authority and weight. |
| 01:44:04.03 | Unknown | Sorry. |
| 01:44:07.68 | Kelman | Can you unpack that? I don't understand what's happening there. |
| 01:44:10.70 | Unknown | So you have $120,000 in assessments. The private property owners have $120,000 in assessments. If we don't get 100% of the private property owners to sign a petition, then we might be at 45%, 46%, 47%. And then the whole process stops because the city is not weighing in. So what we want the city to do is weigh in to fill that gap from whatever we get signed in the private properties and fill the gap to get to the 50% threshold, which is a requirement of the legislation. |
| 01:44:42.34 | Kelman | but the city only gets 50% |
| 01:44:45.04 | Kelman | So how does the city fill the gap? What does that mean? |
| 01:44:48.74 | Unknown | So let me try to restate it. If we get to 40%, 44%, we have a 6% gap, right? Then we would ask the city manager to sign a petition filling that 6% gap, which would then put us over the 50% threshold. And keeping in mind, the petition is just a symbolic act that's required in this, like a landscaping and lighting act, which is also a property assessment district, does not have a petition requirement. The PBID law has one of the highest petition requirements in the state. Once we reach that threshold, then it would be up to the council to determine whether or not they want to mail out the ballots. I hope that clarifies things a little bit. I hope I impact it OK. |
| 01:45:33.32 | Councilmember Hoffman | Sorry, I have a follow up on that. And so are you asking us tonight to authorize a city manager to do that? |
| 01:45:40.10 | Unknown | That's one of the three points, if I'm not mistaken. I don't have those three points in your staff report in front of me. But if I'm not mistaken, those are the all- |
| 01:45:47.21 | Councilmember Hoffman | And so the alternate decision would be that we don't authorize that, and if we don't reach 50% by the businesses who are going to be assessed, then we move forward. |
| 01:45:56.49 | Unknown | We're done. No, it's, it's over. |
| 01:45:59.21 | Councilmember Hoffman | Okay. |
| 01:46:02.23 | Unknown | Brandy, do you want to say something? |
| 01:46:04.57 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:46:04.61 | Brandy Phipps | Yeah. |
| 01:46:04.79 | Brandy Phipps | Thank you, Marco. I'll just reiterate to counsel that the staff recommendation is that city council contribute a not to exceed amount of 40 percent. |
| 01:46:13.19 | Brandy Phipps | of the city's voting power in support of the district during the petition process with no recommendation at this point for the city to contribute any of its voting power during the balloting process. |
| 01:46:27.88 | Councilmember Hoffman | Okay, I don't, sorry, I'm gonna have to have a follow up on that one. |
| 01:46:31.03 | Mayor Sobieski | Go ahead. |
| 01:46:32.35 | Councilmember Hoffman | I don't really, Director Phipps, if you can rejoin us. Okay, so- |
| 01:46:39.03 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:46:42.24 | Councilmember Hoffman | So there are different avenues we can go down. |
| 01:46:46.39 | Councilmember Hoffman | One is that |
| 01:46:49.24 | Councilmember Hoffman | We don't vote at all, and we let the property owners decide what they want to do. |
| 01:46:56.63 | Councilmember Hoffman | And if we leave it at that, then the property owners |
| 01:47:02.64 | Councilmember Hoffman | not the city but the property owners decided what they didn't want to do because the district has been arbitrarily drawn |
| 01:47:09.24 | Councilmember Hoffman | To boost the city's percentage overall, one entity, the city has 50%, as opposed to all the other property owners who have various weighted votes because of the size of their properties. Have I got that right? |
| 01:47:24.41 | Brandy Phipps | I would respectfully push back against the statement that the boundaries of the district have been arbitrarily drawn. |
| 01:47:31.61 | Councilmember Hoffman | They've been, okay, not arbitrarily drawn. They've been intentionally drawn to boost the city's contribution to 50%. |
| 01:47:38.04 | Brandy Phipps | I would also push back against that, respectively, and say that the assessment formula is what provides the basis for the assessment value. And that assessment is linked with a special benefit that will accrue to those parcels in the future. |
| 01:47:54.70 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thanks. Okay. So then let me ask you a specific question for Marco behind you, because Marco, we went through this at the last meeting. So. |
| 01:48:01.47 | Councilmember Hoffman | When we started this process, the city was at about 20%, right? |
| 01:48:07.29 | Unknown | 20%. |
| 01:48:08.33 | Councilmember Hoffman | Of the overall district. |
| 01:48:10.65 | Unknown | No, I think when it was presented, we presented the fact that it was going to be 50%. |
| 01:48:15.40 | Councilmember Hoffman | When you presented at the last meeting, I'm talking about before that, when the steering committee met. |
| 01:48:17.11 | Unknown | I THINK IT'S A GOOD |
| 01:48:20.72 | Councilmember Hoffman | when you met with people, when you guys were talking about what you wanted to do, I agree that when it got to the city council level, |
| 01:48:26.98 | Councilmember Hoffman | we were at 50%. |
| 01:48:28.69 | Unknown | And I didn't just to answer your question, I didn't make up that figure. |
| 01:48:33.61 | Unknown | This is something that came from the steering committee and we discussed it over three different meetings prior to the meeting on December 19th. |
| 01:48:40.26 | Councilmember Hoffman | At some point, you will agree there was a decision by the steering committee that the city should be at 50%. |
| 01:48:46.23 | Unknown | Yes, that's true. |
| 01:48:47.30 | Councilmember Hoffman | Well, you also agree that the steering committee or whoever could have decided we don't want to have the city at 50 percent. We want to have it more industry standard, which is I understand it from our December 19th meeting. |
| 01:48:58.93 | Councilmember Hoffman | was between 15 and 25%. |
| 01:49:01.02 | Unknown | I said that I have, I manage some districts that have 25%. There's also one other, it's a small district where the city of LA is about 38%. But I said, no one I've ever worked with was 50%. |
| 01:49:14.48 | Councilmember Hoffman | Okay. So at some point there was a decision made to come up with a formula that gets the city to 50%. You'll agree with that. |
| 01:49:19.85 | Unknown | Correct. That's correct. |
| 01:49:21.82 | Councilmember Hoffman | Okay, thanks. And so my question, I think back to my question to Director Phipps was, |
| 01:49:33.77 | Councilmember Hoffman | since the city has whatever you want to call it, intentional 50% weight in this thing that |
| 01:49:42.24 | Councilmember Hoffman | you know, |
| 01:49:43.76 | Councilmember Hoffman | We could decide that the property owners should be able to decide whether or not they want to go forward to the district. If we don't have 50% of the property owners, then we're not going to go forward. |
| 01:49:55.14 | Unknown | On the petition phase, I think what was stated by Director Phipps previously is that the city could decide that it's going to weigh in on the petition because the threshold's so high. The city can also determine that they're not going to submit a ballot. That's up to the city council. So you can do that. It's the ballot that creates the district, not the petition. But the threshold is so high, it's difficult for us to assume that 100% of the property owners within the commercial area are going to sign. |
| 01:50:15.00 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:50:15.03 | Councilmember Hoffman | I understand. |
| 01:50:24.45 | Councilmember Hoffman | Yeah, so you understand my point though. |
| 01:50:26.34 | Councilmember Hoffman | If, if, |
| 01:50:27.13 | Councilmember Hoffman | property owners don't support the thing and |
| 01:50:30.10 | Councilmember Hoffman | you know, should the city be engaged in forcing |
| 01:50:33.04 | Councilmember Hoffman | an assessment against property owners that don't support it or just don't care because they don't turn the ballot in. |
| 01:50:37.32 | Unknown | they, I disagree that the city would be forcing it. If you don't participate in the balloting, |
| 01:50:43.62 | Unknown | You're not a player. |
| 01:50:45.69 | Councilmember Hoffman | Well, they might vote no. |
| 01:50:47.18 | Unknown | Part of the city. |
| 01:50:47.23 | Councilmember Hoffman | All right. |
| 01:50:48.56 | Councilmember Hoffman | No, a property owner, they might vote no. |
| 01:50:50.33 | Unknown | You're right, and then they would decide. |
| 01:50:52.04 | Councilmember Hoffman | And then, but we also have at least one large property that's neutral. |
| 01:50:56.73 | Unknown | We'll see what happens. |
| 01:50:56.76 | Councilmember Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 01:50:58.96 | Councilmember Hoffman | I'm looking at the map. All I can know is what I've been presented |
| 01:51:02.08 | Unknown | Okay. And I'm just telling you that I speak to these property owners quite a bit. I know that for many of them, the 50% threshold or the contribution by 50% is in their minds, a condition of moving forward. |
| 01:51:18.13 | Councilmember Hoffman | Bye-bye. |
| 01:51:18.45 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thanks. |
| 01:51:19.06 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 01:51:19.07 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 01:51:19.29 | Mayor Sobieski | Can I ask, is there a more presentation or are we now in the Q and a portion of this, uh, |
| 01:51:24.51 | Unknown | No, I just wanted to do an overview to show that we did include a lot of those concerns. Oh, we did. |
| 01:51:29.30 | Mayor Sobieski | Are we now in Q&A? Is that what I understand? |
| 01:51:31.95 | Unknown | Whatever you. |
| 01:51:33.23 | Mayor Sobieski | Okay, there's no more staff presentation? |
| 01:51:35.09 | Unknown | No, I don't believe so. |
| 01:51:37.09 | Mayor Sobieski | Okay, so we are in Q&A for the staff still. So I guess it's to Director Pipps, I just want to reiterate one question for you, sir. On December 19th, I think we passed a resolution from city council that endorsed the proposed district boundary, endorsed the budget, which reflected the 50-50 split that you were talking about, |
| 01:52:03.32 | Mayor Sobieski | and directed the city manager to bring back the management plan |
| 01:52:07.40 | Mayor Sobieski | to the city council before it proceeds. So do I understand correctly, that's what we're doing here is looking at the management plan? |
| 01:52:13.51 | Mayor Sobieski | of course, still, as we always do, as the city council, retaining the latitude to change our previous unanimous vote. |
| 01:52:21.66 | Mayor Sobieski | but that the operating thing you want feedback on is the management plan? |
| 01:52:25.91 | Brandy Phipps | Correct. With that in mind, future decisions of counsel as related to the petition process, I believe, are inextricably tied to counsel's endorsement of the management district plan as presented. So, for example, if counsel were to endorse the management district plan, but not engage in lending its support during the petition process, it would be akin to the council not endorsing the management district plan. And this formation process is likely to stop. |
| 01:52:59.73 | Mayor Sobieski | So again, the thought is that under the requirements, there's one district. |
| 01:53:04.76 | Mayor Sobieski | you have to get 50% plus one total participation from all property owners inside the district. |
| 01:53:10.16 | Mayor Sobieski | Half the district is the city. |
| 01:53:12.51 | Mayor Sobieski | So if the city doesn't vote, unless every single property of owner both votes and votes unanimously in the affirmative, the district cannot be formed. |
| 01:53:20.69 | Brandy Phipps | Thank you. |
| 01:53:20.74 | Brandy Phipps | Absolutely. |
| 01:53:22.93 | Mayor Sobieski | If I could just, I just needed the yes confirmation. And so it just helps me clarify my own understanding of the way the voting works. |
| 01:53:29.75 | Mayor Sobieski | an alternate situation be if you wanted to say, |
| 01:53:32.81 | Mayor Sobieski | you know, how do we decide who president, not president, unfortunately, at the Electoral College, but usually 50% plus one decides things. So you say the people have decided 50% plus one. So to say the businesses have chosen to do something would be presumably 50% plus one of the businesses would be of the voters. Yeah. |
| 01:53:52.47 | Mayor Sobieski | would be deciding. So if you got that from the |
| 01:53:56.09 | Mayor Sobieski | businesses, if you've got half participation, that would be only 25% of the total district. |
| 01:54:01.41 | Mayor Sobieski | So you would have to match that with 25% of the city's votes to get to the legal threshold of half the district voting the affirmative. |
| 01:54:09.51 | Brandy Phipps | Mayor, you are absolutely correct. |
| 01:54:11.64 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you for helping me clarify that. |
| 01:54:13.96 | Mayor Sobieski | Council member of Councilman. |
| 01:54:14.84 | Mayor Sobieski | Great. |
| 01:54:15.23 | Kelman | Thank you. I see we have our director of public works here, but whomever on staff wants to handle this, there's some conversation about park and public space maintenance. And I'm just curious how we deal with that today downtown. Yeah. |
| 01:54:31.87 | Mayor Sobieski | Director McGowan. |
| 01:54:32.73 | Kelman | presumably in the budget that we approved unanimously, we all put money towards those things. |
| 01:54:38.53 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 01:54:38.55 | Brandy Phipps | Thank you, Kevin. |
| 01:54:41.08 | Kevin McGowan | Good evening, everyone. I'm Kevin McGowan, Public Works Director. And yes, we do maintain our parks. There was some discussion there about whether we actually clean some of the sidewalks and we do do that as well. We have power washing and other things that happen in the parks as well. So we do maintain our park systems. |
| 01:55:04.28 | Cox | I want to say back in 2014, the city removed from its staff the arborist that was responsible for evaluating trees and such in the city's parks and throughout town. Has that arborist position been restored? |
| 01:55:18.61 | Kevin McGowan | No, it hasn't. We use a consultant. |
| 01:55:22.93 | Kelman | Dr. McGowan, a follow-up question. I think for the city manager, I can't seem to find it, but I feel like in one of the last two or three meetings, didn't we just hire a parking person who would be a part of the police department? And can you remind us of that contract? |
| 01:55:39.55 | Chris | Yes. |
| 01:55:42.15 | Chris | Councilmember Kelman and Council, you're asking me if we hired someone to replace Elliott Holt. |
| 01:55:46.71 | Kelman | I'm asking if we hired a parking manager. |
| 01:55:48.65 | Chris | We did. |
| 01:55:50.42 | Kelman | And what was the budget for that, do you recall? |
| 01:55:53.43 | Chris | Um, |
| 01:55:54.69 | Chris | Chief, can you? |
| 01:55:56.18 | Chris | Thank you. |
| 01:55:56.77 | Chris | Help me out with that. |
| 01:55:59.84 | Chris | So we hired a full-time person. We hired a full-time person fully loaded. I've guessed it's close to six figures. |
| 01:55:59.94 | Kelman | So we hired a full-time person. We hired a full-time person. |
| 01:56:05.46 | Kelman | Okay, so... |
| 01:56:07.01 | Kelman | I'm just trying to understand the duplication of efforts in the management plan, which we're tasked with understanding tonight. So one of the things is parking and transportation management. How does that differ from the brand new hire we made of a full-time employee? |
| 01:56:22.18 | Cox | May I ask, I have a hearing challenge. So when there are more than one person speaking, I cannot understand what one person is saying. So might I ask the audience, if you need to chat, that you please step outside to do that so that I can hear what's going on and understand. I would greatly appreciate your forbearance. |
| 01:56:41.74 | Unknown | Yes, Councilman Kellman, what we're thinking about is if you were to do a valet program. So, for example, as you get around the park and people could get there's a little hook area, the little dead end that's by in it. Sorry, I'm going to forget things again. But Cass's Hotel, that would be a great valet place. What this allows for is just saying if you were during special events or things where people didn't want to walk 200 yards, you can actually do a valet program. That's why I put it in there. It doesn't assume. That's why it says may include but are not limited to. |
| 01:57:17.07 | Unknown | So I just wanted that option in there too. |
| 01:57:19.05 | Kelman | Got it. And thank you, everybody, for... |
| 01:57:21.58 | Kelman | Participatory collective answering. The administrative costs, who would receive those funds? Who's the administrator? |
| 01:57:29.98 | Unknown | So we have it at about $60,000 because that would include insurance if you have any office supplies, phones, and things like that. So no person is going to get $60,000. What normally happens when the districts are formed, you create a new nonprofit corporation, a 5-1-C-3. You have an interim board of directors. They issue RFPs for all that stuff. So if they said, we're looking for an administrator, either a person either person or a company or something like it's not my company, then you would issue an RFP and say we have this much. What's your experience in doing that? Same could be done with maintenance. Same could be done with event planning, et cetera. |
| 01:58:07.63 | Kelman | Have you ever seen that subcontradot to the Chamber of Commerce? |
| 01:58:10.81 | Unknown | It could be if they responded to the RFP and they were the ones who had the best proposal. That's not up to me. It's up to that board of directors. |
| 01:58:19.23 | Kelman | Okay, thank you. Super helpful. And then the last question is around decision making the governance for how some of these things are decided. Let's say we wanted to plant new trees versus valet program. What is the governance structure of decisions. |
| 01:58:35.14 | Unknown | Normally, we run six districts, so we use the same model over and over again. So, for example, you have a demand creation, which is the largest part of this budget. You would have a demand creation committee. They would look at all the options. What do they want to do this year? Is it events? Do they want to do the lighting completed all up and downtown? They would make that recommendation. Their advisory, they go to the board. Board is subject to the Brown Act, so it's got to post all of its action items 72 hours in advance, and they'd make a recommendation and say, out of our first year budget this year, we'd like to spend X on this. Please allow us to issue an RFP, and then we can see what the responses are. |
| 01:59:15.08 | Kelman | A public process, the members, okay. Great. |
| 01:59:16.99 | Unknown | It's a totally public process. |
| 01:59:18.57 | Kelman | Thank you so much. Sure. |
| 01:59:20.78 | Unknown | Thanks, Mayor. |
| 01:59:23.59 | Kelman | you |
| 01:59:23.64 | Cox | So the city is being asked to stand toe-to-toe with the business community and contribute monies to this PBI. |
| 01:59:33.37 | Cox | What happens in six months or a year if the city says this PBID is trash? It's not operating the way that we anticipated. We're unhappy with the outcome. What recourse does the city have once the voters vote to form the improvement district? and if the city is unhappy, since the city is only a 50% property owner. |
| 02:00:05.74 | Unknown | So there's two answers. Once the district is formed, then that new entity must enter into a contract with the city and the city will lay out all the stipulations have to adhere to the Brown Act, your records have to be open, etc. Open meetings, etc. Let's say that the group. |
| 02:00:22.78 | Unknown | for whatever reason, decided to violate that agreement with the city. That's grounds for termination of that, what's called the owner's association. The city can then go and appoint another owner's association to carry on and implement the special benefit services that are funded by the PBID. That's one option. The other option, let's say the property owner say this thing is horrible. It never wasn't supposed to go this way. We don't like what's going on. In the legislation, there's a disestablishment process. And the disestablishment process is identical to the formation process, which means, and I would tell you that the easiest thing to do would be to have property owners sign a petition against an unpopular assessment district. You'd probably get all the petitions you needed in one week. And then you would submit that. And once you get the 50% threshold, then it would entail a balloting. And then the property owners can say, do I want to disestablish this district? Yes or no. |
| 02:01:19.94 | Mayor Sobieski | I'll see you next time. |
| 02:01:20.68 | Cox | I was going to ask one follow-up and then you. |
| 02:01:23.05 | Cox | Um, |
| 02:01:24.04 | Cox | If the city is a 40% voter, |
| 02:01:28.19 | Cox | than in this process, then the city would only need to collect 10% |
| 02:01:34.76 | Cox | Um, |
| 02:01:35.60 | Cox | of business owner votes to dis establish the improvement district if the city was unhappy. |
| 02:01:44.81 | Unknown | the weight is only relevant in the formation process. The weight is not relevant in the management process. |
| 02:01:50.70 | Cox | So what weight does the city have as a 50% property owner in the |
| 02:01:55.93 | Cox | improvement district if the city is unhappy with the manner |
| 02:01:59.87 | Cox | is one of those property owners who's unhappy with the manner in which the |
| 02:02:06.63 | Cox | Thank you. |
| 02:02:06.85 | Cox | PBID is operating. |
| 02:02:08.35 | Unknown | I'm sure that the city manager would appoint people if they came back to the city manager and just said these people are wacko and they're not spending money consistent with Proposition 218. They can make the report and then the city manager could bring it up to the city council and say, you have the option of triggering a disestablishment, changing the management corporation, or putting the assessments in abeyance for one year. The city has that authority. You to be re-assessed. I'm going to say that the city has a lot of authority to be re-assessed. I'm going to say that the city has a lot of authority to be re-assessed. I'm going to say that the city has a lot of authority to be re-assessed. I'm going to say that the city has a lot of authority to be re-assessed. |
| 02:02:47.96 | Unknown | Quite a bit of authority in this process, but it's not as if the city has 40% of the votes on the board. City could have maybe two or something like that members. But I've never seen that happen. And I've done this quite a bit. Someone really has to be out to lunch to not do this properly within the first year or so. |
| 02:03:06.13 | Mayor Sobieski | I want to ask a follow-up question just because I think I hear where the Vice Mayor was going. |
| 02:03:11.01 | Mayor Sobieski | I want to make sure I understood the mechanism myself. |
| 02:03:14.62 | Mayor Sobieski | to do the disestablishment, if the city had, as it's currently constituted in the draft, 50% of the parcels, the city could, with just an affirmative petition, so it could sign a petition with 50% weight and get a private property owner, let's say a 10% property owner, then that's enough to begin the balloting process. In theory, yes, you're absolutely right. That is a virtue of 50% is that 50% plus one could initiate that. So if my, |
| 02:03:35.51 | Unknown | In theory. |
| 02:03:41.20 | Daniel Chodor | Yes. |
| 02:03:41.44 | Unknown | to see. |
| 02:03:46.40 | Mayor Sobieski | Tell me if this answer to the vice minister's question is wrong. |
| 02:03:48.85 | Mayor Sobieski | If the city council after a year thinks this is trash, |
| 02:03:52.42 | Mayor Sobieski | then all it has to do is find one |
| 02:03:54.58 | Mayor Sobieski | one property owner in the district |
| 02:03:56.98 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 02:03:57.18 | Mayor Sobieski | to |
| 02:03:58.72 | Mayor Sobieski | sign a petition saying so to go with the city's petition, and that would initiate the disestablishment process. |
| 02:04:04.84 | Unknown | But you could also decide as a city council not to authorize the reassessment for the coming fiscal year. |
| 02:04:11.81 | Mayor Sobieski | And that's a different tool, but I just wanted to get a yes, no answer. And you said yes. And then you added on, there's yet another tool, which is we simply don't do an assessment. |
| 02:04:13.23 | Unknown | Right. |
| 02:04:19.44 | Unknown | Yeah, there are multiple ways to unwind this. That's what my point is. So it's not five years. |
| 02:04:24.97 | Mayor Sobieski | years commitment like going to prison. It is a five year potential experiment before it has to be reauthorized by the property owners. It's |
| 02:04:33.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:04:33.07 | Mayor Sobieski | Okay. |
| 02:04:33.19 | Unknown | and rather than |
| 02:04:33.44 | Mayor Sobieski | whether, |
| 02:04:33.60 | Unknown | It certainly is not a prison, but... |
| 02:04:37.07 | Unknown | I would say that I think that if you don't do it, you don't even try it, you'll never know whether or not it functions and it works in the way it was envisioned to work. So that's what that's what we're looking at, I think, this evening. And I'd like to just reiterate one more thing, Mr. Mayor, is that, again, the city can decide they're not going to cast a ballot in the balloting process. |
| 02:04:57.36 | Unknown | We're only asking at this point for the city |
| 02:04:59.64 | Unknown | to get us over the 50% threshold. That's it. |
| 02:05:04.02 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 02:05:04.07 | Unknown | Councilmember Kelman and the Councilmember |
| 02:05:05.29 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 02:05:05.31 | Kelman | Thank you. |
| 02:05:05.51 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 02:05:05.63 | Kelman | Thank you. |
| 02:05:05.71 | Mayor Sobieski | Blasting. |
| 02:05:05.73 | Kelman | Thank you. |
| 02:05:06.35 | Kelman | I'm going to ask a question for Babette McDougall because I know she likes the group iteration ideation. It's okay, Marco. She's in front. So we heard from our director of public works that |
| 02:05:19.31 | Kelman | the majority of the civil |
| 02:05:21.52 | Kelman | sidewalk improvements is already covered under our city's budget, which probably leaves mostly trees, which historically we have not done a fantastic job of planting new trees and we want to do more of that. Can you help all of us reconcile some of the duplication that I'm hearing around budget that the council has already allocated for certain things. Are there ways that we might think about this? Because the mayor raises, and the vice mayor raises good questions around how potentially tenuous this might be. Are we better off simply |
| 02:05:55.09 | Kelman | matching the $132,000 for demand creation |
| 02:05:59.32 | Kelman | removing most of these administrative costs and empowering our downtown to have more marketing efforts? Is that since a lot of the civil stuff is already covered by the city budget? |
| 02:06:10.41 | Kelman | And it sounds like there's this tenuous one vote |
| 02:06:13.97 | Kelman | can tank it kind of thing. Can you help us think that through a little bit? |
| 02:06:18.69 | Unknown | So, |
| 02:06:19.39 | Unknown | I know there's been, and I know Carolyn very well and beautiful Sausalito. I know that they're always looking for opportunities, whether it's hanging plants on the light poles, which don't exist right now, and also planting flowers and seasonal, particularly around the parks. That's not being done right now. So that's what you mean by special benefits and enhancements. If someone comes here and maybe there's better signage that's needed on the parking lots that direct people to go one way or the other, those are things that normally a city could do but doesn't always do. But it's something that this group can do much quicker. And I think that they'll have a much better pulse as to exactly what the needs are within the downtown area. So it's not to replace because there's a baseline that the city is currently performing. If people believe that increased use of the downtown area is going to lead to, again, more trash, maybe the bathrooms have to be cleaned out more than they are right now. Those are things that can be done with the assessment district because they're supplemental to what the city is currently providing. |
| 02:07:21.32 | Kelman | So thank you so much for that. So plantings, wayfinding, things that help beautify the city. Why is administrative costs so high? |
| 02:07:29.64 | Unknown | They're 25%. For example, we had a million dollar budget. They would not be 25% because there's an economy of scale. There's certain fixed costs when you do something. Your insurance is going to cost X. And if you have to get phones and you have to pay rent, all that's going to take away from that $60,000. I think that the way that you're going to probably effectively be able to hire somebody who says, I can't live on $40,000 a year, even if I have multiple contracts, is maybe if you do activities or events, and then that can maybe throw off net revenue that can help the administration personnel. But it's $60,000 because I don't think that you can run this district for anything less than that. |
| 02:08:08.84 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:08:10.46 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 02:08:10.90 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:08:10.91 | Unknown | Okay, great. Thank you. So just given that our direction and request from staff was direct feedback on the management plan, I did have a couple of questions that would be helpful for clarification. First of all, there are 19 sites and parcels here in the assessment, and some of them are unlabeled. I know that's no one's fault because they don't have a specific street, but I would ask that could you potentially find some way to designate each of those more specifically in the interest of transparency beyond just the map as a point of consideration? You mean like agile? |
| 02:08:40.78 | Unknown | You mean like addresses or something or? |
| 02:08:42.60 | Unknown | There's no address listed for some of them, which is understandable because they don't yet have a clear address. But I would like to ask that they at the very least have some sort of name so that we're aware of which ones they are. |
| 02:08:55.18 | Unknown | So what we can do is just do a run that says instead of parcel number XYZ, because we have to have an assessment role as part of it that is included in the back, we can also put the name of the property owner, their address, and then their assessment. |
| 02:09:08.12 | Unknown | Yeah, that would be helpful. And even just for the city properties, if you can say like adjacent to Vienna Del Mar Park or something, just because I know members of the public want to know which parcels are city and specifically why they're assessed, and it would just be helpful. Okay. And then additionally, in looking at the management plan, it's great to see all of these bullets for the different buckets, but I don't necessarily see yet clear benchmarks of this is what we want or these are the goals for each of those. I imagine that's something that you could include at some point for demand generation, for example. |
| 02:09:21.20 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:09:39.52 | Unknown | That's a great question. I would tell you that |
| 02:09:42.58 | Unknown | There are certain things that I would do, but I'm not the new board. And I don't want to presuppose that the new board made up of the property owners, which includes the city, would have other priorities. So I would think that what they want to do is try to get more involved in updating a really good downtown website, making sure that you have social media contacts. Do the RFP so you can get the body of people that you need to perform the tasks that you want to do. So that's why I'm not presupposing what the priorities are. I said, these are the options you can do under this bundle. However, they decide to do it. They might say over five years, we never needed parking management. So that, that tool is never used, but that would be up to the board of directors to make those, set those priorities. |
| 02:10:29.00 | Unknown | Okay, now I have some questions for our finance director, Chad Hess, who I think is here, right? He was here. |
| 02:10:36.32 | Unknown | Is he gone? |
| 02:10:37.96 | Unknown | Where'd he go? |
| 02:10:40.14 | Unknown | I have questions. Where is he? |
| 02:10:42.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:10:43.35 | Unknown | Is he going to come back? |
| 02:10:44.98 | Chris | Let me see. I gave him permission to leave, Councilman. I have a question. |
| 02:10:47.61 | Unknown | Maybe I have a question. |
| 02:10:49.56 | Unknown | I have other questions too. |
| 02:10:50.97 | Mayor Sobieski | But sure, go ahead. Why don't you go on to your other questions? Okay. And we'll see if Chad comes back. Okay. And then you go to the vice mayor after that. Actually, okay. Why don't you go ahead? |
| 02:10:55.78 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:10:57.10 | Unknown | Actually, |
| 02:10:58.16 | Unknown | Why don't you go ahead, because it's sort of a good line. |
| 02:10:58.72 | Cox | I'm not sure. |
| 02:10:59.97 | Cox | of editing the book. |
| 02:11:00.56 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:11:00.59 | Cox | Thank you. |
| 02:11:00.61 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:11:00.64 | Cox | of the country. |
| 02:11:00.73 | Unknown | I'm not sure. |
| 02:11:00.96 | Cox | So go ahead. Thank you. I just really had one question. In your presentation, |
| 02:11:05.70 | Cox | you highlighted |
| 02:11:07.17 | Cox | some categories under demand creation and civil sidewalks. Right. And I seem to recall at our December 19 meeting, we – |
| 02:11:18.43 | Cox | gently criticized you for having too much marketing and not enough other benefits. |
| 02:11:24.03 | Unknown | Correct. |
| 02:11:24.39 | Cox | And so did you add some of these? |
| 02:11:27.14 | Unknown | the highlighted parts. |
| 02:11:28.27 | Cox | You added the highlighted parts in order to address our criticism in December. |
| 02:11:31.35 | Unknown | in December. |
| 02:11:32.28 | Cox | And now we're criticizing you because- No, it's okay. It's okay. The services we already provide. Yeah. |
| 02:11:33.92 | Unknown | No, it's okay. It's okay. |
| 02:11:37.82 | Unknown | Yes, no problem. |
| 02:11:38.71 | Cox | And so the point you're making is that these categories you've identified would be supplemental to those services already provided by the city. |
| 02:11:48.94 | Unknown | They have to be legally. |
| 02:11:50.26 | Cox | And they would constitute a special benefit to the city as required by Proposition 218. |
| 02:11:56.65 | Unknown | Correct. And we believe that that special benefits will take the form of additional people parking there, more parking meter revenues, attracting more people to stay in the hotels, more TOT revenues, and fill any vacancies that exist within the downtown area, which would lead to greater sales taxes. |
| 02:12:13.44 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:12:13.63 | Woodside | you. |
| 02:12:13.83 | Unknown | That was really cool. |
| 02:12:14.05 | Woodside | Sure. |
| 02:12:16.14 | Unknown | Do we know where Chad is? |
| 02:12:20.07 | Chris | Council member, if you can ask the question and if I can answer it, I'll do it. If I can't, I'll take it down and I'll get the answer back to you. |
| 02:12:28.88 | Unknown | Okay, well, I'm wondering, given that we as a council have previously given, and maybe let me start with a question for Cass Green, actually. Cass, can you come back up to the mic for a second? |
| 02:12:39.63 | Unknown | So at the onset of your presentation, you said that the business improvement district is the number one priority for EDAC. And I know we've heard from EDAC, and Scott's here too, so you could respond to this as well, that this is really critical for you. And we recently granted a six-month, as you know, extension on our marketing budget, and there were questions about whether or not the contribution from the city into the PBID would be part of or instead of what was made to EDAC. Would you, is the understanding that you'd be willing to work with us in terms of the funding for marketing as a part of what your request might be going forward or what you would need there as well? Yeah, definitely. Okay, so you're seeing this as contributing to this is like contributing to EDAC or instead of? |
| 02:13:16.49 | Scott Thornburg | Absolutely. |
| 02:13:21.72 | Scott Thornburg | Yeah, I think so. I'm not sure. You look like you got... Scott's more articulate than I am. |
| 02:13:22.86 | SPEAKER_11 | . |
| 02:13:22.90 | Unknown | But do you want to say? |
| 02:13:24.23 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:13:27.57 | SPEAKER_11 | I don't know if that's true, but yeah, our intent is for the PBID to take over the work of EDAC for the last two years, two and a half, has been to market all of downtown businesses and we will continue to work. |
| 02:13:40.35 | SPEAKER_11 | partner with the PBID to support downtown businesses, but the marketing work that we've been doing there, the funds that the city council approved for that marketing work would be hopefully picked up by the PBID at their discretion. And they would issue new RFPs. There would be a whole new process that goes into establishing what the scope of that work would be. Now, the work of EDAC will continue to support all city businesses. And we have new focuses as of yesterday's meeting. And I'm happy to share notes on that if you're |
| 02:14:06.79 | Unknown | So that's a really critical point. So the next questions, which were for Chad, and hopefully our city manager can answer them, but if not, how much money did we give EDAC when they had their initial request? $225,000? |
| 02:14:18.20 | Chris | My recollection is a council member and I could be off a little bit, but I thought it was $227,000. |
| 02:14:23.38 | Unknown | Okay, and how much money just about, oh, Scott knows. |
| 02:14:27.23 | Unknown | Director Thorberg, you can answer the questions for Chair Thorberg. And then additionally, about how much money did we authorize for the marketing budget as well? |
| 02:14:36.47 | Chris | I thought it was $37,500. |
| 02:14:38.68 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:14:38.72 | SPEAKER_11 | Okay. |
| 02:14:38.82 | Unknown | But. |
| 02:14:39.01 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:14:39.04 | SPEAKER_11 | But there was recently was 37, five, the city managers, correct. That was for the six month extension. Prior to that, it was $75,000 per year for two years. |
| 02:14:47.68 | Unknown | Okay, great. So that was already, and we've given about $225,000 total. And so in the total plan, this is maybe a question for Marco, but it's in the management plan as well that we can see, the total cost for the PBID estimated right now is $241,000 annually. So the city's contribution is just over $120,000. |
| 02:15:04.99 | Unknown | That's correct. |
| 02:15:05.53 | Unknown | Which is less than what we've given in total to EDEC. |
| 02:15:08.40 | Unknown | Okay, and so this would be a replacement of the EDAC funds, and then it would continue to support our downtown. |
| 02:15:13.43 | Unknown | Okay, great. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify those points. |
| 02:15:17.11 | Councilmember Hoffman | you |
| 02:15:17.26 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:15:17.29 | Councilmember Hoffman | Hi, I have some other questions, but I have follow-up questions on those. So, city manager, we authorized $220,000. That was from the American Recovery Act plan, the ARPA funds, correct? |
| 02:15:29.78 | Chris | Correct, that came the year before I got here. |
| 02:15:32.16 | Councilmember Hoffman | And so that was specifically for recovery from the pandemic that was given to us, that was part of the federal funds that we received specifically for recovery from that. |
| 02:15:45.58 | Chris | It's COVID money, ARPA money. |
| 02:15:47.11 | Councilmember Hoffman | And of that amount, how much did EDAC actually use? I think it was around for the marketing plan. Did they use... |
| 02:15:55.89 | Councilmember Hoffman | I know that they didn't use a full $220,000. |
| 02:15:58.98 | Chris | Well, |
| 02:15:59.50 | Chris | And |
| 02:16:00.26 | Chris | At least I'm fairly certain. Let the EDAC person answer how much was used. |
| 02:16:00.56 | Councilmember Hoffman | I THINK IT'S REALLY SOMETHING |
| 02:16:03.68 | SPEAKER_11 | Okay. |
| 02:16:04.60 | SPEAKER_11 | I don't have the direct numbers in front of me, but I can tell you it was the marketing contract. The city also put up money, matched money from the Chamber of Commerce to put toward Visit California, which is a statewide destination marketing organization. I think that was about $10,000. And then there was also the Love Sausalito project. And I believe the city also used some budget to put toward the downtown lighting project in partnership with local businesses. |
| 02:16:19.21 | Karen | Thank you. |
| 02:16:19.34 | Karen | Thank you. |
| 02:16:30.77 | Scott Thornburg | That's correct. |
| 02:16:31.16 | Councilmember Hoffman | Okay. |
| 02:16:32.08 | SPEAKER_11 | So, so I don't, I'll have to do some math, but. |
| 02:16:32.44 | Scott Thornburg | So, |
| 02:16:32.47 | Councilmember Hoffman | Right. |
| 02:16:34.50 | Councilmember Hoffman | We'll have to do some math. Yeah, it was less than $100,000, I think, right? And the Love Sausalito was actually when the pandemic, I think, restrictions were still effective, and it was to get people to go to local businesses for takeout and things like that. |
| 02:16:47.88 | Councilmember Hoffman | Yeah. Okay. And so, and moving forward then. So as I understand it, the P bid, the P bid budget will be for obviously the P bid, but there are other efforts throughout the rest of town that EDAC also requests funds for. So it's not that at least I, as I understand it, this will not be the end of asks for money from EDAC if the PBID is formed. |
| 02:16:48.66 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:17:21.06 | SPEAKER_11 | Is that a question? |
| 02:17:22.02 | SPEAKER_11 | Thank you. |
| 02:17:22.10 | Councilmember Hoffman | Yes, that's a yes or no. |
| 02:17:23.00 | SPEAKER_11 | I don't know. |
| 02:17:23.40 | SPEAKER_11 | Thank you. |
| 02:17:25.29 | SPEAKER_11 | At this time, we've submitted no additional requests for budget. |
| 02:17:28.24 | Councilmember Hoffman | Okay. But the PBID only is going to affect the downtown businesses, correct? That's correct. |
| 02:17:32.72 | SPEAKER_11 | That's correct. |
| 02:17:33.20 | Councilmember Hoffman | and your remit as EDAC is to support all the businesses in town. |
| 02:17:36.88 | SPEAKER_11 | That's correct. |
| 02:17:37.58 | Councilmember Hoffman | Okay. |
| 02:17:38.81 | Councilmember Hoffman | So those that's in my follow-up based on councilmember Councilmember Vlaustein's I do have some additional questions if nobody else has questions please proceed |
| 02:17:46.20 | Mayor Sobieski | Please proceed, Councilman Hoffman. |
| 02:17:46.69 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:17:47.18 | Councilmember Hoffman | Okay. |
| 02:17:47.67 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:17:47.78 | Councilmember Hoffman | So, um, |
| 02:17:50.54 | Councilmember Hoffman | It's interesting, the budget, the number. And so there's nowhere in any of the staff reports, I don't think, that the number... |
| 02:17:58.89 | Councilmember Hoffman | the collective number of 220 a year, and then the city's contribution are, you know, |
| 02:18:04.39 | Councilmember Hoffman | 50% of 120. |
| 02:18:07.19 | Councilmember Hoffman | Usually when we have an ask, it's directed towards certain efforts. We want X to do X. This is just... |
| 02:18:17.20 | Councilmember Hoffman | This is just, I didn't see any specific projects. I see groupings and I see sort of |
| 02:18:23.36 | Councilmember Hoffman | references that the money can be used for this or |
| 02:18:27.68 | Councilmember Hoffman | that the board can decide what they want to use the money on. |
| 02:18:31.41 | Councilmember Hoffman | But I don't see any specific projects that this money is tied to. Like, we want to do X over five years. |
| 02:18:40.35 | Unknown | If I can answer that question, in the early days of PBITs, late 90s, early 2000s, people used to always earmark and it would say, like, line item security. Well, what if things, they didn't need all that money for security in the second or third year and they wanted to transfer that? The management district plan is kind of like the Bible. It's the guide as to how they spend that money. So over the course of doing a number of different plans, I would group them and say, you can do any of these bullet points within that. We can't project at this point, again, what the priorities are going to be year one, two, three, four, five. The only thing I can do is say, look, we're looking to try to enhance things in downtown, create much greater demand. What the form of that is, I don't know at this point, but I would think that the people that are involved in marketing and promoting their own businesses would have a much better idea. So we provide the funding base for those different bundles of services so they can decide what they think is most appropriate at a given time. |
| 02:19:42.97 | Unknown | Otherwise, if I line item to everything, then they would be locked into that for five years. |
| 02:19:48.59 | Mayor Sobieski | Can I, yeah, can I, that's just a clarifying question on that point because that was a news to me that I didn't understand that I hope it helps my colleague that if you, the more specificity, you then have to amend the plan or you actually can't even change it. If you had, |
| 02:20:02.16 | Mayor Sobieski | 50% for sidewalks, you couldn't then use that for marketing. It has to be used for sidewalks. |
| 02:20:06.14 | Unknown | Correct. |
| 02:20:06.63 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 02:20:06.65 | Unknown | you |
| 02:20:06.89 | Mayor Sobieski | you |
| 02:20:06.94 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:20:06.97 | Unknown | you |
| 02:20:07.02 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 02:20:07.06 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:20:07.14 | Mayor Sobieski | That's correct. Can't change it. Right. So that's why you have the percentages. Bigness actually, uh, or the lack of too much specificity allows flexibility and the reaction. Right. |
| 02:20:17.08 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:20:17.36 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:20:20.98 | Unknown | conversely, it fails to give notice to the people of SOSLITO about what this money's going to be spent for, and it also fails to give any kind of accountability afterwards that |
| 02:20:31.64 | Unknown | we approved this rather large funding |
| 02:20:35.35 | Unknown | registering to this history. |
| 02:20:37.87 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:20:38.22 | Unknown | But you can't really hold them accountable other than trying to go through this process of just establishing the leadership that can happen. |
| 02:20:46.68 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:20:48.38 | Unknown | No matter who. |
| 02:20:49.61 | Unknown | Yeah, Councilwoman, I would just tell you that, remember, this is a transparent organization. If anybody wants to know, they'll be able to figure out by reading the minutes on the website or looking at the budgets, how the money is being allocated. And if they ask the question, why is the money being allocated for X, Y, or Z, we can say it's consistent with the management plan, which was approved by the property owners as well as the city council. So those are the safeguards in there. You don't, and one of the reasons why I capped the administration at 60,000, we didn't, and 25%, I didn't want people to say, oh, we really like this person. Let's increase the administration to 40%. That's why those percentages are in there. |
| 02:21:33.05 | Unknown | And from the beginning, people had always stated in the steering committee over the course of six or seven meetings, they wanted to create demand. Demand creation is something that came out of Sausalito. I haven't used that term before. |
| 02:21:45.55 | Councilmember Hoffman | So let me ask you this, and that reminds me. So the executive director position at 60,000 a year, |
| 02:21:53.08 | Councilmember Hoffman | Under that bucket, it also says rent. It also says office supplies. |
| 02:21:58.83 | Councilmember Hoffman | number, the first question is, are you envisioning that as a full-time job? |
| 02:22:02.18 | Unknown | Now, |
| 02:22:03.59 | Councilmember Hoffman | And so are you envisioning that or has there been discussion of that at the steering committee level? |
| 02:22:08.74 | Councilmember Hoffman | you |
| 02:22:08.98 | Councilmember Hoffman | that |
| 02:22:11.09 | Councilmember Hoffman | they would have to rent space somewhere. |
| 02:22:13.84 | Unknown | If it was donated, then they save the money. But I don't want to assume that. I think anywhere that somebody goes and they have to have an office where someone can come and look at records, they have to have something to present to somebody. It can't all be virtual. |
| 02:22:26.78 | Karen | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:22:28.16 | Unknown | And they might need meeting space. And if someone wants to donate it, that's great. But I'm not assuming all those things. |
| 02:22:35.74 | Councilmember Hoffman | So let me follow up on one thing before I forget about it. I've had several people ask me who's on the steering committee, and I confirmed today with Director Phipps that he had sent me an email back in December |
| 02:22:50.84 | Councilmember Hoffman | prior to the December 19th meeting, you know, who the steering committee, and in fact, we might've had some reference to it. |
| 02:22:58.05 | Councilmember Hoffman | last time you asked if I wanted you to read off the list. But yeah, I think if you could, to be clear, the steering committee |
| 02:23:05.96 | Councilmember Hoffman | It's called we call we're called the steering committee or I think the steering committee named themselves the steering committee. But it's not it's not a committee that was appointed by the council. Correct. |
| 02:23:15.70 | Unknown | You're correct. Yes. |
| 02:23:16.49 | Councilmember Hoffman | Okay. And so... |
| 02:23:19.24 | Councilmember Hoffman | Let me just have you read off the names, or I can read them off. I've got your email here, either one. Why don't you read them off? That seems more official. |
| 02:23:30.18 | Brandy Phipps | Okay. I hope we're looking at the same list. I believe that, yeah, I'm looking at the email chain now. Okay. Pete Petrie, Mike Monsef, Carolyn Revell, Monica Finnegan, Tom Riley, Scott Thornburg, Taron Hopi, Yoshi Tomei, Jeff Sharosh, Michael Lappert, Mark Flaherty, Cass Green, Sam Jabbar, Lode Silverstein, Lloyd Silverstein, Teresa Anconona, Daniel Chodor, Jack Sherwood, Ken Robinson, Jim Gurney. And I'll just clarify, this may not be an exhaustive list. |
| 02:24:03.74 | Councilmember Hoffman | And Mayor Sobieski also participated in those. |
| 02:24:09.63 | Brandy Phipps | He was in attendance at some of the meetings. |
| 02:24:11.56 | Mayor Sobieski | I did visit some of the meetings, yes, but I wasn't part of the committee. |
| 02:24:15.35 | Councilmember Hoffman | I thought you had said that he was at the last city council meeting. I could be wrong. I thought when we discussed it, you or somebody, I thought it was you said, and Mayor Sobieski also is part of the steering committee. |
| 02:24:26.80 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 02:24:26.86 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 02:24:27.23 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 02:24:29.06 | Unknown | Councilman, the steering committee was open. |
| 02:24:31.43 | Unknown | So there are people that more people would show up at different meetings. The mayor showed up and Brandon was there, but they didn't vote. Whenever I had asked people what they wanted to do, do you support this or do you support that? They did not vote on it. And I know that for a fact, and that's how I was able to put together the plan. |
| 02:24:49.56 | Councilmember Hoffman | So, okay, thank you for that. I appreciate that. So let's go through the list. And I'm just gonna, these are people that |
| 02:24:57.15 | Councilmember Hoffman | I think people want to know who these people are in town, right? Like they're on the steering committee. What's their... |
| 02:25:03.41 | Councilmember Hoffman | Association so |
| 02:25:05.30 | Councilmember Hoffman | Pete Petrie, he's the owner of Cultivar. Mike Monsif is a property manager throughout town. Carolyn Revell is on the Saucy-O-Beautiful and has sent us many pieces of comp. |
| 02:25:19.19 | Councilmember Hoffman | of correspondence. |
| 02:25:20.63 | Councilmember Hoffman | Monica Finnegan, she's on EDAC. And please, if I'm getting this wrong or you want to add anything, please feel free. |
| 02:25:26.04 | Councilmember Hoffman | Monica Finnegan is on EDAC, also on the board, I believe, for Sausley, the Center for the Arts. |
| 02:25:32.20 | Councilmember Hoffman | Tom Riley was a prior chair for EDAC. |
| 02:25:35.80 | Councilmember Hoffman | and actually sat on the city council when I was deployed for a year. Scott Thornburg has also approached the podium today. He's the chair of EDEC. Taryn Hoppe, her family, owns one of the buildings and the business, the Sausalito. Only in Sausalito, have I got that right? I think these are just what I know. Someone correct me if I've got this wrong. Or you can confirm that I have it right. Director Phipps, do I have it right? You don't know? Okay. Okay, Yoshitome obviously owns, well, it's obvious to me, owns Sushiran. confirm that i have it right director phipps do i have it right you don't know okay um okay yoshi tomei obviously owns uh well it's obvious to me owns sushi ron uh jeff shirash is the owner and manager of um spinnaker michael lappert uh owns lappert's ice cream and also some properties in town mark flaherty i believe is a general manager for in above tide |
| 02:26:19.59 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. Cass Green, obviously owner in Above Tide, Sam Jabbar, that name, |
| 02:26:26.22 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:26:26.24 | Ines Ponyay | Thank you. |
| 02:26:26.25 | Councilmember Hoffman | I'll submit it to you. |
| 02:26:26.79 | Ines Ponyay | dollars. |
| 02:26:27.06 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:26:27.16 | Councilmember Hoffman | Oh, it's also yours. Okay, thanks so much. Lloyd Silverstein. Lloyd, is he an owner? I just don't know. I'm sorry. |
| 02:26:35.36 | Unknown | Lloyd owns his property. |
| 02:26:36.80 | Councilmember Hoffman | owns a property in the district yes okay thank you um teresa ancona is the owner and |
| 02:26:38.40 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 02:26:43.89 | Councilmember Hoffman | I think she's a manager for Angeleno. Yeah. |
| 02:26:47.23 | Unknown | It's your family. |
| 02:26:47.26 | Councilmember Hoffman | It's her family. Generationally, right? Yeah. Daniel Shendor is... |
| 02:26:49.15 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:26:53.30 | SPEAKER_11 | Hotel Saucyut. Hotel Saucyut. Thank you. And People's End. |
| 02:26:54.11 | Councilmember Hoffman | Hotel Saucyut, thank you. And Gables Inn. And Gables Inn, okay. Jack Sherwood. |
| 02:26:59.51 | Councilmember Hoffman | Name's not familiar. Barrel. Oh, God. Barrel House. Sorry. Sorry, Jack. Apologies. Ken Robinson. |
| 02:27:00.93 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 02:27:08.58 | Unknown | James, keep a play. |
| 02:27:12.02 | Councilmember Hoffman | Games to play. OK, so OK, good, business owner. And then Jim Gurney is general manager, I believe, for Casa Madrona. So that's generally the other people would come and go, but that's generally the steering committee or what we're calling the steering committee, what the steering committees name themselves. Right? I got that right? |
| 02:27:28.86 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:27:28.91 | SPEAKER_11 | Can I offer one clarification, which is EDAC as representatives, you know, this was a council directed priority for us for this year. So we attended the meetings, but we were non-voting members of the steering committee. Okay. |
| 02:27:30.88 | Councilmember Hoffman | Sure. |
| 02:27:41.80 | Councilmember Hoffman | Okay. |
| 02:27:41.97 | Councilmember Hoffman | TODAY. |
| 02:27:42.04 | SPEAKER_11 | So that's it. I just want to clarify that, that our votes, we are there to provide advice to the group and represent, you know, the council's direction. But we were not voting as a part of those discussions. |
| 02:27:42.06 | Councilmember Hoffman | Okay. |
| 02:27:51.88 | Councilmember Hoffman | Uh-huh. |
| 02:27:54.95 | Councilmember Hoffman | So that includes you and Monica Fagan at Cass Green? |
| 02:27:58.91 | SPEAKER_11 | Cass is a business owner. |
| 02:28:00.53 | Councilmember Hoffman | OK? |
| 02:28:00.89 | SPEAKER_11 | So she's wearing two hats. |
| 02:28:02.34 | Councilmember Hoffman | And so she voted. |
| 02:28:03.50 | SPEAKER_11 | Yes. |
| 02:28:04.09 | Councilmember Hoffman | Okay, and Monica Finnegan. |
| 02:28:04.84 | SPEAKER_11 | to leave some caskins to yourself. |
| 02:28:06.32 | Councilmember Hoffman | it. |
| 02:28:06.74 | Councilmember Hoffman | Okay. |
| 02:28:07.23 | Councilmember Hoffman | And Monica Finnegan is also, she has a business in town as a property |
| 02:28:12.72 | Councilmember Hoffman | real estate agent. |
| 02:28:14.44 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:28:14.45 | SPEAKER_11 | Monica is a volunteer for the SCA. Right. So she, in this capacity, served as a member of EDAC and a local volunteer, but she would not be voting as a part of the steering committee discussions. Okay. |
| 02:28:14.47 | Councilmember Hoffman | Monica's a volunteer. |
| 02:28:15.75 | Councilmember Hoffman | for the |
| 02:28:27.57 | Councilmember Hoffman | Okay, thanks. |
| 02:28:27.95 | SPEAKER_11 | Thanks. |
| 02:28:28.73 | Carolyn Revell | May I also say I was not a voting member. I was there representing Sausalito beautiful. |
| 02:28:32.80 | Councilmember Hoffman | Okay, thank you, Carolyn. We appreciate that. |
| 02:28:35.33 | Councilmember Hoffman | Okay. |
| 02:28:36.00 | Councilmember Hoffman | So thank you for indulging me on that. Anyway, I have had questions about it, so I just thought I'd run through it real quick. |
| 02:28:43.92 | Councilmember Hoffman | Um, |
| 02:28:50.52 | Mayor Sobieski | If there are no more questions, |
| 02:28:52.29 | Councilmember Hoffman | I do, but I've got to go through my notes. If anybody else has questions. |
| 02:28:55.99 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 02:28:56.10 | Mayor Sobieski | THE FAMILY. |
| 02:28:56.22 | Councilmember Hoffman | or, |
| 02:28:56.36 | Chris | Mayor, if I can, if I may? I can ask Marco to talk a little bit more about the administration and transparency and clarity about what is obligated by the board in terms of fiscal oversight |
| 02:29:09.25 | Unknown | The board under the state statute is required to give an annual report to the city council and provide an audit for to the board. The audits are public, but there are neat. That's what I was speaking about. The reassessment for the next fiscal year that's done as part of the annual report that is a presentation to the city council. So that will be something that anybody can participate in. Anybody from the public can ask questions about it. But again, the under the Brown Act and the Public Records Act, all those records are made available to people. But we must have an audit or at least at a minimum, an accounting review submitted to the city on an annual basis. |
| 02:29:54.83 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 02:29:54.93 | Unknown | Vice mayor. |
| 02:29:55.54 | Cox | Will meetings of the board be open to the public and be Brown Act meetings? Yes. So notice will be published in advance. There will be public comment at the PBID board meetings. |
| 02:29:58.32 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 02:30:00.65 | Unknown | Yes. Yes. |
| 02:30:08.61 | Unknown | Yes, and the only actions that can be taken state action item on that item. |
| 02:30:14.42 | Unknown | If it doesn't say action item, people can have discussion, but they can't act on it. |
| 02:30:21.35 | Mayor Sobieski | Okay, we are going to have to bring questions to a close. |
| 02:30:25.83 | Mayor Sobieski | All right, so questions will be closed. We'll take public comment now on items. Oh, yes, we're going to take a three-minute. What time is it up there? I get too much glare. We will take a... |
| 02:30:35.53 | Mayor Sobieski | We will reconvene at 940, so it's exactly six minutes. And please turn in your slips if you wish to make public comment from the room. If you're online, raise your hand and city clerk. |
| 02:30:50.68 | Babette McDougall | Okay, just one announcement. And I think we've run out of slips. So once I get through this first list, whoever hasn't commented, I'll get their names down. Okay, please just come. |
| 02:31:00.50 | Karen | Thank you. |
| 02:31:00.57 | Mayor Sobieski | Okay. |
| 02:31:00.88 | Mayor Sobieski | Please just come back. |
| 02:31:04.54 | Cox | It is on, but we have a hard time hearing. So can you adjust the level of the mic for people testifying here in the chambers? I can hear Council Member Hoffman. |
| 02:31:13.09 | Councilmember Hoffman | Hello? The chambers? I can hear Council Member Hoffman. So people who are doing public comment, |
| 02:31:17.36 | Councilmember Hoffman | Speak into the mic. Then you can hear it. If you're like back up here or something. Yeah. |
| 02:31:23.34 | Mayor Sobieski | All right. |
| 02:31:25.16 | Mayor Sobieski | Public comment, please. |
| 02:31:29.51 | Babette McDougall | Can we start with Babette McDougall? |
| 02:31:31.35 | Mayor Sobieski | Ms. McDougall, you're the |
| 02:31:39.13 | Mayor Sobieski | Two minutes. |
| 02:31:40.09 | Unknown | Okay, so thank you very much for acknowledging me. |
| 02:31:43.64 | Unknown | I feel a little nervous, especially after having read the staff report and so on. And I interviewed so many people involved with this project. |
| 02:31:51.16 | Unknown | And the thing that I found the most upsetting... |
| 02:31:54.02 | Unknown | about this research that I want to share with you, is that there's this perceived lack of trust between the various entities. And I think that's something that needs to be addressed in the spirit that we intended this in the first place, which was the city's own initiative to say, |
| 02:32:11.89 | Unknown | Is there any possible interest in a business improvement district to help kickstart some of our activities? |
| 02:32:17.69 | Unknown | So, I mean, I think it's important for the city to follow through on this. I really appreciate that there is due diligence on this. |
| 02:32:24.93 | Unknown | the bottom line issues and |
| 02:32:26.87 | Unknown | the extent to which we can maintain control as citizens and as a citizen body. |
| 02:32:31.78 | Unknown | But I do feel very strongly that |
| 02:32:34.03 | Unknown | When you have such a contingent of prestigious business |
| 02:32:37.64 | Unknown | representatives from our own community step forward |
| 02:32:40.79 | Unknown | in such a unified fashion. |
| 02:32:42.65 | Unknown | I think that deserves a great deal of serious attention and merit. |
| 02:32:46.97 | Unknown | Hopeful that you will find a way forward with this activity. Thank you. |
| 02:32:50.83 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 02:32:50.92 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. |
| 02:32:50.97 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 02:32:51.04 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. |
| 02:32:51.12 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 02:32:51.22 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. |
| 02:32:51.59 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:32:51.61 | Mayor Sobieski | Next. |
| 02:32:51.71 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:32:51.78 | Mayor Sobieski | Thanks. |
| 02:32:51.85 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:32:51.86 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. |
| 02:32:53.67 | Babette McDougall | Adrian. |
| 02:32:55.04 | Mayor Sobieski | Adrian Brinton. |
| 02:32:55.88 | Mayor Sobieski | Could you also call the next person in line just so that they can |
| 02:32:58.72 | Babette McDougall | Then it's Scott Thornburg and then Peter Van Meter. |
| 02:33:06.27 | Adrian Brinton | Adrian Brinton, I'm a South State resident, and thanks for taking my comment. I missed the meeting on December 19th, but I think I heard we had a really pretty large turnout. There was a lot of discussion about the PBIT, about the 50%, |
| 02:33:21.87 | Adrian Brinton | uh contributions from the city about the overall budget uh and there was a unanimous direction to move forward with the budget uh and the uh sorry i lost my place here for the for the city's contribution with the budget and the uh boundary |
| 02:33:41.58 | Adrian Brinton | It seems like we've kind of taken a couple of steps back. There's been a lot of questions again tonight about the boundary and about the budget and about the city contribution. You know, we should move forward with this. We agree to move forward. |
| 02:33:53.88 | Adrian Brinton | unanimously before there's a good turnout tonight, maybe not as much as last time. |
| 02:33:55.62 | Unknown | There's. |
| 02:33:58.98 | Adrian Brinton | You know, there was talk on the last meeting about how sometimes the public doesn't understand some of the decisions that are made. |
| 02:34:04.33 | Adrian Brinton | And when things go back and forth, |
| 02:34:06.32 | Adrian Brinton | you know, people come back and they're mad because what they thought was going to happen didn't happen. |
| 02:34:10.38 | Adrian Brinton | I think it was pretty clear last time what was going to happen. We were going to move forward. So hopefully we move forward. Hopefully, you know, we don't have to turn out a ton of people to come back and kind of say, hey, we decided to move forward on this. So love to see this. Keep moving forward. Let's keep get this thing done. Let's get downtown working. You know, we've got the ferry landing moving forward, which is great. That's one key piece of the puzzle. We've got this. This is another key piece of the puzzle. You know, downtown can really be improved. So love to see it. Keep moving. moving forward, which is great. That's one key piece of the puzzle. We've got this, this is another key piece of the puzzle. You know, downtown can really be improved. So love to see it keep moving forward. Thank you. |
| 02:34:44.05 | Babette McDougall | Scott Thunberg. |
| 02:34:45.70 | SPEAKER_11 | Thank you. And thank you for your time tonight. I'll be brief. This is not a lot of money, truly. This is less than 1% of our total business tax contributions to the city. And in the business world, we talk a lot about testing and learning and failing fast. And maybe fast for Sausalito is five years, but this is a test. And I think that's the thing that really excites me the most, right, is that we are testing something new. And I think it requires us to be |
| 02:35:15.69 | SPEAKER_11 | a little bit of a risk, and to believe in something. And that's really what we're asking you to do here tonight, is to believe in our businesses and to believe in the business community to invest back into downtown. |
| 02:35:26.30 | SPEAKER_11 | So, |
| 02:35:27.20 | SPEAKER_11 | I would encourage you to do that tonight. And thank you for your time. |
| 02:35:33.51 | Babette McDougall | Peter Van Meter followed by Dan Daglo and Daryl Nimro. |
| 02:35:35.92 | Unknown | Yeah. Good evening. You know, this is another private and public partnership. But this is the success of Sausalito Beautiful last 10 years is a great example of that. Finally, the merchants and the building owners are realizing the revitalization that's going on downtown. Want to join in that effort. And of course, you're not making any financial commitment tonight. |
| 02:35:58.32 | Unknown | So I urge you to do what it takes to move the petition space forward. If that means coming in with some votes, you know, to make that go to the next level. |
| 02:36:07.93 | Unknown | Then when you get the actual vote itself, |
| 02:36:10.35 | Unknown | That's when you can see what the merchant |
| 02:36:12.19 | Unknown | buy-in to this is and that's when you can actually make your decision that's the point when you're making your financial decision |
| 02:36:18.02 | Unknown | You're not spending any money tonight. |
| 02:36:19.88 | Unknown | is helping this move forward to the next step. Let's go to the actual balloting. That's your role tonight. So please move us to that next step and get this going. Thank you. |
| 02:36:32.56 | Unknown | Don Daglow, EDAC member. I also would like to speak in support of this. I think the plan focuses its energies on the greatest leverage potential we have right now, which is downtown, just as EDAC is working both in the marine ship and downtown because we in our work we see benefits there. |
| 02:36:52.30 | Unknown | For this kind of program, downtown is the greatest leverage to produce the most initial tax revenue. |
| 02:36:59.77 | Unknown | Most predictably and most quickly. And for that reason, I think it's very positive. I also think you have other people who put skin in the game with you, which always makes it a lot easier to make any business decision. So I respectfully recommend that you pursue and approve the plan tonight. Thank you. |
| 02:37:18.86 | Babette McDougall | Daryl Nimro followed by Linda Fotch and Joe Carr. |
| 02:37:23.82 | Daryl DeMoureux | Hello, my name is Daryl DeMoureux. I am the current Presidency of the Sausalito Chamber of Commerce. And I just wanted to start off by thanking Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council members, our City Manager, their staff, our Chamber Board members, and our community members for all the time invested in this. It's been significant. |
| 02:37:45.32 | Daryl DeMoureux | And I'd like to reiterate the Chamber is committed to advocating on behalf of our members and supporting economic growth opportunities. But I wanted to highlight one piece. I feel like this process has fostered a renewed commitment to partnership building. |
| 02:38:00.59 | Daryl DeMoureux | collaboration and trust among our community. And the chamber wants to recognize that growth and momentum. It's important. It's a critical valued piece of the work. And it's to better our community. And it's, it's been significant. So I want to say thank you. |
| 02:38:15.91 | Daryl DeMoureux | The call to action tonight is to ask, |
| 02:38:20.23 | Daryl DeMoureux | you know, all of you to vote to support the bid. And it's positive. We're calling it generational impact on our local business community and our future economy. |
| 02:38:29.62 | Daryl DeMoureux | And the Chamber expresses our deepest gratitude to all of our partners involved in support in advancing this critical initiative. So thank you. |
| 02:38:40.00 | Unknown | Hi, I'm Linda Fodge. I think I have a kind of a unique perspective on Sausalito. I've lived here for over 35 years. I've been a downtown commercial landlord for 26 years and a Sausalito business owner for 16 years. I also own the only private parking lot in town that parks cars for the public. |
| 02:39:02.78 | Unknown | In the 26 years of being a commercial landlord, the first 15 years were pretty great. Rents were going up and without much effort from the town or the businesses, people fell through the doors. |
| 02:39:14.77 | Unknown | Sausalito reap the benefits of this through sales tax. In the last 10 years, though, things have changed. I track the number of cars that come into my lot, and there's a lot less people coming in. |
| 02:39:28.21 | Unknown | Um, |
| 02:39:30.87 | Unknown | This hospital business community, I have to say, has not been well acknowledged and down. |
| 02:39:36.42 | Unknown | the residents in the hillside just marginally support them? |
| 02:39:40.25 | Unknown | And city government hasn't held them in high priority because most don't live here, so they don't vote. And that's important if you're a politician. |
| 02:39:51.06 | Unknown | There hasn't been much outreach to the city residents. I think it was surprised most of them to know that |
| 02:39:59.27 | Unknown | The city's not run on their property tax, but it's run on sales tax and hotel occupancy tax. Their roads are paved, their police force and firemen are paid through the efforts of small business owners in town. |
| 02:40:20.37 | Unknown | The Saucyoteva business community hasn't been very well organized in the past. |
| 02:40:25.92 | Unknown | The Chamber of Commerce has had some good years and some not so good years. |
| 02:40:30.78 | Unknown | Um, |
| 02:40:34.36 | Unknown | So there's no one that's ever really been an advocate for the business community. |
| 02:40:40.53 | Unknown | revenues have fallen, stores are vacant, and even the city woke up and said, hey, where's our money? |
| 02:40:48.51 | Unknown | Tonight, I urge you to reach out to |
| 02:40:52.53 | Mayor Sobieski | Let me finish your sentence. Just two or five words. |
| 02:40:55.23 | Unknown | I haven't been a supporter of the bid, but I am now. I think there's a lot of questions, and I agree with what you're saying, but hopefully we can work through it. Thank you. |
| 02:41:00.88 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. |
| 02:41:00.93 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. |
| 02:41:03.08 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. |
| 02:41:03.92 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. |
| 02:41:04.33 | Babette McDougall | Joe Carr followed by Carolyn Revelle. |
| 02:41:09.02 | SPEAKER_01 | Good evening. I'm Joel Carr. I'm a proud homeowner in Sausalito. |
| 02:41:15.04 | SPEAKER_01 | Um, |
| 02:41:16.17 | SPEAKER_01 | I have been involved in BIDs before, some years back in New York City on the Christopher Street shopping corridor in the gay neighborhood. |
| 02:41:29.13 | SPEAKER_01 | These are tried, tested, and well understood business improvement district. |
| 02:41:37.70 | SPEAKER_01 | process and approach. |
| 02:41:39.61 | SPEAKER_01 | And I can't see any reason why Sausalito shouldn't participate in something that's being done across the nation. I would like to stress that the 50-50 plan, management plan, again, is a very reasonable approach to this. and the impact of a business improvement district, given the small amount that we're talking about here tonight granted we're not asking for the money tonight but I think that adopting the plan as it's drawn is the right thing to do so thank you |
| 02:42:21.38 | Babette McDougall | I have Carolyn Revell followed by Charles Melton and then Jennifer Silver. |
| 02:42:27.17 | Carolyn Revell | I've already been identified, as you know, and our board has voted to endorse the PBID, and particularly we're asking you tonight to adopt the management plan as presented, authorize the city manager to begin the petition process, and sign the petition on the city's behalf. |
| 02:42:46.62 | Carolyn Revell | It's been mentioned, our role as volunteers in Sausalito Beautiful, and we feel very strongly the importance of a bid |
| 02:42:55.18 | Carolyn Revell | to provide a more consistent and enhanced level of services. As you were asking, Ms. Kelman was asking about what the services are |
| 02:43:05.51 | Carolyn Revell | We definitely feel that tree planting and tree maintenance is something that can occur |
| 02:43:11.04 | Carolyn Revell | at a higher standard than the city has been able to provide so far. |
| 02:43:14.38 | Carolyn Revell | As you mentioned, Vice Mayor Cox, we haven't had an arborist in a long time. And although we as volunteers in Sausalito Beautiful can help weed in our parks, and we've tried to plant some trees, we really need professionals to prune and plant trees and maintain them to a higher standard. So that's just a particular point of why Sausalito Beautiful is so invested in this approach of a tried and true development. |
| 02:43:37.85 | Carolyn Revell | bid formula, and we encourage you to embrace the vision of a more vibrant, attractive downtown through the bid process. Thank you so much. |
| 02:43:49.58 | Babette McDougall | Charles Malton, Jennifer Silva, then Daniel Tudor. |
| 02:43:53.43 | Charles Melton | Good evening. My name is Charles Melton. I'm a resident of Sausalito. I'm not a business owner. I'm a taxpayer here and constituent and voter. I support the PBIT. |
| 02:44:01.02 | Charles Melton | Tonight I came late to the city council meeting, but I came through our downtown. |
| 02:44:05.55 | Charles Melton | Beautiful lights up, empty storefronts, bacon signs in the windows. |
| 02:44:09.73 | Charles Melton | I believe in Sausalito. |
| 02:44:11.30 | Charles Melton | I believe in our business is doing good. |
| 02:44:13.09 | Charles Melton | I believe in our city council doing good. I believe in our residents doing good. That's what this PIPIT does. It shows that we believe in every aspect of our city, everyone who contributes to our city, our businesses, our residents, and our city councilors. |
| 02:44:28.31 | Charles Melton | The PBID is here to really put a vibrant heartbeat back into our downtown. Our businesses have shown their commitment. |
| 02:44:35.03 | Charles Melton | to carrying half the water on this. |
| 02:44:37.64 | Charles Melton | My question is, |
| 02:44:38.98 | Charles Melton | No answer needed. |
| 02:44:40.31 | Charles Melton | What happens if this doesn't go forward? |
| 02:44:42.86 | Charles Melton | Who's going to pick up the ball? |
| 02:44:45.27 | Charles Melton | Is the city going to invest 100% of the funds? |
| 02:44:48.31 | Charles Melton | to cover the program management of this. |
| 02:44:51.13 | Charles Melton | I was here on December 19th. |
| 02:44:53.41 | Charles Melton | And I thought that time this was done city council endorsed the plan. And now here we are once again discussing this. |
| 02:44:59.63 | Charles Melton | This seems to be the continuous rhythm of city council. |
| 02:45:03.88 | Charles Melton | I recognize you have very tough decisions going forward. |
| 02:45:07.38 | Charles Melton | And I recognize all the hard work you put into every aspect about this. And I appreciate that. I really do. |
| 02:45:12.19 | Charles Melton | But I'm asking you to move forward. |
| 02:45:13.87 | Charles Melton | Believe in your city, believe in your downtown, believe in your businesses and believe in your residents. |
| 02:45:18.99 | Charles Melton | I want a vibrant downtown. |
| 02:45:21.82 | Charles Melton | I believe we all do in this room, including our businesses, including everyone behind the dais tonight. And I believe one of the first steps to do that is a P-BID. So thank you for the opportunity to provide comments tonight, and please endorse the P-BID tonight. |
| 02:45:40.37 | Jenny Silva | Hello, Jenny Silva, Houseboat resident and here today as a resident and somebody who would love to hang out in downtown. |
| 02:45:49.43 | Jenny Silva | But |
| 02:45:50.58 | Jenny Silva | As we all know, the locals don't really hang out there now. |
| 02:45:55.72 | Jenny Silva | We are in one of the most beautiful places in the world. There truly isn't a place that's more spectacular than downtown Sausalito. Yet it's not where the locals go and hang out. The last time I came to speak was for the ferry landing. And it was overwhelming, the support in the room of residents that want our downtown to be a nicer place, to be a place where we can hang out, a place that we're excited to be. I'm so excited to see the business community come together to try and make improvements and try to make it the sort of place that's gonna be dynamic and exciting and fun to be. And I urge you with all of my heart, please move this forward. Let's make Sausalito just as awesome as it can be. Thanks. |
| 02:46:45.27 | Babette McDougall | Daniel, it's a dog. |
| 02:46:46.48 | Daniel Chodor | Daniel Chador Gables and Sausalito and Hotel Sausalito. We have four historic buildings in the district. I would first just say you're our partner and |
| 02:47:01.40 | Daniel Chodor | when you mentioned the idea of |
| 02:47:03.97 | Daniel Chodor | What if it's trash? Well, |
| 02:47:05.91 | Daniel Chodor | We're going to put out a significant amount of money, and we wouldn't put that money out if we felt it was trash. |
| 02:47:11.04 | Daniel Chodor | We're looking for a return on investment. |
| 02:47:13.16 | Daniel Chodor | And when we make money, you make money. So why would we get involved in something that we didn't see would be fruitful for both of us? So I urge you to do it. It commits us to you and you to us. Thank you. |
| 02:47:27.74 | Babette McDougall | Any more speakers in-house? |
| 02:47:30.36 | Babette McDougall | All right. |
| 02:47:36.84 | Unknown | Good evening. Hank Baker, local business owner, resident of downtown, and recently a member of the Chamber of Commerce and EDEC committee. |
| 02:47:45.63 | Unknown | I'll just read you something. |
| 02:47:47.81 | Unknown | Standing still is the fastest way of moving backwards in a rapidly changing society. |
| 02:47:55.37 | Unknown | The bid may not be perfect. |
| 02:47:58.90 | Unknown | But if it's not, what else are we gonna do as a town |
| 02:48:02.86 | Unknown | to enliven downtown. |
| 02:48:05.39 | Unknown | You have to take a risk. |
| 02:48:07.28 | Unknown | And that risk |
| 02:48:08.48 | Unknown | can be mitigated, |
| 02:48:09.90 | Unknown | by some of the discussions we've been having today. But at the end of the day, not doing it is probably worse than choosing to do it with its imperfections. Thanks. |
| 02:48:29.24 | Sharna Brockett | Hi, I'm Sharna Brockett and I'm a resident here in Sausalito. I think we all can agree that it's much easier to tear something down or to stop something than to create or to build something. |
| 02:48:42.47 | Sharna Brockett | Let's start saying yes to building more here in Sausalito. |
| 02:48:46.92 | Sharna Brockett | And the PBID is a big part of this. Please approve the PBID and keep it going forward. |
| 02:48:53.99 | Sharna Brockett | Now we don't have all the answers, but we do have plenty of evidence in case studies of how P bids have proven to be effective in revitalizing struggling downtowns, such as in Petaluma. |
| 02:49:07.39 | Sharna Brockett | San Diego's Little Italy, Old Pasadena and Santa Barbara, and many more across the country. |
| 02:49:13.09 | Sharna Brockett | We can learn by their examples and by their successes and failures. |
| 02:49:17.65 | Sharna Brockett | But if we never try something new, nothing will never happen downtown. |
| 02:49:21.85 | Sharna Brockett | So let's try and we can improve and fine tune things along the way. Let's not overthink it. |
| 02:49:29.92 | Sharna Brockett | Some people say that the city's financial contribution to the bid is being paid by the residents, but that's not really true. |
| 02:49:38.07 | Sharna Brockett | The city's 125K contribution is a small fraction of what the businesses are already paying businesses taxes to the city. |
| 02:49:47.06 | Sharna Brockett | So the only organizations paying more with this program are the businesses and the property owners themselves, who have voluntarily asked to tax themselves to improve our downtown. |
| 02:50:01.83 | Sharna Brockett | And they are also asking the city council to other asking the city council do is allocate part of the tax money that they are already paying. |
| 02:50:09.51 | Sharna Brockett | in the taxes themselves. |
| 02:50:11.33 | Sharna Brockett | Plus, it sounds like a lot of the money that's already allocated to EDAC can be passed through to support the P-Bid as well. |
| 02:50:19.73 | Sharna Brockett | This is a unique moment in time when the downtown businesses |
| 02:50:24.56 | Sharna Brockett | are uniting with the residents to improve our downtown. Let's not miss this moment. Thank you. |
| 02:50:32.36 | Babette McDougall | All right, any more speakers in-house? |
| 02:50:37.99 | Ines Ponyay | Hello, I'm Ines Ponyay and I own and operate Soxelito and I've been in business here for 42 years. |
| 02:50:47.42 | Ines Ponyay | I was a little worried about asking my landlord whether they wanted to participate in this bid, and I was pleasantly surprised. |
| 02:50:55.73 | Ines Ponyay | when they said they were for it. |
| 02:50:58.43 | Ines Ponyay | Uh, Barbara Warnham is my landlord and, uh, she has a management company that runs the building. And, um, they were all for it because they have other business, uh, other properties that they manage in other areas like Lakeshore in Oakland, Jack London square and downtown Berkeley. And, uh, they run very well and successfully. And, um, |
| 02:51:21.17 | Ines Ponyay | And they're for it. So that's wonderful to have that positive thing. And I'm looking forward to have a consistent and enhanced downtown area. So please vote for this. |
| 02:51:35.10 | Babette McDougall | Any more speakers in the house? |
| 02:51:37.54 | Babette McDougall | All right, we'll go to Zoom. We have Lucinda Eubanks. |
| 02:51:51.94 | Babette McDougall | You can unmute yourself. |
| 02:51:58.23 | Babette McDougall | Lucinda Eubanks. |
| 02:52:02.79 | Stephen Woodside | I think as you can plainly see, I'm not Lucinda, but Lucinda is my wife and I'm using her computer. So I apologize for that. But... |
| 02:52:11.09 | Stephen Woodside | I'm very impressed by the person who presented the staff report and answered your questions earlier. |
| 02:52:19.87 | Stephen Woodside | I've been dealing with |
| 02:52:22.90 | Stephen Woodside | Um, |
| 02:52:23.97 | Stephen Woodside | assessment districts before Prop 218 was passed. And I think what you heard, the quality of the answers, the level of knowledge is very impressive. |
| 02:52:36.54 | Stephen Woodside | I'm here because I support it. |
| 02:52:38.95 | Stephen Woodside | I'm a resident. |
| 02:52:41.11 | Stephen Woodside | I'm not a member. I don't conduct a business here. |
| 02:52:44.83 | Stephen Woodside | My wife does, but it's out of our home. |
| 02:52:47.81 | Stephen Woodside | And, |
| 02:52:48.49 | Stephen Woodside | Essentially, however, I see the benefits throughout the community. |
| 02:52:54.71 | Stephen Woodside | of this district. |
| 02:52:56.37 | Stephen Woodside | Finally, I just want to make one comment complimenting our mayor. |
| 02:53:00.79 | Stephen Woodside | for seeking independent advice as to whether or not he had a conflict. |
| 02:53:04.97 | Stephen Woodside | and compliment the city attorney for confirming what I believe to be the case, this business assessment district. |
| 02:53:12.21 | Stephen Woodside | affects all of us in Sausalito. It benefits all of us and therefore, uh, |
| 02:53:19.87 | Stephen Woodside | I think |
| 02:53:22.25 | Stephen Woodside | Is something that affects the public generally and. |
| 02:53:26.08 | Stephen Woodside | Therefore, there's no conflict for a mayor or anybody else who lives in this city. Thank you very much. |
| 02:53:35.99 | Babette McDougall | Next speaker is Teresa Ancona. |
| 02:53:47.33 | SPEAKER_10 | Hi, good evening. |
| 02:53:48.82 | SPEAKER_10 | I, as a property owner and business owner within the district, |
| 02:53:53.44 | SPEAKER_10 | I would ask the city council tonight to approve the management plan as is with the 5050 contribution |
| 02:54:01.03 | SPEAKER_10 | to be an equal partner, to be an equitable partner with the businesses. |
| 02:54:06.04 | SPEAKER_10 | and to move forward and allow the petitioning |
| 02:54:09.44 | SPEAKER_10 | to happen. |
| 02:54:10.89 | SPEAKER_10 | to allow it to go to a vote, to allow the |
| 02:54:14.87 | SPEAKER_10 | property owners within the district. |
| 02:54:17.15 | SPEAKER_10 | to decide if this is something that they want. |
| 02:54:20.51 | SPEAKER_10 | Thank you. |
| 02:54:24.52 | Babette McDougall | And then last speaker, we have Sandra Bushmaker. |
| 02:54:32.49 | Sandra Bushmaker | Bye. |
| 02:54:33.52 | Sandra Bushmaker | Good evening, everybody. |
| 02:54:36.08 | Sandra Bushmaker | I don't want to be a Debbie Downer because I do believe in a vibrant downtown. However, I have some real concerns. |
| 02:54:43.49 | Sandra Bushmaker | One in the staff report hearing |
| 02:54:46.38 | Sandra Bushmaker | Whoops, Steve. |
| 02:54:48.64 | Sandra Bushmaker | You're on video, Steve Woodside. |
| 02:54:51.22 | Sandra Bushmaker | Um, |
| 02:54:52.06 | Mayor Sobieski | Can you hear you please proceed. |
| 02:54:53.77 | Sandra Bushmaker | Okay, that the staff said they cannot project the priorities. This is a big concern of mine, if the city is jumping off on something where priorities are not projected. |
| 02:55:04.45 | Sandra Bushmaker | Uh, |
| 02:55:05.39 | Sandra Bushmaker | Before I get too far into details, I want to say public comment that was sent into the council written was not attached to the agenda on this particular agenda item. And that's a concern of mine. |
| 02:55:16.61 | Sandra Bushmaker | So back to the other issue. I think that the council should not act tonight without the engineers report. |
| 02:55:23.48 | Sandra Bushmaker | I think that |
| 02:55:26.67 | Sandra Bushmaker | The city, according to the staff report, says the city pays 50% into this district and manages the daily district services. What does that mean? |
| 02:55:37.03 | Sandra Bushmaker | What is that going to cost the city? |
| 02:55:39.78 | Sandra Bushmaker | In addition, the survey that was attached to the staff report stated that only one-third |
| 02:55:48.36 | Sandra Bushmaker | Only 48% of the businesses were supportive of this, excuse me, 40% of the property owners were supportive of this project. |
| 02:55:58.58 | Sandra Bushmaker | And one third did not respond at all. |
| 02:56:01.81 | Sandra Bushmaker | That is a concern of mine. |
| 02:56:04.25 | Sandra Bushmaker | And also when I listened to the report tonight, I heard that the city would weigh in was being requested to weigh in to fill the gap. |
| 02:56:12.79 | Sandra Bushmaker | I don't. |
| 02:56:13.97 | Sandra Bushmaker | I think we got a clear answer on that and what the implication of that is. |
| 02:56:18.78 | Sandra Bushmaker | And lastly, |
| 02:56:20.40 | Sandra Bushmaker | I just want to say, |
| 02:56:23.03 | Sandra Bushmaker | To make the downtown vibrant, why cannot we use our ordinary budget process to get the money necessary? And lastly, this project is taking us away from our strategic goals. |
| 02:56:34.71 | Sandra Bushmaker | Something that you just spent four and a half hours on, on a Saturday to identify. |
| 02:56:39.59 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 02:56:42.04 | Babette McDougall | And final speaker, Vicki Nichols. |
| 02:56:51.69 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Sobieski and council members. Thank you for the management plan this evening. I think in the December meeting, we didn't have |
| 02:57:02.29 | Vicki Nichols | those details yet, so this has been helpful. |
| 02:57:05.39 | Vicki Nichols | I want to speak to you from the perspective of this major area also being our downtown historic district. My question specifically regards the mention of Vena Del Mar Park, which is a California registered point of historical |
| 02:57:21.42 | Vicki Nichols | significance, |
| 02:57:23.03 | Vicki Nichols | And when I hear discussion about... |
| 02:57:26.37 | Vicki Nichols | landscaping improvements in general, that's pretty broad. |
| 02:57:30.62 | Vicki Nichols | I wonder if in this process, the existing ordinance requirements for signage in the district |
| 02:57:38.16 | Vicki Nichols | and other kinds of improvements will be |
| 02:57:42.16 | Vicki Nichols | uh, |
| 02:57:43.87 | Vicki Nichols | in place to allow some of these |
| 02:57:47.12 | Vicki Nichols | improvements to be reviewed by the HPC as any other changes is in the district. |
| 02:57:53.10 | Vicki Nichols | I'm not hearing any of that mentioned. |
| 02:57:55.70 | Vicki Nichols | And, you know, I heard some discussion about sidewalks. I know there's a new... |
| 02:58:00.59 | Vicki Nichols | I believe it's a state law that has to do with the color of the |
| 02:58:05.74 | Vicki Nichols | the ramps, the, the, |
| 02:58:09.04 | Vicki Nichols | Um, |
| 02:58:10.28 | Vicki Nichols | Bubble. |
| 02:58:11.29 | Vicki Nichols | I don't know what it's called. I can't think of the name now. |
| 02:58:14.43 | Vicki Nichols | But at one point when we were doing improvements for Vena Del Mar Park, which was taking the |
| 02:58:20.84 | Vicki Nichols | steps out and making the entrance uniform to address an ADA lawsuit that the city had |
| 02:58:27.37 | Vicki Nichols | We spent a good deal of time on the colors of those |
| 02:58:32.70 | Vicki Nichols | ramps or cutouts on |
| 02:58:35.86 | Vicki Nichols | Vice Mayor Cox was actually part of those discussions with the HLB at the time. |
| 02:58:41.44 | Vicki Nichols | So I just would ask that when all any of these individual improvements are being done or suggested, |
| 02:58:49.17 | Vicki Nichols | that there's also some oversight so that we have some uniformity and we're not going off |
| 02:58:54.40 | Vicki Nichols | with |
| 02:58:55.79 | Vicki Nichols | you know, different entities having sort of carte blanche, um, |
| 02:59:00.11 | Vicki Nichols | ideas or suggestions that are that preclude any of the other required. |
| 02:59:07.30 | Vicki Nichols | Discussions. Thank you. |
| 02:59:11.11 | Babette McDougall | Any other public comment? All right. We have Kieran Culligan. |
| 02:59:19.21 | Mayor Sobieski | Culligan. |
| 02:59:20.97 | Kieran Culligan | Hi there. |
| 02:59:21.86 | Kieran Culligan | This is a great project. I'm super excited for it. Great comments both for and against. I think that there's things that get into great detail on once it's up and running, like historical questions around Vineyard Del Mar. But let's get going with this thing. There's a lot of improvement we'd love to see in the downtown. This could be a great model for other parts of the city. |
| 02:59:43.76 | Kieran Culligan | I believe that those attachments three and four were relatively dated from the last meeting. So it doesn't have the latest levels of support. But yeah, let's get this thing going. I'm super excited for it, even though it feels experimental. I don't know. |
| 02:59:57.06 | Kieran Culligan | each and every part, but it feels like we need to do something. And I really just want to acknowledge the contributions from so many volunteers in town who helped bring this to this point. I think that shows you that there's something here and people really care about this. Thanks. |
| 03:00:15.22 | Babette McDougall | Ron Albert. |
| 03:00:21.14 | Mayor Sobieski | Mr. Albert. |
| 03:00:22.39 | Ron Albert | Yes, I'm unmuted now. |
| 03:00:25.06 | Ron Albert | Um, |
| 03:00:26.25 | Ron Albert | Hey. |
| 03:00:26.93 | Ron Albert | Just in response to one person's comments. |
| 03:00:30.14 | Ron Albert | There's no more questions to ask. |
| 03:00:32.84 | Ron Albert | The councils had multiple meetings on this. You had an excellent presentation. |
| 03:00:38.69 | Ron Albert | You've had an extraordinary turnout |
| 03:00:42.29 | Ron Albert | by members of the public and members of the business community supporting this. |
| 03:00:47.09 | Ron Albert | Vote, approve it, no further delay, no further analysis. Stop wasting your time and the staff's time. Move forward with this. Thank you. |
| 03:01:01.67 | Mayor Sobieski | All right, no further public comment. All right, closing public comment. We'll now bring it up to the diaspora. Discussion, who wishes to be acknowledged? |
| 03:01:09.74 | Mayor Sobieski | first. |
| 03:01:11.28 | Councilmember Hoffman | I just have one clarification. I don't want to start my comments now, but sorry. |
| 03:01:20.10 | Councilmember Hoffman | on the issue of public comment, written public comment. I just refreshed my agenda, and I don't see any written public comment attached to... |
| 03:01:30.67 | Babette McDougall | I'm sorry. Yeah, so I can explain that. I was at jury duty all day and didn't have a chance to get in there, but I'll put it up after. And I got to report back to jury duty tomorrow. |
| 03:01:38.92 | Councilmember Hoffman | I don't think that solves it. So this is a, right? Jury duty, you got to go. I get, I got it. But that doesn't solve the issue of the Brown Act requirement that public comment would be attached to the agenda and then it be available. Okay. |
| 03:01:42.34 | Babette McDougall | Well, let's get it. |
| 03:01:53.08 | Councilmember Hoffman | for us to review and for the public to review it. So this is a question for our |
| 03:01:59.14 | Councilmember Hoffman | City Attorney. |
| 03:02:02.21 | Councilmember Hoffman | And thank you to our member of the public to point that out. |
| 03:02:09.97 | Sergio | Yeah, I mean, off the top of my head, I'm not aware of a requirement that we even take written public comment. |
| 03:02:19.99 | Sergio | I mean, we do need to take oral public comment and allow people the opportunity to submit public comment. There's no specific requirement, I think, in the Brown Act that it'd be attached to the agenda that I'm aware of, but I will double check that. |
| 03:02:33.71 | Cox | I feel that all of the public comment was addressed to the city council as well as the city clerk so that the city council did have the benefit of considering all of the public feedback regarding this item. |
| 03:02:46.43 | Councilmember Hoffman | That's not true because I got at least one email directly to me that I forwarded to the city clerk. |
| 03:02:56.02 | Councilmember Hoffman | requesting it be attached and |
| 03:02:58.30 | Councilmember Hoffman | There's no way for us to know that. |
| 03:03:01.12 | Councilmember Hoffman | We all got it, but also the issue is, has the public been able to review it? And I'm going to – I'd like to pause for a second because I think we need to – |
| 03:03:09.88 | Councilmember Hoffman | We need to... |
| 03:03:10.79 | Councilmember Hoffman | be certain of this. I don't want to off the fly that there's no requirement |
| 03:03:15.56 | Councilmember Hoffman | that the public be aware of written public comment I I can't imagine that's true |
| 03:03:19.97 | Councilmember Hoffman | So because public comment, the public who make comment at the meeting is, |
| 03:03:22.14 | Cox | No. |
| 03:03:25.05 | Councilmember Hoffman | they need to have the benefit of the other written public comment. |
| 03:03:28.44 | Cox | But the Brown Act requires that we conduct our deliberations publicly and therefore that we have the benefit of public comment in making our deliberations. It does not require that other members of the public have the benefit of all of the public comment because the Brown Act is to prevent |
| 03:03:48.11 | Cox | secret deals negotiated behind closed doors. That's why public comment needs to necessarily be public. So while the city attorney is looking that up, may I ask the city manager for future meetings that if the city clerk is on vacation, out ill, indisposed, that we ask the assistant clerk or another assistant to take over that responsibility for posting public comment. This is the first time in my years on the Council that we've not had public comment attached to our agenda. |
| 03:04:23.38 | Chris | Understood. |
| 03:04:23.97 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 03:04:24.28 | Chris | That can be done. |
| 03:04:24.99 | Mayor Sobieski | So we'll let Sergio do his research so it's done right and well, and we will begin our discussion. So did someone want to be acknowledged? |
| 03:04:33.73 | Mayor Sobieski | Councilmember Kelman. |
| 03:04:35.23 | Kelman | Sure, happy to. Thank you everybody for coming, this is now |
| 03:04:39.40 | Kelman | The fourth. |
| 03:04:40.59 | Kelman | hearing on topics related to this that I've seen so many familiar faces. So it's a shame that some people have a lack of trust in our interests in improving the downtown. |
| 03:04:51.19 | Kelman | Since we recently saw one another with CDA, where we approved $75,000, |
| 03:04:56.52 | Kelman | We saw one another with a very |
| 03:04:58.40 | Kelman | Improvement project. |
| 03:05:00.10 | Kelman | where we approved a significant amount of six figures. And then we saw you again last time with SCA, where we had a very robust conversation. |
| 03:05:10.08 | Kelman | And so I will just give you what the kids say, TLDR, too long didn't read. I am in support of a PBID. |
| 03:05:17.08 | Kelman | I'm not in support of this management plan. And let me tell you why. First of all, I had the honor of grabbing Chad before he hustled out. And I asked him what we spent on marketing last year. And he told me $96,400. That is $75,000 to CDA, $16,000 to visit Sausalito, the website that the city pays for. OK, so that's just the level set where we start at 96,4. |
| 03:05:41.34 | Kelman | Additionally, at the hearing for CDA, the ferry and the SCA asked the same question that I asked staff for today and I still don't have the answer, which is everybody's telling me it's going to increase tax revenue. |
| 03:05:53.85 | Kelman | Show me the numbers. Show me the HDL. Show me some examples. |
| 03:05:59.23 | Kelman | Models, show me something. And each time, I have not seen that. I've been told it will do these things, but I haven't seen it. So this is why, for those of you who wonder why we painstakingly say and nitpick, is because if you don't have the information, it takes longer. And so I just want to give that sort of clarification. |
| 03:06:17.22 | Kelman | The other thing that came up tonight was the duplication of efforts. |
| 03:06:20.82 | Kelman | I'm not sure. |
| 03:06:22.25 | Kelman | Park maintenance. |
| 03:06:23.21 | Kelman | We do that. We approved our budget unanimously. Now, we may not do it the way everybody in this room would like to see us do it, and that's where we have room for improvement. |
| 03:06:33.25 | Kelman | parking and transportation. We just hired somebody full time. And this council declined to entertain a valet program, actually. So I was surprised to hear that that was the parking and transportation component. |
| 03:06:44.64 | Kelman | And so I just provide that as color for why I want to suggest the following. |
| 03:06:48.73 | Kelman | Um, |
| 03:06:50.38 | Kelman | So I heard people say I want a vibrant downtown. |
| 03:06:53.98 | Kelman | Locals don't hang out. |
| 03:06:56.54 | Kelman | and look at the city of Petaluma. |
| 03:06:59.09 | Kelman | City of Petaluma's bid assessment fund expenditures, 30% on beautification, |
| 03:07:04.76 | Kelman | 23% on advertising. |
| 03:07:07.34 | Kelman | 20% on administration, and then they have a very high security number of 27%. |
| 03:07:11.76 | Kelman | But a pretty good balance between advertising and beautification, which I think is kind of where we're a little missing the mark. So my proposal to my colleagues is to entertain either a reduction in the city's contribution to recognize the fact that the boundaries are including non-revenue generating portions of our town, where we already have committed resources to actually maintain those, or keep it at 50%, but increase the amount going to infrastructure, which would then align with our strategic priorities, which we did spend four hours on the 10th of February painstakingly going through. |
| 03:07:47.40 | Kelman | I'm open to hearing conversation around that. I think there's a way forward for this because it is a good idea, but I think it needs more work. |
| 03:07:56.51 | Kelman | So when it comes to demand creation, I would love to see some specificity because our job is to look at this management plan around |
| 03:08:05.22 | Kelman | Real estate, how are we going to pull in new stores? |
| 03:08:08.23 | Kelman | I mean, people said there's vacancies. Nothing I see in this management plan addresses vacancies per se, and I think that's a big, big problem for us. |
| 03:08:16.61 | Kelman | When I look at the civil sidewalks, I'd rename that to infrastructure and I'd be more specific. |
| 03:08:21.20 | Kelman | More plantings and trees. More wayfinding. |
| 03:08:24.66 | Kelman | More lighting. |
| 03:08:26.53 | Kelman | Trash cans. |
| 03:08:28.64 | Kelman | Paint the steps that are adjacent to the old Wells Fargo building, right? There are things that we can do, and we should be very specific about them, because this feels very... |
| 03:08:37.89 | Kelman | And since this is the fourth thing that we've gotten now, that to say it's gonna do these things, I wanna be a little more specific about it. And the Petaluma example, thank you Shana, is a good one, because you can see some really great opportunities. I'd also maybe propose that we cut those administrative costs in half, and we see if we can immediately get the chamber engaged on being the administrator of this. Sorry, Darryl. |
| 03:09:02.34 | Kelman | And why don't we use the SCA vacant upstairs area if we needed extra space to actually house this? There's no reason we should incur extra costs. Why don't we start weaving some of these projects together? So that's really kind of what I want to offer to my council. I think the city needs to have, if we say it's 50%, needs to have better representation, better governance. We need to make sure there's a way to align with city priorities to take care of things like historic resources. We're going to see there's some initiatives that may impact our historic resources. And I don't know how this currently resolves it. |
| 03:09:37.85 | Kelman | And I think if we don't bring it down, the contribution to reflect what Marco conceded is common practice, he hasn't seen a 50% contribution, then I think we need to increase the infrastructure costs, and I would recommend that we go 35%, 35% on infrastructure along with what we're calling lead generation. So I do wish we had the engineer's report. I would favor heavily having that in hand, And the alignment with strategic goals is actually really important to me. So I think great idea. Love that there's this energy. It is the fourth project that we've seen in the last four months that I think tie in. I don't want that to be lost on the community. But now let's connect the dots and really go after what we want here. And if it's reduce vacancies and plant more trees and make things look prettier and more attractive to residents and visitors and let's call that out because what we have right now doesn't do that. So I'll just start there and pause. |
| 03:10:29.84 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you for your comments. Who wishes to speak next? And just so I can understand the definition of term, infrastructure, you classified their sidewalk category in their infrastructure, so they had 15% |
| 03:10:40.47 | Mayor Sobieski | Right. |
| 03:10:40.88 | Karen | All right. |
| 03:10:40.93 | Kelman | So in what Marco provided to us, sorry to interrupt you, it says civil sidewalks. |
| 03:10:40.98 | Karen | Thank you. |
| 03:10:40.99 | Mayor Sobieski | . |
| 03:10:41.03 | Karen | Yeah, I know what you're saying. |
| 03:10:41.82 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 03:10:48.47 | Kelman | Right. And we heard from our community development director, pardon me, our inspector of public works, that our budget already, he's already doing this work. And so it's something above and beyond. And that wasn't called out here. |
| 03:11:01.13 | Mayor Sobieski | Okay, I was just asking, so your definition of infrastructure would not be cleaning sidewalks? |
| 03:11:06.80 | Kelman | We're already doing it. |
| 03:11:07.98 | Mayor Sobieski | Okay, thank you. Yes, yes. |
| 03:11:09.41 | Cox | Yes, well, except that we don't come in after every special event and necessarily do as much as we immediately need to. And so the distinction Marco made was that |
| 03:11:21.80 | Cox | this would entail special event cleanups and other and and yeah |
| 03:11:27.00 | Kelman | Yeah. Supplemental. It's a really great point, Vice Mayor, and it raises the follow-on question of, |
| 03:11:33.54 | Kelman | who's paying for the staff time and then how much of it actually goes to that who makes it because we spent four hours i'm sure we'll do it again on strategic priorities how do we make sure this is an opportunity to make sure that |
| 03:11:45.56 | Kelman | since we're 50% we're meeting the business owners where we are, that we also align with our priorities. And I think we should, we'd be remiss if we didn't take that opportunity. |
| 03:11:56.05 | Mayor Sobieski | I guess I'll say a few words since no one else is leaping at the microphone because I really love those feedbacks. You know, I mean, I'd love you on my board of directors. I really would. But it's like you got to start somewhere. You know, I'm in the start of business and I pitched all the time with a business plan. And never once, never once in 25 years of doing this has any company ever executed on their business plan. They had it all. |
| 03:12:19.53 | Mayor Sobieski | laid out. |
| 03:12:20.74 | Mayor Sobieski | And it always was different. And yes, sometimes those things failed. They ended up craters in the dirt, burning smoke. |
| 03:12:26.99 | Mayor Sobieski | But once in a while they went public. But they went public by shifting, by turning, by dodging, by weaving. And you know the companies that never got anywhere? |
| 03:12:36.89 | Mayor Sobieski | You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. |
| 03:12:39.54 | Mayor Sobieski | Babe Ruth struck out 1,113 times. You gotta try. And so, |
| 03:12:47.18 | Mayor Sobieski | If this was a commitment of 10 years and we had no way to modify it, yeah, but |
| 03:12:50.83 | Mayor Sobieski | especially if we're 50%. |
| 03:12:52.91 | Mayor Sobieski | City Council can affirmatively shut down at any time. |
| 03:12:55.54 | Mayor Sobieski | And with that kind of hammer hanging over the thing, |
| 03:12:58.09 | Mayor Sobieski | If it's not performing to the satisfaction of the elected officials of Sausalito, |
| 03:13:02.09 | Mayor Sobieski | There will be. |
| 03:13:03.25 | Mayor Sobieski | Amazing. |
| 03:13:04.09 | Mayor Sobieski | feedback loop. |
| 03:13:05.55 | Mayor Sobieski | It's not like a lease. |
| 03:13:07.28 | Mayor Sobieski | where you may not be able to, it is, there's a lot of power in that. And so |
| 03:13:12.68 | Mayor Sobieski | I think it's, you know, we always talk about local control. |
| 03:13:15.91 | Mayor Sobieski | You can't get more local than that. |
| 03:13:17.81 | Mayor Sobieski | I mean, part of the problem of us trying to manage and improve downtown is we're our politicians not |
| 03:13:22.98 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 03:13:22.99 | Karen | Thank you. |
| 03:13:24.24 | Mayor Sobieski | and we have a whole town to think about and we've got our own rhythm and all that. |
| 03:13:28.90 | Mayor Sobieski | This is empowering local people with local control. They're putting up half their own money. Half the money is their money that they're taxing themselves. The other half is their other tax money that they're giving the city just reallocated. |
| 03:13:40.21 | Mayor Sobieski | from budget items that are generally marketing back |
| 03:13:43.58 | Mayor Sobieski | to this effort, and we're just empowering them. It's like a trust. It's like they're putting their hand forward, and we're saying yes. So I think it's like this exciting new era thing of doing more with less. We don't have to pay a pension on this money. We don't have to hire and fire. We're not encumbered in all the ways we are if we hire city employees to do things. And you can just get incredible leverage. Like this is like the dynamic shining little – |
| 03:14:09.65 | Mayor Sobieski | City on a hill kind of stuff that we could potentially unlock. And if this works at this scale, then |
| 03:14:15.09 | Mayor Sobieski | we can replicate it in the marine ship and in |
| 03:14:17.69 | Mayor Sobieski | Caledonia. |
| 03:14:18.88 | Mayor Sobieski | You can have people doing the barn raising that we saw with the Matthew Turner. |
| 03:14:23.47 | Mayor Sobieski | And that's the spirit here. |
| 03:14:25.16 | Mayor Sobieski | And I know you were turned on by that spirit of the Matthew Turner and the barn raising that that represented. |
| 03:14:31.47 | Mayor Sobieski | Everyone does. But it wasn't just the beautiful ship. It was the barn raising that that involved. And that's what's going on here. It's a barn raising downtown. And I think we should just, you know, lend the rope. |
| 03:14:52.50 | Cox | um, |
| 03:14:54.84 | Cox | I do want to say that, as one of the speakers pointed out, I'm really inspired by the way in which the business community has come together to support the PVID. And I do thank. |
| 03:15:05.32 | Cox | EDAC. |
| 03:15:06.67 | Cox | the members of the business community, the liaisons to EDAC, Jill Hoffman and |
| 03:15:12.34 | Cox | and the mayor. |
| 03:15:13.29 | Cox | for their participation |
| 03:15:15.58 | Cox | in this directive that the city provided to EDAC to move this forward. And I think you've done a great job of getting us to where we are. No one has mentioned the level of the city's participation in the vote. So I endorse the 40% recommended by the staff report. |
| 03:15:37.20 | Cox | If the city does not participate in the voting, the city is not being a player in the PBID. And we are contributing 50%. And so we should have some role in determining whether or not this moves forward or not. |
| 03:15:53.28 | Cox | I agree with pretty much everything Council Member Kelman suggested. |
| 03:16:00.59 | Cox | other than reducing the city's contribution. I believe that we should increase the amount going to infrastructure. |
| 03:16:06.92 | Cox | I believe we should add to the management plan some of the categories |
| 03:16:11.95 | Cox | that council member Kalman mentioned. |
| 03:16:14.73 | Cox | including addressing the vacancy rate. |
| 03:16:17.62 | Cox | I, |
| 03:16:19.34 | Cox | requiring more wayfinding lighting trash cans, protecting historic resources. I don't want to tell the board that's not even yet formed how to run its business, but I would like to recommend that they explore the concept of having the chamber take a role in the administration of the PBID, and that we seek free office space at the SCA. Okay. |
| 03:16:45.19 | Cox | Um, |
| 03:16:46.90 | Cox | I believe the management plan needs flexibility to pivot. And so, as the mayor mentioned, and so I... |
| 03:16:54.18 | Cox | um |
| 03:16:55.13 | Cox | I'm recommending that these items be added as bulleted points to the list of roles and responsibilities that are in the management plan. I am very convinced by the successes of PBIDs in Petaluma, Santa Barbara, Pasadena, San Diego, Lakeshore, downtown Berkeley, |
| 03:17:16.02 | Cox | Jack London Square. |
| 03:17:19.30 | Cox | If we or property owners are unhappy with how this turns out, there are multiple ways to unwind this. You heard that testimony earlier this evening. |
| 03:17:28.58 | Cox | I am happy with the fact of an annual report that requires an annual audit, with the Brown Act rules that apply to all PBID meetings that require that their process be open and transparent. And so for all of those reasons, I would like to grant the business community's request that they tax themselves and stand toe-to-toe with us in making the downtown a more vital and revived area. Thank you. |
| 03:18:00.11 | Cox | Thank you. |
| 03:18:00.13 | Kelman | Can I ask, so the mayor mentioned, you know, this is not like lease. We can end it any time. But the enormous pressure that we all had to not change the SCA lease was very evident. And, you know, when the toothpaste is out of the tube, it's hard to put it back in. Any suggestions on governance structure? Should a future council choose to modify or somehow change course with this? What do you mean governance structure? So I think you said something about if it doesn't work that there's off-ramps. |
| 03:18:31.54 | Cox | So, |
| 03:18:37.44 | Cox | There are three off ramps. One is the disestablishment. One is to suspend the taxation for a year. And the other is to replace the management committee. |
| 03:18:52.70 | Kelman | To be honest, I don't think we're going to need off-ramps. I think this council is going to find that we're not aligned with strategic priorities and feeling a little friction around that. I think that... |
| 03:19:03.02 | Kelman | business communities that are going to do great and they're going to find ways to spend the money as they wish and that suits their strategic priorities. I think we may find that they're not necessarily ours and I would throw out a valet parking concept as an idea around that. And I don't need to debate it. That's just my feeling around it. |
| 03:19:19.02 | Mayor Sobieski | that just might be. |
| 03:19:19.80 | Mayor Sobieski | the president. |
| 03:19:19.95 | Mayor Sobieski | the |
| 03:19:20.12 | Mayor Sobieski | Did I respond to the ballot? I thought she was asking. |
| 03:19:22.70 | Cox | We're going. |
| 03:19:23.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:19:24.03 | Mayor Sobieski | Okay. |
| 03:19:27.31 | Cox | So the valet parking was proposed for special events, not as an overall concept, which is what we had sort of pooh-poohed. And so. |
| 03:19:38.85 | Cox | But you can go ahead. |
| 03:19:40.71 | Cox | you know, |
| 03:19:40.79 | Mayor Sobieski | you know, I don't, |
| 03:19:43.22 | Mayor Sobieski | It's the latitude to experiment more vigorously. Like the valet... |
| 03:19:47.07 | Mayor Sobieski | thing that we |
| 03:19:48.45 | Mayor Sobieski | Look at it. |
| 03:19:49.36 | Mayor Sobieski | You know, I'm a proponent of doing experimenting, but that was not a very baked. |
| 03:19:54.44 | Mayor Sobieski | proposal, right? That's why we didn't like it. |
| 03:19:56.94 | Mayor Sobieski | So it's sort of like this is just local control again. It's like local control. It's like they get to experiment and |
| 03:20:04.30 | Mayor Sobieski | All right. |
| 03:20:05.08 | Mayor Sobieski | Yeah, so that's the thought is that, well, the biggest guardrail is, you know, when people show up and they advocate, it's because there's something that are valued to the people that elect us. And that's why they show up. The way that we would disestablish the district is if it's trash. |
| 03:20:22.27 | Mayor Sobieski | and the |
| 03:20:23.91 | Mayor Sobieski | the business owners are like, this is trash. And, |
| 03:20:26.94 | Mayor Sobieski | nobody shows up to advocate for it. And we're like, we're shutting it down or we're disassociated. If the room's packed, then maybe |
| 03:20:34.10 | Mayor Sobieski | Maybe it's not trash, but if you disagree with that. |
| 03:20:42.96 | Unknown | I don't think it's a real... |
| 03:20:44.51 | Unknown | Oh. |
| 03:20:45.96 | Unknown | you |
| 03:20:46.98 | Unknown | That's where my concern is. |
| 03:20:49.96 | Karen | Thank you. |
| 03:20:51.95 | Cox | So I think the city's financial contribution is not huge. I think when we raised the TOT and the business license tax back in 2019, we made a promise to the business community |
| 03:21:04.58 | Kelman | We didn't, well, it was not in a resolution, nor was it on the ballot. I believe it was a verbally, |
| 03:21:10.45 | Kelman | conveyed by council members at the time. You're exactly right. |
| 03:21:13.35 | Cox | It was, which there's only, I mean, yeah, there's only two of us. |
| 03:21:13.39 | Kelman | Right. |
| 03:21:17.37 | Councilmember Hoffman | Yeah, not all the council members at the time, this one included. |
| 03:21:22.06 | Councilmember Hoffman | So anyway, I'll talk about that on my |
| 03:21:25.65 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 03:21:25.67 | Councilmember Hoffman | Absolutely. |
| 03:21:25.81 | Mayor Sobieski | I just remember. |
| 03:21:27.34 | Councilmember Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 03:21:27.97 | Cox | I was just going to finalize my response to your comments, which is it's not a huge investment. And one of the board members will be a representative of the city to assure that there is that guardrail entailed in how they run their work. |
| 03:21:46.10 | Kelman | Should there be more at 50% of a participation? |
| 03:21:50.17 | Cox | Thank you. |
| 03:21:50.19 | Kelman | And. |
| 03:21:51.25 | Kelman | That's an option. |
| 03:21:53.09 | Mayor Sobieski | It is. I'm going to keep it limbo. But let's have Council Member Blasting, who's been very patient and has indicated several times she wishes to speak. I apologize to you. |
| 03:22:01.01 | Unknown | That's okay, Mayor. Thank you. |
| 03:22:01.33 | Mayor Sobieski | Okay, ma'am. |
| 03:22:02.39 | Mayor Sobieski | I should have acknowledged you. |
| 03:22:03.94 | Unknown | No problem. I appreciate it. |
| 03:22:06.64 | Unknown | I hear what my fellow council members are saying, and I appreciate it, and I think |
| 03:22:12.72 | Unknown | that we're all saying the same thing in a lot of ways. And the staff actually asked us to give direct feedback on |
| 03:22:19.08 | Unknown | the management plan. |
| 03:22:20.33 | Unknown | And at the same time, do what the business community is asking us to do again. |
| 03:22:25.63 | Unknown | And the business community is asking us to provide a pathway so that they can use this 40% to move forward in the permitting process. And then we can continue working together in this rare opportunity we have where businesses who have historically not necessarily loved the city or loved working together are working together because we all believe in a vibrant downtown. I love how many times I've heard people say, I believe in a vibrant downtown. And I believe in our ability to craft a strong public-private partnership that invigorates a vibrant downtown through a PBID. And so I'm willing to have a conversation from the dais with my fellow council members about some of the specifics so that we can get to a strong positive vote here. But I really, really, really want to enforce and support |
| 03:23:12.66 | Unknown | the staff's suggestion of the 40% so that we can start the process to move things forward. Let's just move the ball. Let's give some feedback right now that we can have together around some of the pieces of the management proposal |
| 03:23:23.47 | Unknown | to satisfy some of the concerns that have been brought up here. But the bottom line is, business communities showing up again |
| 03:23:29.23 | Unknown | for the city to ask for something of us in a constructive way to work with us and to give us money for improvements i mean our contribution |
| 03:23:37.67 | Unknown | while not insignificant, is quite small compared to our whole budget. But if you think about the cost of rent for some of these business owners or these property owners and the amount of money that they're putting into this to make our downtown better, that is significant. So I want to honor that, and I want to just get to a place. We can talk about some of the specifics of the proposal, but I'm very supportive of the staff recommendation for the 40%, and I think if we can work in, Vice Mayor had some good suggestions around that. |
| 03:24:04.45 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you, Councilmember. So everyone's having a chance. Let's hear it from Councilmember Hoffman, and then we'll have a motion. |
| 03:24:04.48 | Unknown | Right. |
| 03:24:10.13 | Councilmember Hoffman | So... |
| 03:24:12.46 | Councilmember Hoffman | Yeah, let me just talk about process a little bit, because it's discouraging for us up here on the dais. When we're presented with something new, let's try this out. Let's take a look at it. Let's give staff some latitude. |
| 03:24:27.23 | Councilmember Hoffman | Let's give our fellow council members let's compromise and see if we can figure out. |
| 03:24:31.28 | Councilmember Hoffman | what this is even about and whether or not we want to move forward. And somehow during the process, it morphs into, you agreed to do this, we're mad at you now, you said you voted last time that you were going to move forward, why don't you just move forward? So we had comments like that tonight. I went back and watched the meeting from our last meeting, and that's not what we decided to do. We clearly said, |
| 03:24:52.46 | Councilmember Hoffman | Those of us who were not had not attended the meetings. |
| 03:24:55.81 | Councilmember Hoffman | and we're not on the self-described steering committee, |
| 03:25:00.17 | Councilmember Hoffman | You know, we found out about the parameters 72 hours before the meeting, right? And so, you know, we're concerned about, well, we started off in this conversation. The other three meetings or two meetings, the presentation was... |
| 03:25:14.11 | Councilmember Hoffman | the normal standard that we heard about was that it's 20 to 30% of the district |
| 03:25:21.11 | Councilmember Hoffman | So then all of a sudden we hear it's 50% that either artificially, intentionally boosted, right? And so that's a concern for me personally. And I think it was a concern for other council members as well. And so I just want to call that out as sort of process because this is the third time now that we've dealt with this very small business district, right? |
| 03:25:44.47 | Councilmember Hoffman | We were working for, I don't know how many years, five years, four years on the landslide improvement plan. |
| 03:25:50.02 | Councilmember Hoffman | we had a couple of very vitriolic meetings about that and kind of down the same road you said you were going to do x |
| 03:25:57.19 | Councilmember Hoffman | you know, somehow that morphed into now you must do this. We're not going to consider this. We're not going to |
| 03:26:02.35 | Councilmember Hoffman | at the city council level |
| 03:26:05.03 | Councilmember Hoffman | have discussions at the city council level. This is really the only time we get to talk to each other. |
| 03:26:10.37 | Councilmember Hoffman | because of the Brown Act, we're not supposed to talk about these things outside of city council meetings. So when you see us kind of fumbling around up here and going through a thought process, that's why. |
| 03:26:18.92 | Councilmember Hoffman | because this is the first time we're looking at things. So it's incumbent upon us to raise concerns at this level. And when we're talking about, we had a four and a half hour strategic planning or whatever you call it, priority setting, Saturday morning, |
| 03:26:33.28 | Councilmember Hoffman | Bye. |
| 03:26:33.86 | Councilmember Hoffman | There are a couple of you here, but |
| 03:26:35.66 | Councilmember Hoffman | Most of you are not here. |
| 03:26:37.10 | Councilmember Hoffman | But I was here, and so was everybody else in this dais. |
| 03:26:39.97 | Councilmember Hoffman | And we talked about what are our goals? What are our personal goals? My goal is pretty simple. It's I'm here to serve all of Sausalito. When someone brings something to me, I've got a great idea. I'm like. |
| 03:26:50.67 | Councilmember Hoffman | Bring it. I love great ideas. Let's hear it. |
| 03:26:52.83 | Councilmember Hoffman | But when I, my filter is, give me the idea, give me your details. Now, I've got to look at it through the prism of all of Sausalito. |
| 03:27:00.03 | Councilmember Hoffman | And is this plan something that's good, not just for the downtown business district, |
| 03:27:04.91 | Councilmember Hoffman | but for Caledonia Street, who I also serve, for people who have hillsides that are falling down, the landslide task force recommendations that we had in 2019 that we still haven't implemented, we still have landslides. So what is my order of priority? And I'm looking at spends, right? I'm looking at if I don't spend money on this or I allocate money for whatever you wanna call it, I by definition do not have money for this. And so that's why we have priority settings. |
| 03:27:34.19 | Councilmember Hoffman | And that's why we need to adhere strictly to... |
| 03:27:37.81 | Councilmember Hoffman | those priorities, not just for our money, but for our staff time. So one of the things that I asked specifically our staff, how much time have you spent on this sort of exploration? |
| 03:27:51.40 | Councilmember Hoffman | I never got a solid answer on that, but it's substantial from Director Phipps and from our city manager and from other people who have supported this just to this point. |
| 03:28:02.55 | Councilmember Hoffman | We spent about $80,000, and we're going to spend probably another $30,000 maybe. |
| 03:28:06.99 | Councilmember Hoffman | to get this, just we paid, the people of Sausalito paid for the consultant to put this together. So to say that the city doesn't have an oar in the water already, I think is inaccurate, because we've supported this for the past year about, you know, we retained a consultant, we're moving on. So that's the process, that's my perspective. Now let's drill down into this specific project. So this is the third project that we've had before us for a very small radius of real estate downtown in four months, right? Very land side. |
| 03:28:42.67 | Councilmember Hoffman | Very land side improvement project. We had to get that done. We got that done, thank God. |
| 03:28:48.35 | Councilmember Hoffman | But, |
| 03:28:48.91 | Councilmember Hoffman | You know, that's a substantial spend, and it's going to be a substantial spend for this same teeny tiny little area. |
| 03:28:54.39 | Councilmember Hoffman | Then we had a pretty robust meeting about Center for the Arts, right? |
| 03:28:59.14 | Councilmember Hoffman | Here's the interesting thing about Center for the Arts. That was also a compromise. That lease was a compromise. |
| 03:29:05.23 | Councilmember Hoffman | we're going to we're going to put guardrails in and we're going to have we're going to see if these guys can perform and |
| 03:29:10.61 | Councilmember Hoffman | You know, we're going to give them 18 months of roadway, but then we're going to hold them accountable. And if they don't hold accountable, then we're going to have to pivot |
| 03:29:17.12 | Councilmember Hoffman | at the end of this experiment. |
| 03:29:18.47 | Councilmember Hoffman | Well, |
| 03:29:19.25 | Councilmember Hoffman | you know, |
| 03:29:19.98 | Councilmember Hoffman | we got to the point where we hold people accountable |
| 03:29:22.93 | Councilmember Hoffman | And we didn't do it. |
| 03:29:25.09 | Councilmember Hoffman | When we talk about what are the guardrails on this, people are rightfully skeptical about whether or not, even if we put guardrails in. |
| 03:29:35.92 | Councilmember Hoffman | How are we going to hold people accountable? How's the council? Who's even going to be on the council, right? But, you know, |
| 03:29:42.64 | Councilmember Hoffman | What's our collective ability right now to hold people accountable for something |
| 03:29:48.12 | Councilmember Hoffman | that we're allocating, we can put all the guardrails we want. If we're not absolutely committed to adhering to those guardrails, then it means nothing. |
| 03:29:55.38 | Councilmember Hoffman | And so... |
| 03:29:56.19 | Councilmember Hoffman | When you look at the overall spend, yeah, I mean, I don't sniff at $120,000. Sorry. I mean, that's how many feet of sidewalk that we could redo in someone's. You know, we have a problem right now with our insurance, right, because we have so many lawsuits, some of which are related to our infrastructure. |
| 03:30:11.60 | Councilmember Hoffman | We need to focus on our infrastructure. |
| 03:30:14.74 | Councilmember Hoffman | $120,000 one year, but it's really five years. I mean, we can talk about off ramps, we can talk about how do we |
| 03:30:21.67 | Councilmember Hoffman | you know, how do we unravel this thing? But, you know, putting it together has been a substantial amount of work, right? And we're not even done. So we still have a substantial road to hoe on this. So it's... |
| 03:30:32.72 | Councilmember Hoffman | The people of Saucely are committing $660,000. So is that a pretty good sizable thing that could fix a whole stairway, a whole set of steps that are emergency access that are part of our plan for people for evacuation? |
| 03:30:48.03 | Councilmember Hoffman | that are crumbling. |
| 03:30:49.33 | Councilmember Hoffman | Yep, it sure would. It'd probably fix a couple of those. So that's my perspective. |
| 03:30:54.61 | Councilmember Hoffman | And so, you know, and then you look at the other aspects of the plan. |
| 03:31:02.24 | Councilmember Hoffman | And, |
| 03:31:04.09 | Councilmember Hoffman | So people are like, okay, so now I've said all the grumpy stuff, right? But here's the good stuff. The good stuff is the way that the business community has come together downtown. I think that's fantastic. Do we want to move forward? Yes. Does the city want to support that? Yes. The model we've been doing so far that we've worked with with Saucelio Beautiful is, and we work with the Business Affairs Committee, and then I can't remember, EDAC, I guess, after that, |
| 03:31:27.75 | Councilmember Hoffman | If you have a plan, bring it to us if it fits within our strategic plan. |
| 03:31:32.66 | Councilmember Hoffman | We can fund it. |
| 03:31:33.96 | Councilmember Hoffman | Right, if it, but we have to look at that annually because we have to look at the rest of our budget. Where's the rest of our budget going? If we have access in our budget, |
| 03:31:44.09 | Councilmember Hoffman | finance director has told us the number one priority should be |
| 03:31:48.19 | Councilmember Hoffman | paying down our highest risk financially, which is our pension debt. |
| 03:31:52.81 | Councilmember Hoffman | So if we don't want to adhere to |
| 03:31:55.72 | Councilmember Hoffman | you know, getting us on a financially stable platform |
| 03:32:00.42 | Councilmember Hoffman | then we keep veering off into these things that aren't priorities. I'm not saying they're not important. I'm not saying they're not merit. I'm just saying... |
| 03:32:08.64 | Councilmember Hoffman | You know, we need to look at everything through that lens of priority. |
| 03:32:11.95 | Councilmember Hoffman | So what are the options, right? So I think a couple of you guys have said, if not this, then what? Well, it's pretty, you know, we've talked about this too. What's the alternative? Just an informal business improvement district. The chamber can set that up. It doesn't even need to be a chamber. A collective group of businesses can set it up and say, we're going to form a business improvement district. You don't have all this incredible infrastructure that we have now. |
| 03:32:34.34 | Councilmember Hoffman | right you don't have |
| 03:32:36.35 | Councilmember Hoffman | $100,000 or whatever. We're up to $80,000 consultant. You don't have to go through the |
| 03:32:43.67 | Councilmember Hoffman | the voting process. You don't have to go through this incredibly complex structure of creating a nonprofit, which also has its own overhead. |
| 03:32:51.10 | Councilmember Hoffman | which we all know because we all are involved in non-profits. And so we know what that overhead is just to form the non-profit. |
| 03:32:58.44 | Councilmember Hoffman | You know, you're talking about can a concept like this work |
| 03:33:01.86 | Councilmember Hoffman | Can we get traction? Can we build confidence? Yes. You can do that without moving forward with this concept at this time. So that's my challenge to the community is, can we move forward in a way |
| 03:33:17.34 | Councilmember Hoffman | that doesn't require the infrastructure, that doesn't require $60,000 in costs just to pay the administrative costs of it, which is insane to me. |
| 03:33:27.16 | Councilmember Hoffman | And so I think there's other avenues. |
| 03:33:30.77 | Councilmember Hoffman | and I resent the fact that |
| 03:33:32.65 | Councilmember Hoffman | We say we're gonna explore something, we're gonna go down this road and then all of a sudden |
| 03:33:37.64 | Councilmember Hoffman | you know, when somebody challenges that or when you |
| 03:33:40.32 | Councilmember Hoffman | hold people |
| 03:33:41.40 | Councilmember Hoffman | you know accountable |
| 03:33:42.72 | Councilmember Hoffman | Oh, |
| 03:33:44.03 | Councilmember Hoffman | against the priorities that we have a council has set. |
| 03:33:46.87 | Councilmember Hoffman | I think, you know, that's |
| 03:33:49.47 | Councilmember Hoffman | That's unfortunate that that's a dynamic that has seemed to have grown up in Sausalito in the last six months, and I think it's counterproductive. So anyway, but of course I'm willing to listen to whatever compromises my fellow council members think that we can come up with, because I think we can maybe get there, but I don't know, we'll see. |
| 03:34:10.23 | Mayor Sobieski | I... |
| 03:34:10.73 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 03:34:11.31 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:34:12.03 | Councilmember Hoffman | I had one more thing. I'm so sorry. And I got side... |
| 03:34:16.39 | Councilmember Hoffman | This is just a clarification. I got sidetracked by the public comment aspect because I was going to, there was a comment from somebody |
| 03:34:24.30 | Councilmember Hoffman | you know, the city attorney, that the city attorney had weighed in on whether or not there was a conflict with the mayor. |
| 03:34:30.93 | Councilmember Hoffman | and talking about public benefit generally out of town. I don't think the city attorney did that. And if the city attorney, I think that |
| 03:34:39.79 | Councilmember Hoffman | Right. |
| 03:34:40.36 | Woodside | Thank you. |
| 03:34:41.93 | Councilmember Hoffman | Stephen Woodside did, but Sergio didn't weigh in about the conflict. He just noted that the process |
| 03:34:48.45 | Councilmember Hoffman | what the process is. He didn't weigh in or give an opinion about whether or not |
| 03:34:52.90 | Councilmember Hoffman | Right, because he represents the city, not the mayor. Yeah, that was just my clarification. |
| 03:34:55.64 | Cox | Yeah. |
| 03:34:57.68 | Councilmember Hoffman | I don't know. |
| 03:34:59.67 | Councilmember Hoffman | if our memory is consistent with the city attorneys, but if the city attorney wants to weigh in on that, if you feel like you don't want to weigh in, that's fine too. |
| 03:35:06.49 | Cox | Can we ask the city attorney to close the loop on the whole public comment not being attached to the agenda? |
| 03:35:12.02 | Sergio | I'll answer both those things. One, Joan is correct. My client's the city, not the mayor in his individual capacity. So I typically will not render any sort of binding opinion on anybody with respect to conflicts of interest. They are entitled to seek their own legal advice, which the mayor did. with respect to the public comment there is no requirement that we attach you know writings received by the council to the agenda. And the Brown Act actually never mentions written public comment. |
| 03:35:44.83 | Sergio | The one thing that it does provide is that all items and writings distributed to the council |
| 03:35:50.90 | Sergio | are public record. And so in order to ensure transparency and to comply with the public records requirements, you know, most cities will attach all of those written public comments to the agenda. It is a best practice, but it's not a legal requirement. |
| 03:36:08.10 | Cox | Thank you, city attorney. |
| 03:36:11.44 | Mayor Sobieski | Yep. Thank you very much. Yeah. I mean, this is, thank you very much, Councilmember Hoffman. Yeah. There are alternatives that do not involve the city contributing any money or being a financial partner. The proposition from the businesses again is that they are asking to tax themselves, put essentially elevate their taxes and put that money into activities that benefit the whole, all the residents of Sausalito. And they're looking for asking the city to partner with them toe to toe. So, you know, it's not the people, not just the residents who are contributing 660K over five years. It's the businesses that are reallocating part of the |
| 03:36:38.20 | Kieran Culligan | I'm sorry. |
| 03:36:51.80 | Mayor Sobieski | millions of dollars of tax they pay every year. At least that's how I see it. So I honor your point of view. I just think the proposition here is |
| 03:36:59.11 | Mayor Sobieski | is a barn raising it's to do our part so yeah other people can raise the barn and we can compliment them for it but we can be part of the barn raising so |
| 03:37:08.76 | Cox | Mayor, based on the comment from those of us on the dais, given the late hour, I would like to take a crack at a motion to move this forward. So I move that the City Council approve the draft. |
| 03:37:23.61 | Cox | management district plan. |
| 03:37:26.25 | Cox | associated with the proposed downtown Schlosselita Property Business Improvement District |
| 03:37:30.62 | Cox | with the revisions that Councilmember Kelman and I enunciated, other than reducing the city's contribution, that it increased the amount going to infrastructure. Councilmember Kelman's suggestion was 35 percent, that it also addressed the vacancy rate, that it provide for more wayfinding, lighting, and trash cans, that it protect historic resources, and that it explore the concept of |
| 03:38:02.42 | Cox | Uh, |
| 03:38:03.49 | Cox | partnering with the Chamber to administer the PBID, reducing the administrative cost of the PBID, and that the PBID... |
| 03:38:11.40 | Cox | offices be housed at the Sausalito Center for the Arts. In addition that we support the city's proposed petition process and authorize the city manager to begin the assessment district petition process and sign the petition on the city's behalf, |
| 03:38:30.07 | Cox | exercising up to 40% of the city's total voting power as set forth in the staff report. |
| 03:38:37.19 | Kelman | Thank you. |
| 03:38:39.55 | Kelman | JoAnne Hanrahan, Job an hour of the ability to follow my fast talk very impressed she did a great job, then she yes um but it's not quite a friendly amendment it's an opinion poll um given that the city is. JoAnne Hanrahan, Coming in with a 50% so be the largest single contributor does it make sense to request the city have an additional representative on the governing body. |
| 03:39:05.56 | Cox | you |
| 03:39:06.36 | Kelman | Thank you. |
| 03:39:06.38 | Cox | May I open the public comment just to allow our consultant or Mr. Phipps to respond to whether that is feasible or advisable? |
| 03:39:21.35 | Unknown | The bylaws, which don't exist because the district doesn't exist, but once the bylaws are written, I'm sure that they would be presented to the overall city council and the city manager. In my mind, there's nothing wrong in Hayward. We have a small district that has two city representatives on it. It all depends the way you write the bylaws. And if that's something that the 50% contributor would like to see, that where there's more than one seat, then you just put it in the bylaws and it is what it is. |
| 03:39:49.65 | Mayor Sobieski | I see Cass Green nodding her head. Can I just ask you about this infrastructure thing? Does that make sense to you? And is that an issue at all? |
| 03:39:55.83 | Unknown | Yeah, as long as you don't think that it's a long-term capital improvement because the district's only five years. |
| 03:40:00.77 | Unknown | You know, so things like decorative lighting, because you're not going to start putting in pedestrian lighting, but decorative lighting, things like tree planting, maybe hanging plants. Yeah, that makes sense. But I just want to make sure that people don't think that you're going, you're not rebuilding sidewalks because that's a whole different animal. We've got to include maintenance. |
| 03:40:00.80 | Mayor Sobieski | you know, |
| 03:40:18.98 | Mayor Sobieski | Thanks. |
| 03:40:19.03 | Unknown | you |
| 03:40:19.26 | Unknown | Yes, that includes maintenance. And I took the notes from what you had suggested, Councilwoman Kelman. Yes. So I took the notes. And so it's easy to incorporate that. And I understand the concepts that you guys are putting forward. And I think I can include those in the plan. So we have a plan that everybody is comfortable with. Thank you. |
| 03:40:25.56 | Mayor Sobieski | Yes. |
| 03:40:27.04 | Unknown | So I think- |
| 03:40:39.16 | Cox | So then in response to the, uh, council member Kelman's comments, I will clarify that infrastructure includes tree planting, decorative lighting, hanging plants and maintenance and such things. And that we will request that the bylaws, um, |
| 03:40:39.31 | Woodside | and in response. |
| 03:40:57.13 | Cox | uh, |
| 03:40:58.45 | Cox | require that at least two city representatives be a part of the board. |
| 03:41:03.49 | Kelman | You missed one, wayfinding, you had signage. |
| 03:41:05.27 | Cox | I said wayfinding earlier in my motion. Great. |
| 03:41:05.98 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 03:41:09.08 | Kelman | Second. |
| 03:41:09.62 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 03:41:09.77 | Mayor Sobieski | you |
| 03:41:09.84 | Cox | Thank you. |
| 03:41:10.34 | Mayor Sobieski | She's made and seconded. Sorry. Did you. Oh, we're. |
| 03:41:14.99 | Cox | We can have discussion. OK. |
| 03:41:15.93 | Mayor Sobieski | The motion is made and seconded. Is there any discussion on the motion? |
| 03:41:18.85 | Cox | They also propose an amendment. |
| 03:41:21.45 | Councilmember Hoffman | Did you list in there the reduction in the administrative fee? |
| 03:41:25.52 | Cox | Yes, I said explore chamber administration of the PBID in an effort to reduce the administrative fee, as well as housing it at the Sausalito Center for the Arts. |
| 03:41:36.67 | Councilmember Hoffman | But I think Councilman McKellman had a number |
| 03:41:40.37 | Kelman | I propose cutting it in high. |
| 03:41:41.29 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:41:41.40 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:41:41.50 | Kelman | Thank you. |
| 03:41:42.97 | Kelman | Thank you. |
| 03:41:42.98 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:41:43.00 | Kelman | And then moving that money into the other two categories. |
| 03:41:43.10 | Cox | Thank you. |
| 03:41:43.12 | Councilmember Hoffman | Okay. |
| 03:41:43.25 | Cox | Thank you. |
| 03:41:45.33 | Cox | Thank you. |
| 03:41:46.02 | Kelman | If possible. |
| 03:41:47.47 | Mayor Sobieski | Again, we're- |
| 03:41:47.79 | Cox | So I'm happy to say with a goal of reducing it in half, if possible. Yeah. I'm happy to. So I. Hold it. |
| 03:41:53.61 | Karen | Thank you. |
| 03:41:53.65 | Mayor Sobieski | I'm not sure. |
| 03:41:53.71 | Karen | I'm happy to. |
| 03:41:55.00 | Karen | I think that's with the |
| 03:41:56.26 | Cox | With a goal of reducing the administration costs by half, if possible. |
| 03:41:56.84 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 03:42:02.76 | Cox | Thank you. |
| 03:42:03.38 | Cox | okay will you accept second that a further amended motion yes |
| 03:42:07.64 | Mayor Sobieski | Yes. |
| 03:42:08.28 | Mayor Sobieski | Okay. |
| 03:42:08.48 | Cox | Thank you. |
| 03:42:08.50 | Mayor Sobieski | We have a motion that's made and seconded. I'll call the question. All in favor say aye. |
| 03:42:14.59 | Cox | Bye. |
| 03:42:15.58 | Mayor Sobieski | All opposed? |
| 03:42:17.22 | Cox | So |
| 03:42:17.95 | Mayor Sobieski | Motion carries four to one. Congratulations. Thank you. |
| 03:42:21.56 | Mayor Sobieski | And everyone for the hard work. |
| 03:42:27.41 | Cox | Can we make an announcement about what we're going to remove from the |
| 03:42:29.54 | Mayor Sobieski | So just an announcement that we need to take a matter. It's a late hour. |
| 03:42:35.93 | Mayor Sobieski | it's a late, it's a late hour. So the next item we're going to hear is the, uh, item that came off of the consent calendar. Uh, and then after that, we are going to skip and not hear the, uh, |
| 03:42:49.82 | Mayor Sobieski | Facilities Assessment, RFP. That will be done next time. |
| 03:42:55.24 | Mayor Sobieski | We're doing that first thing. |
| 03:42:56.52 | Kelman | Friends, can you please take your comments outside just so we can also continue? Thank you so much. |
| 03:43:02.87 | Kelman | What about |
| 03:43:03.29 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:43:03.34 | Kelman | So what about the other thing? |
| 03:43:04.59 | Councilmember Hoffman | I think. |
| 03:43:04.81 | Mayor Sobieski | Just one moment. While it's noisy, let me get my act together over here. Council Member |
| 03:43:08.64 | Kelman | Thank you. |
| 03:43:08.66 | Councilmember Hoffman | Yeah, sure, go ahead. |
| 03:43:22.41 | Mayor Sobieski | They don't have my script. |
| 03:43:25.78 | Councilmember Hoffman | Oh, this. |
| 03:43:26.85 | Councilmember Hoffman | What about the other? |
| 03:43:31.39 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:43:31.42 | Karen | Thank you. |
| 03:43:31.45 | Councilmember Hoffman | All right. |
| 03:43:33.97 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:43:33.99 | Karen | All right. |
| 03:43:34.22 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:43:34.90 | Mayor Sobieski | All right, so we're going to move on. The consent item that was pulled off of the consent calendar is item 3B, accurate and correct, with respect to council actions at the January 22, 2024 meeting. Do we want to have any kind of staff report on this from- |
| 03:43:50.41 | Cox | but can we just announce that we will not be hearing, because I think there was a lot of talking. We will not be hearing item. Okay. |
| 03:43:53.92 | Mayor Sobieski | I think. |
| 03:43:58.74 | Mayor Sobieski | uh yeah the uh just for everyone's benefit we will not be hearing item uh uh 5b which is uh receive and file a report regarding the development of the 24 24 building facility assessment study but we will proceed with 5c 5d and the item that was pulled off of 3d so moving on to item 3b which has become item |
| 03:44:22.50 | Mayor Sobieski | 5B, adopt a resolution to queering correct with respect to council actions at the January 22nd, 2024 meeting. |
| 03:44:30.84 | Mayor Sobieski | do we need any kind of staff report or are we all comp? |
| 03:44:34.60 | Mayor Sobieski | I can't. |
| 03:44:34.77 | Council Member Kellman | Thank you. |
| 03:44:34.82 | Councilmember Hoffman | Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 03:44:35.68 | Mayor Sobieski | Oh, you pulled it off. Yes, thank you. |
| 03:44:37.17 | Councilmember Hoffman | Yeah, well, I think for context, we need to have a quick maybe staff report or city attorney, like, here's the context. This is what this is about. Thank you. I mean, we don't have a poll. |
| 03:44:43.29 | Mayor Sobieski | for the city. |
| 03:44:45.16 | Mayor Sobieski | So what's that? |
| 03:44:45.52 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 03:44:45.59 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. I mean, we don't have to have a |
| 03:44:47.04 | Mayor Sobieski | City Attorney Rudin, could you please summarize why this is here and what we are doing? |
| 03:44:47.05 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:44:47.14 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:44:52.77 | Sergio | Yeah, so we did receive a cure and correct demand email from Ms. Bushmaker. It's attached to the agenda. |
| 03:45:00.99 | Sergio | um alleging that a council member participated uh without complying with the requirements for just cause um |
| 03:45:08.05 | Sergio | And additionally, the brown act allows the city council to cure and correct and alleged violation without admitting fault so. |
| 03:45:15.61 | Sergio | In the interest of voiding litigation, that item is being presented to you folks for consideration. |
| 03:45:23.15 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you very much. |
| 03:45:24.18 | Councilmember Hoffman | Okay, thanks. And that was Council Member Blaustein, and that was at the January... |
| 03:45:30.15 | Councilmember Hoffman | Ah. |
| 03:45:31.52 | Councilmember Hoffman | What was the special meeting? I'm sorry, I don't have it in front of me. The January 2022 special meeting, correct? |
| 03:45:40.63 | Sergio | Correct. |
| 03:45:41.59 | Councilmember Hoffman | And so the action, it's interesting. The action that we're doing is we're rescinding all those votes and we're rescheduling all those votes. |
| 03:45:52.43 | Councilmember Hoffman | for later agenda items, correct? |
| 03:45:54.81 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:45:55.72 | Unknown | No, because no direct action was really taken on those items, from what I understand from Sergio. |
| 03:46:00.07 | Mayor Sobieski | City Attorney, could you just answer Council Member Hoffman's question? What are we doing? |
| 03:46:04.75 | Sergio | David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB |
| 03:46:17.13 | Sergio | The public hearing item with respect to 426 Pine, that will be rescheduled to come back to you for action. |
| 03:46:24.29 | Sergio | The other agenda items, again, will come back to you for action at an appropriate time as determined by staff. |
| 03:46:32.18 | Councilmember Hoffman | So this is, and this is a process issue too. |
| 03:46:38.18 | Councilmember Hoffman | And the reason that I wanted to pull it off is that this is the second time we've had this kind of issue at the council level. |
| 03:46:50.19 | Councilmember Hoffman | for something that was happening during a meeting for which notice was not given to the council members. So we had an issue along these lines on April 11th in 2023 where a motion was added to the calendar |
| 03:47:07.44 | Councilmember Hoffman | I had no notice of that at all. And so, and then on this issue with regard to the failure to |
| 03:47:16.48 | Councilmember Hoffman | go through the motions, if applicable, that we could have gone through, there was a decision not to do that. |
| 03:47:24.09 | Councilmember Hoffman | And so, |
| 03:47:26.00 | Councilmember Hoffman | This is an agendized item. |
| 03:47:29.68 | Councilmember Hoffman | I'm not sure. |
| 03:47:30.64 | Councilmember Hoffman | I think my comments are within the scope of what's in the staff report, what's on the agenda. |
| 03:47:34.84 | Mayor Sobieski | That's right. |
| 03:47:35.67 | Mayor Sobieski | I'm sorry to interrupt, but I'm actually still confused about the facts of this item. And I wanted, can we do the Q&A and then do public comment and then do the discussion just because it's. |
| 03:47:40.44 | Councilmember Hoffman | Q and A. |
| 03:47:42.32 | Councilmember Hoffman | I'm sorry, go ahead. |
| 03:47:44.07 | Councilmember Hoffman | Absolutely. No, no, go ahead. |
| 03:47:45.96 | Mayor Sobieski | I really apologize. I was getting to |
| 03:47:46.69 | Councilmember Hoffman | I was- |
| 03:47:47.84 | Councilmember Hoffman | I was getting to my point, but go ahead. |
| 03:47:48.80 | Mayor Sobieski | But go ahead. Yeah, I know. It feels like there's a Q&A opportunity for Sergio, because I was actually surprised at his answer to that question. |
| 03:47:56.31 | Mayor Sobieski | So is this the only way to cure and correct is actually to rescind all the actions? Yes. By the way, |
| 03:48:02.08 | Sergio | Yes. |
| 03:48:04.07 | Mayor Sobieski | There was an appeal at that meeting. |
| 03:48:06.40 | Sergio | Correct. |
| 03:48:07.26 | Mayor Sobieski | And there was something else at that meeting, but I thought that we didn't actually take a vote. So is it just the appeal that's that issue? |
| 03:48:14.04 | Sergio | So you heard two items and you continued an item to a future meeting, which is actually on this agenda, which is the building RFP. The other item was we received a presentation and the council gave direction to staff regarding the procurement of parametric insurance. |
| 03:48:30.04 | Sergio | which was a thing that his staff are already presently evaluating. |
| 03:48:35.96 | Sergio | And then, of course, the other action item was the appeal on 426 Pine, where you'd be rescinding your prior vote on 426. |
| 03:48:43.41 | Sergio | that agenda item and again, |
| 03:48:45.97 | Sergio | We're working with the applicant to reschedule that. |
| 03:48:48.22 | Mayor Sobieski | That vote was a continuing, continuing the item. |
| 03:48:48.49 | Sergio | Yeah. |
| 03:48:49.02 | Sergio | Yeah. |
| 03:48:51.39 | Mayor Sobieski | to a date uncertain. |
| 03:48:53.02 | Mayor Sobieski | So. |
| 03:48:54.00 | Mayor Sobieski | the only action we took was continuing an item to a date on search. |
| 03:48:57.31 | Sergio | Correct. |
| 03:48:57.77 | Mayor Sobieski | and you would be rescinded. |
| 03:48:57.80 | Sergio | and you were rescinding that action. |
| 03:48:59.79 | Mayor Sobieski | but we still had the hearing, we still heard the facts. |
| 03:49:03.33 | Mayor Sobieski | We don't have to review the hearing. We are just in limbo about the action. And so we could correct consent at the next calendar, which is that we're continuing the item to a date uncertain. That could be a consent item at the next city council meeting. Is that my understanding? |
| 03:49:03.44 | Unknown | Correct. |
| 03:49:03.81 | Sergio | Thank you. |
| 03:49:08.92 | Unknown | Correct. |
| 03:49:19.13 | Mayor Sobieski | That is correct. |
| 03:49:19.30 | Sergio | That is crazy. |
| 03:49:19.65 | Sergio | Right. |
| 03:49:19.70 | Mayor Sobieski | Correct, yes. |
| 03:49:20.93 | Cox | So why did we not put it on for consent at this meeting? I thought that. |
| 03:49:26.37 | Cox | uh |
| 03:49:27.62 | Cox | Correct. |
| 03:49:28.43 | Cox | included ratifying the actions on consent that were taken without properly noticing the participation of one of the council members. |
| 03:49:40.92 | Sergio | So that is one option. The other option is the applicant has requested that the item come back to the city council for a hearing. |
| 03:49:50.23 | Sergio | So we're working to schedule that with the agenda setting committee and the applicant. |
| 03:49:55.21 | Cox | Right, but if we tonight rescind our... |
| 03:50:00.02 | Cox | action to continue the hearing to a date uncertain. Now we have no action that we've taken on that appeal. |
| 03:50:09.30 | Sergio | Yeah, but I mean, you could correct it either by one placing something on the consent calendar at your next meeting. |
| 03:50:15.39 | Sergio | Or alternatively, you know, staff are working to try and schedule that to come back for a decision by the city council at the next meeting. |
| 03:50:23.12 | Cox | but my question is why is this not on our agenda tonight as |
| 03:50:27.19 | Cox | directed by the Agenda Setting Committee, |
| 03:50:29.43 | Cox | for |
| 03:50:30.41 | Cox | the rescission and adoption tonight. |
| 03:50:37.67 | Sergio | I mean, I don't have a clear answer for that. You know, I think being in limbo with respect to your quote unquote decision to continue the meeting, again, since that wasn't exactly |
| 03:50:49.14 | Sergio | a significant action, I don't think that it really makes a significant difference here. |
| 03:50:55.99 | Mayor Sobieski | So the legal path forward here is we take this action, and then on consent at the next meeting, we will have a continuance matter or the appeal matter itself. |
| 03:51:05.68 | Mayor Sobieski | And the same applies to that other matter, the report filing. Is that correct? |
| 03:51:09.69 | Sergio | That's correct. I mean, your other option is you can just vote to approve |
| 03:51:15.45 | Sergio | this resolution that is presented to you with a modification that you are also ratifying |
| 03:51:22.15 | Sergio | your prior action to continue the 426 Pine appeal to a date uncertain. |
| 03:51:28.88 | Mayor Sobieski | We can do that tonight. |
| 03:51:30.20 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 03:51:30.22 | Sergio | Yes, you can. |
| 03:51:31.46 | Mayor Sobieski | maybe someone will make a motion to do that. |
| 03:51:32.92 | Cox | Because this is a cure and correct. Sergio? |
| 03:51:32.95 | Mayor Sobieski | THE FAMILY. |
| 03:51:36.44 | Kieran Culligan | Thank you. |
| 03:51:36.51 | Mayor Sobieski | Yeah. |
| 03:51:36.56 | Karen | Sorry. |
| 03:51:36.69 | Kieran Culligan | Thank you. |
| 03:51:36.80 | Kieran Culligan | Thank you. |
| 03:51:36.97 | Kieran Culligan | Council Member Blasco. |
| 03:51:38.26 | Cox | Thank you. |
| 03:51:38.64 | Unknown | Hey, I just want to like hang a lantern on the issue and have a little bit of discussion back and forth with you to make clear because the Brown Act is really important. I'm happy to see that this is on Kieran Correct. I, in fact, called Sandra Bushmaker to speak with her about this, and I'm happy to see us bring the issue forward and have a discussion about it if need be. Just to clarify and for members of the public, you and I talked about, so at the date of the meeting, I am in residence in a master's program at the Naval Postgraduate School, which is specific for governance and for public servants, and is a training program for things like disaster preparedness. So the understanding at the time when you and I spoke was that it would qualify potentially for one of the just cause, right? Right. |
| 03:51:39.06 | Kieran Culligan | I just wanna like, |
| 03:51:39.43 | Cox | THE FAMILY. |
| 03:52:19.05 | Sergio | Yes, you know, we discussed that it was a potentially qualifying item, but that there were |
| 03:52:25.55 | Sergio | going to be some uncertainties about that particular issue. |
| 03:52:28.52 | Unknown | Sure, and also I will acknowledge, because if you go back and watch the meeting, it's clear that we did not denote that I was joining from a remote location and there wasn't a minor under the age, that we didn't make clear that there were no minors under the age. |
| 03:52:42.44 | Unknown | No adults over the age of 18, I don't remember what |
| 03:52:45.14 | Unknown | No liners under the age of 18 present in the room with me. |
| 03:52:45.16 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 03:52:48.26 | Unknown | Okay, so I just wanted to bring that forward and say that's what happened at the meeting and I appreciate that this is being brought up and going forward because of these discussions |
| 03:52:58.50 | Unknown | when I am in residence in this program, based on the concern that was brought forward, I will either go off campus to a location where I can publicly be accessible for the meeting and notice it and give that notice, not using the just cause clause, or I will drive the three hours back to be here in person in Sausalito from the program. So I just wanted to get your perspective, to make, go over those questions with you and put that out there. So thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you. |
| 03:53:23.97 | Mayor Sobieski | Please, come forward. |
| 03:53:24.56 | Cox | And I wanted to add also that as staff, we implemented a correction to our agenda setting approach, which is that we now have a placeholder on every single agenda in which to identify the remote participation, if any, by any council member, so that that is never overlooked and all of those guidelines are met as part of the agenda setting process for every agenda. |
| 03:53:24.81 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 03:53:24.85 | Mayor Sobieski | I'm not sure. |
| 03:53:24.90 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:53:50.72 | Cox | We have implemented measures to assure these kinds of technical |
| 03:53:56.59 | Cox | Issues do not arise again. |
| 03:53:58.56 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. I did want to honor the Q&A part and then public comment and then discussion for everybody. |
| 03:54:06.44 | Cox | Isn't that right, Sergio? Yes. |
| 03:54:10.22 | Mayor Sobieski | Yes. Okay. I have to follow. And so, and, uh, but I, I also, um, just went into, um, so yes, the council member Hoffman. |
| 03:54:12.97 | Karen | And so. |
| 03:54:21.40 | Councilmember Hoffman | So it's interesting, this section of the Brown Act. So, you know, the cure and correct |
| 03:54:28.35 | Councilmember Hoffman | The cure and correct process is under a different code section. So a cure and correct is, I mean, in some ways, and I think the city manager, I mean, actually, I'm asking the city attorney for this. |
| 03:54:42.57 | Councilmember Hoffman | So, you know, if something's not properly agendized, then there's the cure and correct process, I think, that we just talked about. |
| 03:54:50.71 | Councilmember Hoffman | And that is, we didn't properly agendize it. We're now properly agendizing it. The issue... |
| 03:54:56.02 | Councilmember Hoffman | of violating the section of the Brown Act. |
| 03:54:59.68 | Councilmember Hoffman | where you're appearing, where a member of a body is appearing and you haven't complied with the Brown Act, that's a different analysis. |
| 03:55:10.94 | Councilmember Hoffman | Isn't that right? |
| 03:55:12.41 | Councilmember Hoffman | I mean, that means the vote is void. It's not like you can fix them. They're... |
| 03:55:12.44 | Fred | I mean, no. |
| 03:55:14.09 | Fred | Asshole. |
| 03:55:18.21 | Councilmember Hoffman | A, it's void because you haven't properly convened your panel. |
| 03:55:21.92 | Councilmember Hoffman | And not only is the council member who appears improperly, |
| 03:55:25.45 | Councilmember Hoffman | liable so is everybody else |
| 03:55:27.73 | Councilmember Hoffman | on the panel. |
| 03:55:31.27 | Sergio | Yeah, that is not my understanding, that you cannot cure and correct. |
| 03:55:31.61 | Councilmember Hoffman | That is- |
| 03:55:39.69 | Councilmember Hoffman | Well, the cure and correct is you have to re-agendize it and you have to have the hearing again. |
| 03:55:45.84 | Councilmember Hoffman | Okay, well then. |
| 03:55:46.51 | Mayor Sobieski | PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ens |
| 03:56:02.80 | Sergio | Yeah, no, I mean, I'd like a couple minutes just to, you know, not speak off the cuff on something like this. But... |
| 03:56:10.32 | Karen | And, and, |
| 03:56:10.93 | Sergio | general, you know, the cure and correct process, |
| 03:56:16.04 | Sergio | You know, you have 30 days in which to cure and correct inaction. |
| 03:56:20.74 | Sergio | the manner in which you cure incorrect typically takes by |
| 03:56:24.45 | Sergio | It typically occurs by rescinding the prior action or vote that you take and then... |
| 03:56:30.13 | Sergio | taking whatever action you need to in compliance with the Brown Act to address that issue. |
| 03:56:35.58 | Sergio | So, |
| 03:56:36.82 | Sergio | You know, if you rescind a prior action, |
| 03:56:39.99 | Sergio | and it's the direction of the council not to do anything further, that may actually be enough. |
| 03:56:42.32 | Karen | And it's, you know, |
| 03:56:45.46 | Sergio | You know, |
| 03:56:46.98 | Sergio | you can oftentimes just stop there. |
| 03:56:49.79 | Sergio | Alternatively, you know, you gendize it, you come back and you |
| 03:56:54.22 | Sergio | Uh, you know, |
| 03:56:56.39 | Sergio | Patrick O' Properly cure it by putting it back on the agenda for a subsequent meeting and complying with the brown act when you |
| 03:57:03.28 | Sergio | you know, redo the action. So. |
| 03:57:08.27 | Councilmember Hoffman | So are you saying that there's not a misdemeanor penalty for failing to follow the notice requirements for appearance of the legislative body? |
| 03:57:19.46 | Councilmember Hoffman | Because I'm pretty sure that we discussed that and that that's part of the Brown Act and it has to do with that particular section |
| 03:57:29.38 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:57:29.42 | Sergio | The only criminal penalties that I'm aware of |
| 03:57:29.45 | Councilmember Hoffman | The only criminal. |
| 03:57:33.55 | Sergio | are in 54959. That's right. |
| 03:57:33.70 | Councilmember Hoffman | Uh, |
| 03:57:36.44 | Councilmember Hoffman | That's why I wanted to bring it up because we've, you know, it's not just the, the, |
| 03:57:42.14 | Councilmember Hoffman | the decision of us not to follow the, |
| 03:57:44.79 | Councilmember Hoffman | The appearance requirements for a member |
| 03:57:48.08 | Councilmember Hoffman | of our body |
| 03:57:49.38 | Councilmember Hoffman | It's not just a consequence for that member. It's a consequence for all of us on the panel. If we all appear. |
| 03:57:57.85 | Councilmember Hoffman | and we have a member that's appearing that hasn't complied with the rules under the Brown Act, we're all liable for that. |
| 03:58:04.70 | Councilmember Hoffman | We are all responsible for that. |
| 03:58:06.95 | Councilmember Hoffman | which goes in, that's why I'm surprised now that, that |
| 03:58:11.65 | Sergio | So are you, are you council member Hoffman, are you suggesting that you should be reported at the DA's office? |
| 03:58:17.42 | Councilmember Hoffman | Well, interestingly, when I talked to the FPPC, that's what they said. They said that those types of issues under that section of the Brown Act |
| 03:58:25.19 | Councilmember Hoffman | were actually, it is a misdemeanor, and it is covered by the district attorney, the DOJ, and you can also make a complaint directly to the FPPC. But that was just background, because I was trying to figure out what was going on. |
| 03:58:37.20 | Sergio | Yeah, I mean, I will say that there's a pretty high bar under this for proving a misdemeanor because it requires intent. |
| 03:58:43.75 | Sergio | It requires proving an intent to deprive the public of information, which I think is very difficult to prove with respect to a council member. |
| 03:58:51.31 | Sergio | appearing actually in public, at least via Zoom. |
| 03:58:55.12 | Sergio | I mean, there's no deprivation of information there. |
| 03:59:00.83 | Councilmember Hoffman | Okay. I think we have a different, I think we have a different, I mean, the research that I've done on this and what we've discussed is that there is a difference. That is absolutely true. |
| 03:59:10.18 | Sergio | You and I have never discussed this provision. |
| 03:59:12.52 | Sergio | to my knowledge. |
| 03:59:14.01 | Sergio | except for right now. |
| 03:59:15.00 | Councilmember Hoffman | turning ahead. Uh, yeah, we did discuss this because I said, why is council member blasting appearing and we haven't noticed it? |
| 03:59:21.94 | Councilmember Hoffman | And we didn't go through the analysis. |
| 03:59:25.36 | Councilmember Hoffman | at our meeting. And that's part of my issue, right? |
| 03:59:29.50 | Councilmember Hoffman | When we have things that come up, |
| 03:59:33.36 | Councilmember Hoffman | And- |
| 03:59:34.36 | Councilmember Hoffman | Look, no one's perfect all the time. Like, let me just obviously... |
| 03:59:38.71 | Councilmember Hoffman | very clearly and obviously acknowledge that. |
| 03:59:41.77 | Councilmember Hoffman | But when we have, so this is a second time, right? So April 11th, we had a motion added to the, |
| 03:59:48.99 | Councilmember Hoffman | added to our calendar out of order. |
| 03:59:51.69 | Councilmember Hoffman | We all voted on it, but then we had an objection to it later. It was like, yeah, we did violate the Brown Act on that. |
| 03:59:56.90 | Councilmember Hoffman | But I didn't know about that beforehand. I didn't know there was gonna be emotion |
| 04:00:00.97 | Councilmember Hoffman | that was gonna be introduced directly relevant to some issues that were, you know, |
| 04:00:07.25 | Councilmember Hoffman | as part, not particularly called out, but what I suspected was |
| 04:00:11.28 | Councilmember Hoffman | going to be the subject of some action later. |
| 04:00:13.64 | Councilmember Hoffman | in that meeting. |
| 04:00:14.98 | Councilmember Hoffman | But I wasn't informed of that. And I was accused of being part of that collusion |
| 04:00:19.80 | Councilmember Hoffman | by a member of the public. And I had no idea that that was going to happen. |
| 04:00:24.31 | Councilmember Hoffman | So, and then, you know, I'm sitting on a Zoom meeting on... |
| 04:00:28.48 | Councilmember Hoffman | whatever it was, January 22nd, |
| 04:00:31.41 | Councilmember Hoffman | I'm sorry. I was here in person. |
| 04:00:33.67 | Councilmember Hoffman | Council Member Blousey appears on Zoom. I didn't have any notice of that. Certainly no one called me aside and said, hey, we've got this issue. You know, we didn't properly notice it, that she was going to appear, you know, remotely with the proper notice under 72 hours that we're all familiar with that we have to do. Nor did we go down the analysis of, |
| 04:00:56.64 | Councilmember Hoffman | you know, here's how she might |
| 04:00:59.00 | Councilmember Hoffman | you know, qualify under this exception, but there's a question about that, right? We should have been briefed on that as a council, as a body. And my point being, we're all responsible for what happens at this body. And if something like that comes up, |
| 04:01:13.31 | Councilmember Hoffman | We should be briefed on that. Certainly on, you and I did talk about this because I was confused about what had happened and whether or not the just cause happened. |
| 04:01:24.96 | Councilmember Hoffman | you know |
| 04:01:26.38 | Councilmember Hoffman | under that particular section, that new exception to the Brown Act actually applied. My opinion was that it didn't. |
| 04:01:32.32 | Cox | Given her comments, I would like to make some comments. |
| 04:01:34.04 | Councilmember Hoffman | comments as well. |
| 04:01:34.81 | Cox | you |
| 04:01:34.96 | Councilmember Hoffman | Well, it's not asking questions. |
| 04:01:36.67 | Mayor Sobieski | We, we, |
| 04:01:37.31 | Councilmember Hoffman | Well- |
| 04:01:38.25 | Councilmember Hoffman | Our city attorney said we never discussed it. We absolutely discussed it. |
| 04:01:40.62 | Mayor Sobieski | We do need to take public comment on this matter. Typically, we do the Q&A, take public comment, then we have a discussion. So I see we have no more questions. Let's have the public comment on this matter. Any public comment here in the audience? Ms. McDougall. |
| 04:02:04.43 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you for acknowledging me. So yes, this is not the first time we have thrown our meetings off the rails in terms of legality. And I think we see at this point that the city attorney has a certain job to do. |
| 04:02:19.26 | Unknown | And it is not to be the parliamentarian. |
| 04:02:22.06 | Unknown | And so I've put in my written comment to you all that it's really time to revisit bringing back the parliamentarian. |
| 04:02:29.22 | Unknown | I'm not sure who decided to disband the parliamentarian, but there was one. |
| 04:02:33.92 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:02:34.16 | Unknown | attached to this body at a certain point. |
| 04:02:36.88 | Unknown | And I would like to encourage you |
| 04:02:39.17 | Unknown | to think seriously about that. Now we use a parliamentary at the Sausalito Women's Club, for example. Thank you for acknowledging me. Thank you for saying the Pledge of Allegiance. This is not the first time we have thrown our meetings off the rails in terms of legality. |
| 04:02:43.75 | Unknown | Thank you for acknowledging me. |
| 04:02:45.50 | Unknown | No. |
| 04:02:45.62 | Karen | Yeah. |
| 04:02:45.84 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 04:02:51.71 | Unknown | And I think we see at this point that this. |
| 04:02:55.27 | Unknown | Thank you very much, Walford. |
| 04:03:00.15 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 04:03:01.57 | Unknown | Okay, I get to hear myself. |
| 04:03:02.82 | Mayor Sobieski | Please go ahead, Ms. McDougal. |
| 04:03:04.47 | Unknown | Thank you. All right. Well, I think we made the point that we should seriously consider the wisdom of having a parliamentarian. |
| 04:03:11.89 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 04:03:12.50 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 04:03:13.31 | Mayor Sobieski | Any other public comment in Chambers? |
| 04:03:15.44 | Mayor Sobieski | We have a public comment on Zoom, city clerk. |
| 04:03:17.80 | Mayor Sobieski | We have Senator Bushmaker. Ms. Bushmaker, please go right ahead. |
| 04:03:25.17 | Mayor Sobieski | You're still muted. |
| 04:03:27.89 | Sandra Bushmaker | Okay, since I'm the one that wrote the letter about this particular issue, I just want to say that I'm relieved that the council is wrestling with this. It's about time. |
| 04:03:37.68 | Sandra Bushmaker | Um, |
| 04:03:38.96 | Sandra Bushmaker | that |
| 04:03:39.86 | Sandra Bushmaker | While your action to rescind the actions of 122-24 meeting was appropriate to cure the agenda matters, |
| 04:03:49.04 | Sandra Bushmaker | It does not address or cure the improper appearance by counsel |
| 04:03:52.72 | Sandra Bushmaker | by Zoom under the Brown Act requirements. All that needed to happen was for her to post on the agenda as a |
| 04:04:02.49 | Sandra Bushmaker | Councilmember Kielman did recently that she was appearing by Zoom. |
| 04:04:06.97 | Sandra Bushmaker | This whole matter would have been resolved right then and there. |
| 04:04:10.99 | Sandra Bushmaker | Absent that, |
| 04:04:12.68 | Sandra Bushmaker | My reading of the Brown Act states that there has to be just cause or an emergency, which is defined in the Brown Act itself, and then requires |
| 04:04:22.80 | Sandra Bushmaker | a deliberation amongst the council members of whether or not to accept the appearance by Zoom. |
| 04:04:30.02 | Sandra Bushmaker | In addition, I did find that code section that Sergio just referred to, government code section 5495.9. |
| 04:04:40.86 | Sandra Bushmaker | which states that each member |
| 04:04:43.66 | Sandra Bushmaker | Uh, |
| 04:04:44.93 | Sandra Bushmaker | of a legislative body who attends a meeting of that legislative body where action taken in violation of any provision of this chapter and where the member intends to deprive the public of information |
| 04:04:56.42 | Sandra Bushmaker | to which the member knows or has reason to know |
| 04:05:00.10 | Sandra Bushmaker | The public is entitled under this chapter, is guilty of a misdemeanor. |
| 04:05:05.78 | Sandra Bushmaker | So there are serious consequences. |
| 04:05:08.11 | Sandra Bushmaker | Hope. |
| 04:05:08.70 | Sandra Bushmaker | And I'm pleased to hear that |
| 04:05:11.00 | Sandra Bushmaker | Actions have been taken to remedy this situation in the future. |
| 04:05:15.25 | Sandra Bushmaker | And I think it's really important because you're exposing yourselves |
| 04:05:19.15 | Sandra Bushmaker | to liability and the city to liability for continued violations of the Brown Act. |
| 04:05:24.90 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you for your consideration on this. |
| 04:05:27.75 | Sandra Bushmaker | Appreciate it. |
| 04:05:32.29 | Babette McDougall | We have Kieran Culligan. |
| 04:05:40.72 | Kieran Culligan | Hey there. I hate to spend any more time on this, but here I am. You know, just one thing I want to acknowledge, like this could have been done with an email that wasn't a cure incorrect that said, hey, it looks like something wasn't up to snuff here. Could you clean it up next time if it comes in the future? We could have then not had to have done the cure incorrect and losing the whole meeting, all of New York City Council time, all of the staff time. I greatly appreciate our council's advice but it is costly and I can only imagine how many hours went into writing the staff report and being in the meeting now and answering these questions so I would hope that like if we are cautious about our city's budget like we just burned through a good couple percentage points of the PBID budget they were just looking at just on this issue that could have been totally avoided if we thought about it as like a true civil let's work on this together so hopefully we can do better. |
| 04:06:33.06 | Babette McDougall | All right, Ron Elberts. |
| 04:06:39.41 | Ron Albert | Okay, can you hear me? |
| 04:06:39.42 | Mayor Sobieski | Okay, can you hear me? |
| 04:06:41.41 | Mayor Sobieski | Yes, we can, Mr. Albert. |
| 04:06:42.95 | Ron Albert | OK. |
| 04:06:43.84 | Ron Albert | Um, |
| 04:06:46.48 | Ron Albert | I can't believe how much time you've just spent on this. |
| 04:06:49.77 | Ron Albert | Um, |
| 04:06:50.36 | Ron Albert | One of the previous speakers read the code |
| 04:06:52.84 | Ron Albert | And she confirmed what your city attorney stated, which |
| 04:06:56.47 | Ron Albert | or everything that |
| 04:06:58.17 | Ron Albert | there's a requirement that there be an intent |
| 04:07:00.97 | Ron Albert | to deprive the public of the opportunity to participate. There's no intent here. This is insane that you're spending this much time on this. Please listen to your city attorney. That's all. |
| 04:07:17.04 | Mayor Sobieski | Speaker. |
| 04:07:17.27 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. |
| 04:07:17.34 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 04:07:18.08 | Babette McDougall | Stephen Woodside. |
| 04:07:25.09 | Ron Albert | I can't believe how much time you've just spent on this. |
| 04:07:28.39 | Ron Albert | One of the previous speakers read the code and she confirmed what your city attorney stated, which |
| 04:07:36.83 | Ron Albert | There's a requirement that there be an intent to deprive the public of the opportunity to participate. There's no intent here. This, this is insane. Spending this much time on this. Please listen to your city attorney. That's all. |
| 04:07:55.53 | Woodside | I understand. He just needs to. |
| 04:07:57.18 | Ron Albert | Stephen Woodside. |
| 04:07:58.06 | Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:07:58.25 | Woodside | on the TV. |
| 04:08:03.75 | Ron Albert | I can't believe how much time you've just spent on this. |
| 04:08:07.09 | Ron Albert | One of the previous speakers read the code and she confirmed what your city attorney |
| 04:08:13.89 | Mayor Sobieski | We'll get him. We will get him. |
| 04:08:15.86 | Mayor Sobieski | Would you please unmute Mr. Woodside? |
| 04:08:19.14 | Babette McDougall | See where he's at. |
| 04:08:19.85 | Mayor Sobieski | just |
| 04:08:20.57 | Mayor Sobieski | Lucinda Eubanks. |
| 04:08:20.60 | Babette McDougall | Yeah. |
| 04:08:22.73 | Mayor Sobieski | Did he hang up? |
| 04:08:29.72 | Babette McDougall | Are you able to? Mr. Woodside? |
| 04:08:29.80 | Woodside | a piece of music. |
| 04:08:30.17 | Mayor Sobieski | But... |
| 04:08:34.81 | Woodside | And he just needs to. |
| 04:08:35.84 | Stephen Woodside | Stephen Woodson. Hi, I don't know if you can hear me. Yes, please go right ahead. |
| 04:08:39.15 | Woodside | Yes, we can. |
| 04:08:40.87 | Stephen Woodside | Thank you. I think your city attorney is correct. |
| 04:08:42.59 | Ron Albert | Exactly how much time you've just spent on us. |
| 04:08:45.78 | Ron Albert | Um, |
| 04:08:46.41 | Ron Albert | One of the previous speakers read |
| 04:08:51.03 | Ron Albert | to be able to do that. |
| 04:08:51.10 | Ron Albert | Thank you. |
| 04:08:52.62 | Mayor Sobieski | We look at him. |
| 04:08:54.03 | Stephen Woodside | Sorry. |
| 04:08:54.86 | Mayor Sobieski | who's unmute Mr. Woodside. |
| 04:08:56.01 | Stephen Woodside | Your city attorney is correct. |
| 04:08:56.03 | Mayor Sobieski | of your- |
| 04:08:58.90 | Stephen Woodside | Um, member Hoffman, you're wrong. You're being obstructionist, disruptive, wasting time. I'm sorry to say it. I used to support you. I'm very disappointed. |
| 04:08:59.38 | Mayor Sobieski | who said the... |
| 04:09:08.43 | Woodside | I support you. |
| 04:09:13.48 | Woodside | And he just needs to. |
| 04:09:14.52 | Stephen Woodside | Stick with me. |
| 04:09:15.68 | Stephen Woodside | Hi, I don't know if you can hear me. |
| 04:09:17.81 | Stephen Woodside | Please go right ahead. |
| 04:09:17.96 | Woodside | Thank you. |
| 04:09:19.57 | Stephen Woodside | Thank you. I think your city attorney. |
| 04:09:21.61 | Ron Albert | Exactly. How much time did you just spend on that? |
| 04:09:32.71 | Stephen Woodside | Sorry Mr. Woodside. Your city attorney is correct. |
| 04:09:37.64 | Stephen Woodside | Um, member Hoffman, you're wrong. You're being obstructionist, disruptive, wasting time. I'm sorry to say it. |
| 04:09:46.89 | Stephen Woodside | I need to support you. I'm very disappointed. |
| 04:09:52.15 | Woodside | And he just needs to. |
| 04:09:53.20 | Stephen Woodside | It's been a little bit. |
| 04:09:54.43 | Stephen Woodside | Hi, I don't know if you can hear me. |
| 04:09:56.37 | Woodside | Can you not |
| 04:09:57.06 | Stephen Woodside | Go right ahead. |
| 04:09:58.16 | Woodside | ATTACK. |
| 04:09:58.23 | Stephen Woodside | Thank you. I think your city. |
| 04:10:10.43 | Babette McDougall | I don't think it's Granicus. No, it shouldn't be. Granicus has no sound. |
| 04:10:19.71 | Cox | Is there any other public comment, Walford? |
| 04:10:22.09 | Babette McDougall | Yeah, we have Vicki Nichols. |
| 04:10:24.32 | Mayor Sobieski | We don't have to wait. |
| 04:10:26.17 | Cox | We don't have to wait. |
| 04:10:26.78 | Babette McDougall | No. |
| 04:10:27.30 | Cox | Yep, she said. |
| 04:10:28.50 | Mayor Sobieski | She's okay? Yep. |
| 04:10:29.99 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 04:10:32.13 | Cox | Nope. |
| 04:10:32.80 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. |
| 04:10:32.82 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 04:10:33.85 | Unknown | We can. |
| 04:10:34.04 | Babette McDougall | Mickey Nichols? |
| 04:10:34.22 | Vicki Nichols | I'm sorry. |
| 04:10:34.96 | Unknown | Is that right? |
| 04:10:35.07 | Babette McDougall | Okay, I wasn't able to unmute. This is... |
| 04:10:35.07 | Vicki Nichols | Okay, I wasn't able to unmute. This is... |
| 04:10:37.95 | Babette McDougall | Go ahead. |
| 04:10:40.38 | Vicki Nichols | Bye. |
| 04:10:41.14 | Vicki Nichols | I've never seen anything like this happen before. |
| 04:10:44.57 | Vicki Nichols | But I do agree that these kinds of things, regardless of the other comments, are agendized and they do deserve to be discussed in public. What I'm more concerned about is this recording thing. These are supposed to be the records of these meetings. And this is just... |
| 04:11:04.51 | Vicki Nichols | you had one or two speakers |
| 04:11:07.15 | Vicki Nichols | being repeated. Maybe it's just a gaffe. |
| 04:11:10.03 | Vicki Nichols | But I hope this is not the way the recording goes forward for this meeting. |
| 04:11:14.33 | Vicki Nichols | And I wonder if there could be any... |
| 04:11:17.79 | Vicki Nichols | maybe retraining or something. This is, uh, |
| 04:11:21.18 | Vicki Nichols | embarrassing, really. And I'm sorry that |
| 04:11:24.59 | Vicki Nichols | One of the council members was called out like that. Any one of you I think is unnecessary and bad form. Thank you. |
| 04:11:34.19 | Babette McDougall | No, for the public. Actually, no, we have one from Fred. |
| 04:11:34.31 | Karen | I don't know. |
| 04:11:34.48 | Charles Melton | but |
| 04:11:41.32 | Babette McDougall | Uh... |
| 04:11:45.00 | Babette McDougall | All right. Um, |
| 04:11:47.32 | Babette McDougall | Yeah. |
| 04:11:47.93 | Fred | Yeah, I'm sorry. It took a while to unmute. And I guess I apologize for the late comments, but I appreciate all the work that you do. And to reiterate, I just find it hard to believe that any of you have conspired with any intent to deprive anybody of participating, etc. So I appreciate all the work that you do and all the hard work. And I am sorry also that someone was called out there unjustifiably. So thank you again for your work. |
| 04:12:16.62 | Mayor Sobieski | Any other public comment? |
| 04:12:18.76 | Mayor Sobieski | Mayor Mrakas, We'll close public comment and is there any motion discussion emotion. |
| 04:12:27.22 | Cox | Yes, I had discussion and I also wanted to ask the city attorney a question. So, city attorney, are we able to amend our resolution to cure and correct, or must we only do what you drafted, which is direct staff to cure? |
| 04:12:44.09 | Cox | correct. |
| 04:12:45.53 | Sergio | I would suggest that we direct staff to correct, because the best way to ensure compliance with the Brown Act is to have |
| 04:12:53.81 | Sergio | any actions to ratify be their own agenda item. |
| 04:12:57.51 | Cox | Okay. |
| 04:12:58.81 | Cox | Um, |
| 04:13:01.24 | Cox | Then I'll make brief comments and then I'll make a motion. So I, too, take umbrage at any one of us, pointing a finger at any other of the one of us, because every one of us up here has made a mistake at one time or another, myself included. I know that's hard to believe. And so I really think we have a duty to one another to work collaboratively and agree to disagree where we disagree, but not target one another. It's just counterproductive. I also do agree with the comments of Ron Albert, the city attorney, Steven Woodside, that Government Code section 54959 requires an intent to deprive the public of information or the opportunity to participate. |
| 04:13:46.11 | Cox | That is something none of us did. |
| 04:13:48.86 | Cox | Further, another section of the government code requires that prior to any action being commenced by an interested party, by the district attorney, or by anyone else, the district attorney or interested person, quote, shall make a demand of the legislative body to cure or correct the action required to have been taken in violation of the government code statutes. The demand shall be in writing and clearly describe the challenged action of the legislative body and nature of the alleged violation. I, for one, have not yet received any such demand from the district attorney, and so I am... |
| 04:14:22.02 | Cox | will sleep well tonight, not worrying that an impending arrest is imminent. |
| 04:14:29.59 | Cox | And so with that, I move that we adopt a resolution of the Sausalito City Council, curing and correcting under the Brown Act by rescinding prior actions made at the January 22, 2024 City Council meeting. |
| 04:14:44.41 | Cox | and giving staff direction to correct. |
| 04:14:49.64 | Cox | I'm waiting for a second and then we can have a discussion. |
| 04:14:51.94 | Cox | Thank you. |
| 04:14:52.00 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:14:52.02 | Cox | Thank you. |
| 04:14:52.04 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:14:52.07 | Cox | Okay. |
| 04:14:52.17 | Councilmember Hoffman | you |
| 04:14:52.46 | Mayor Sobieski | Second. |
| 04:14:54.05 | Councilmember Hoffman | Okay, so let me clarify. |
| 04:15:00.02 | Councilmember Hoffman | we can go through the process to correct the issues at that meeting. |
| 04:15:07.29 | Councilmember Hoffman | But it's a different issue. |
| 04:15:10.68 | Councilmember Hoffman | It would have been the same if it was, I think, |
| 04:15:13.91 | Councilmember Hoffman | My problem is the process. My problem is that |
| 04:15:18.26 | Councilmember Hoffman | and something and why I pulled this to specifically discuss it is that things are happening |
| 04:15:24.89 | Councilmember Hoffman | that the council's not informed of. |
| 04:15:26.80 | Councilmember Hoffman | and they're happening that have resulted in violations of the Brown Act. And so it's a process request of when the mayor, the vice mayor, somebody knows, |
| 04:15:38.58 | Councilmember Hoffman | that |
| 04:15:40.10 | Councilmember Hoffman | another council member is going to take an action |
| 04:15:42.63 | Councilmember Hoffman | that may subject us to a violation of the Brown Act, |
| 04:15:45.48 | Councilmember Hoffman | We should all be informed of that. |
| 04:15:47.69 | Councilmember Hoffman | And I think. |
| 04:15:49.33 | Councilmember Hoffman | And the point is that... |
| 04:15:52.20 | Councilmember Hoffman | This is just a process. |
| 04:15:54.68 | Councilmember Hoffman | Like I said, like I make mistakes too, right? Like all of us do. |
| 04:15:58.32 | Councilmember Hoffman | But the point is that we want to, as a council, |
| 04:16:02.31 | Councilmember Hoffman | my point is actually not to attack any person |
| 04:16:06.05 | Councilmember Hoffman | But. |
| 04:16:08.14 | Councilmember Hoffman | that |
| 04:16:09.59 | Councilmember Hoffman | we've, |
| 04:16:10.20 | Councilmember Hoffman | had to do this twice now. |
| 04:16:12.08 | Councilmember Hoffman | And we need to come up with a policy |
| 04:16:15.15 | Councilmember Hoffman | of the council, this is one of the only times we're all five together. |
| 04:16:19.15 | Councilmember Hoffman | of how we're going to address this in clear direction to our city manager and our city attorney and whoever's sitting as the mayor and the vice mayor at the time. This is how we're going to address this. If we're veering into a violation of the Brown Act, we need to pause, I think, and talk about it as a council because we're all responsible for it. So that's really the purpose, and we kind of digressed down a rabbit hole that I didn't mean to go down because this is what I meant to talk about. And I would just like to get to a way of motion on the table, but also as a policy direction and an agreement of the council is going forward, when these things come up, we're going to all be informed of this. Okay. |
| 04:17:00.25 | Mayor Sobieski | Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 04:17:00.93 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:17:00.95 | Mayor Sobieski | Yeah. Maybe there's a fact that isn't known. Sorry, the hour is late, but the... |
| 04:17:09.69 | Mayor Sobieski | This was a Monday meeting, I think. |
| 04:17:11.42 | Councilmember Hoffman | Right, it was a special meeting. |
| 04:17:12.34 | Mayor Sobieski | And it was very difficult to schedule that meeting. I just want to let you know, if you don't know, that I asked our city attorney if Councilmember Gloucester can attend. |
| 04:17:21.30 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 04:17:21.60 | Mayor Sobieski | under this emergency measure, and I was told yes. And so I thought it was all fine. |
| 04:17:27.19 | Mayor Sobieski | So I agree with you that it should be informed. |
| 04:17:30.36 | Mayor Sobieski | The information I had is it was fine. |
| 04:17:32.79 | Mayor Sobieski | I didn't know you were supposed to say that there was no one under the age of 18. So I'm sorry that I didn't catch that. None of us caught that, I guess, not knowing this provision. But city attorney, do I misremember that? |
| 04:17:46.44 | Mayor Sobieski | And I'm just trying to help with, if I'm wrong, tell me. But my vague recollection was that we talked about this and that what I just said is true. |
| 04:17:59.28 | Mayor Sobieski | This is... |
| 04:18:00.23 | Mayor Sobieski | one quick. |
| 04:18:01.92 | Sergio | So, one, it's you have to announce if there's any adults in the room with you, not whether or not they're minor children. |
| 04:18:10.44 | Sergio | I don't exactly remember whether we had a discussion or exactly what the details were of it at this point. But I think you're probably right that we did discuss it at some point. |
| 04:18:21.90 | Mayor Sobieski | I apologize, but I do remember discussing it. It was very hard to schedule that meeting. Everyone, we were trying to accommodate it. |
| 04:18:27.99 | Mayor Sobieski | Uh, |
| 04:18:29.57 | Mayor Sobieski | And we all want to aspire for perfect process. So that was an admission. Anyway, just wanted to let you know that. |
| 04:18:37.17 | Councilmember Hoffman | But here's the issue. The issue is we didn't go through the procedures. And as the city attorney said earlier, there's a question about whether or not the just cause provision under this section applied. So the decision at some point was to go forward. We hadn't properly noticed it on the agenda, as we all know how we do. |
| 04:19:00.29 | Councilmember Hoffman | Councilmember Blousey has used this provision in the past. So she knew the process, I knew the process, we all know the process. |
| 04:19:07.49 | Councilmember Hoffman | But somewhere there was a decision not to follow that process. |
| 04:19:11.39 | Cox | There was not a decision not to follow the process. There was a mistake made by staff. |
| 04:19:16.59 | Cox | This was not properly agendized, and we have been |
| 04:19:20.67 | Cox | we have implemented a correction to be sure that never happens again. |
| 04:19:24.84 | Cox | and to be sure that when there is a just cause exception, that we will vote on it as a council. That was left inadvertently omitted from the agenda for that special meeting. |
| 04:19:36.18 | Councilmember Hoffman | I don't think you don't have to vote on a just cause. You don't vote on that section of the Brown Act. Under that emergency section, if it's one of the other ones, if it's the family medical... |
| 04:19:36.53 | Cox | Thanks. |
| 04:19:48.21 | Councilmember Hoffman | or something else, then yeah, you vote on it. But if it's just cause, |
| 04:19:51.45 | Cox | In any event, this was not an issue of the making of any of those of us sitting at the |
| 04:19:58.64 | Cox | And this was an improper |
| 04:20:00.99 | Cox | Melissa Blaustein does not type up the agenda, nor do I, nor does anybody here. |
| 04:20:06.67 | Cox | that was that's performed by staff and I frankly I think we've pulled out and embarrassed our staff adequately to where |
| 04:20:14.54 | Cox | careful attention will be paid in the future regarding these types of issues. |
| 04:20:19.21 | Councilmember Hoffman | Okay, so I think it's clear now to me. So it wasn't, because all, anyway, she appeared on Zoom, and it was just a fumble. |
| 04:20:28.61 | Councilmember Hoffman | All of us, a fumble? |
| 04:20:31.16 | Councilmember Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:20:31.58 | Councilmember Hoffman | to the attorney? I mean, I'm a... I was like, |
| 04:20:34.33 | Sergio | And I'll take responsibility for it. Yeah, no, I mean... |
| 04:20:36.91 | Councilmember Hoffman | Well, I'm just looking for the facts and the truth, right? So- |
| 04:20:37.49 | Sergio | Yeah. |
| 04:20:42.55 | Councilmember Hoffman | Anyway, I guess I don't want to believe or more. I mean, it seemed to me that there was a decision to move forward not to comply with either section of the Brown Act because we could have. And city attorney, I wasn't aware there was an issue. |
| 04:20:57.97 | Cox | until I received a letter |
| 04:20:59.03 | Unknown | Letter from Sandra Bushmaker. |
| 04:21:01.18 | Unknown | Can I just... |
| 04:21:01.89 | Unknown | say one thing about the process of this. So I'm in this great master's program, which is for public servants. You have to be working for a government to be a part of this program. I've learned a lot about |
| 04:21:12.72 | Unknown | disaster preparedness, how we better equip our community. That's why I pushed to put disaster preparedness drills on our agenda going forward. I learned a lot about how our national security infrastructure works and how it better can serve our community. And so that's why the understanding and the conversation that I had had with our city attorney was that |
| 04:21:29.44 | Unknown | given that this was for city business and that is a program that is only open to city employees and in fact it's on a naval base which is why i could not use a just posting of the location because it's not a public location so you can't no one can just enter and in advance of a special meeting i had said in fact in my conversations with the mayor i'm very happy to accommodate a special meeting but i need you to know that these two weeks I am in residence and I will not be able to post the meeting as a remote standard practice if we get approval from the city attorney that this can work as just cause then I'll appear that way and we had a conversation and it really was just I think a fumble of not including it I can say with with |
| 04:22:10.32 | Unknown | total certainty that I had no intent whatsoever of not including or welcoming the public into any aspect of the meeting and that I make mistakes and that we all make mistakes. And so I take the Brown Act very seriously. As I've said, I'm happy to have a number of conversations about best practices for transparency going forward. I'm happy to work together on how we might address this going forward. I have no problem with any of that. I do just want us to be able to get through this meeting because it is |
| 04:22:36.67 | Unknown | 11.32 PM. So whatever needs to happen so that we all feel good about our process, but I want to honor that these changes have been made by the agenda setting committee, that this has been brought forth by a member of a public. So we're having a conversation about it. |
| 04:22:49.19 | Unknown | And, you know, just again, hang a lantern on the issue and explain |
| 04:22:53.16 | Unknown | what happened, how we got there, and that I had there was no intent to conceal anything from the public. So again, I really wish that we had said |
| 04:23:03.52 | Unknown | There was no one over the age of 18 with me in the room, of which at this, now you can all know, there was no one over the age of 18 with me in my sad dorm room at the Naval Postgraduate School. So, anyway. |
| 04:23:14.51 | Cox | With that, Mr. Mayor, I call the question. Okay. |
| 04:23:16.68 | Mayor Sobieski | questions called. |
| 04:23:17.92 | Mayor Sobieski | All in favor of the motion that's been duly seconded, say aye. Aye. Opposed, the motion carries unanimously. Moving on to item 5C, authorization to close Tracy Way for the 2024 season. Staff report from our chief of police. |
| 04:23:21.44 | Cox | Bye. |
| 04:23:21.98 | Sharna Brockett | Thank you. |
| 04:23:33.56 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 04:23:35.97 | Mayor Sobieski | Good evening. |
| 04:23:38.07 | Sam | almost good morning. |
| 04:23:40.39 | Mayor Sobieski | Don't make it so, please. |
| 04:23:42.25 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 04:23:42.27 | Sam | Sam. |
| 04:23:45.47 | Sam | Uh, good evening, mayor and council members. I'm here tonight to talk about the bike season that's, uh, upon us. I'm going to ask authorization to close Tracy way tonight and also authorization for the police department to actually manage the bicycle operation. Um, and that would entail hiring part-time seasonal staff, uh, under our umbrella as well. Now previously the city council has asked us to put out an RFP for this season. Um, |
| 04:24:16.08 | Sam | South Slido Bike Return has been our contractor for the last six years. They are unable to continue that service. Knowing post-pandemic numbers, I don't think it would be, I don't think anybody would reply to an RFP anyway. I don't think there's numbers to support it. And so that's, you know, the reason that we're proposing to manage the service ourself. The season will start in mid-March, end of March, around spring break, run through October. The staffing schedule will be flexible. Based on the demand, we can increase and decrease as needed. |
| 04:24:56.38 | Sam | A little history. Total bikes parked last year, 2023, was only 10,540 bikes. And that was from April 7th to October 9th. To give a little comparison, in July of 2019, we parked and returned, just in July, 11,614 bikes. |
| 04:25:17.21 | Sam | The entire season for 2019, which is our last normal season, we parked and or returned 50 over 54,000 bikes. And I only share those numbers to put it in perspective as to why we're here and why we're talking about bike parking because of those numbers. |
| 04:25:34.49 | Sam | So it's unclear what the season, this season will bring. Certainly not going to be 2019 numbers. I'm assuming that it's going to be similar to what we had last year, which is low numbers. Jeff Sears, one of the owners and operators of Blazing Saddles, which is the biggest rental company that comes into town, is here tonight. He agrees with that projection that the numbers are going to remain low. |
| 04:26:01.05 | Sam | Um, so, um, let's see. |
| 04:26:05.37 | Sam | I'm guesstimating that our total employee cost for this season will be in between 20 to $35,000. That's pretty consistent with what we've paid sauce little bike return for the last five, six years. The staff that will be hired will make between 20 and $25 an hour. Um, and then it's hard to also per predict revenue because it's based on, you know, the numbers when they come. |
| 04:26:34.95 | Sam | So the operation will function identical to last year. We're proposing $5 a bike using the square system. We're hiring some of the people that have worked down there. Some of them for the entire time South Slido Bike Return has managed the parking. So they'll continue to take payment. They'll act as ambassadors for the city and answer questions for visitors as needed. And so that's our proposal. |
| 04:27:00.25 | Sam | Any questions for me? |
| 04:27:05.86 | Mayor Sobieski | Chief. No questions for the Chief. We will go to public comment. |
| 04:27:10.28 | Mayor Sobieski | Any public comment on this matter? |
| 04:27:20.46 | Jeff Sears | Jeff Sears, Blazing Saddles. Guys have had a long evening. Congratulations, almost through it. I'll make it really quick. Well, it's been about 10 years since the late Herbie Wiener spearheaded this program to get the bike program under control so that it could relieve congestion both on the streets and the sidewalk. I think it's done a pretty good job over the years. |
| 04:27:21.29 | Unknown | saddles. |
| 04:27:47.98 | Jeff Sears | Definitely improvement. However, since post-COVID, numbers have decreased significantly, as the chief just mentioned. I really noticed last year a lot and had some feedback from customers that a couple of things I wanted to share with you. First of all, my observation, maybe yours too, that even though there was a lot less traffic, it seemed that there were quite a few... |
| 04:28:13.19 | Jeff Sears | Bikers that were discouraged from paying $5, that price was a little bit over the sweet spot for many people that we had feedback from. And I think that actually was detrimental to what the goal was and caused more congestion on the sidewalk unnecessarily by having the price at a point where it wasn't attractive enough and people chose to not take that and wound up blocking the sidewalk unnecessarily. So one of the things I'd like to recommend would be to lower the price to $3, something that might be more attractive. I think the volume that you will able able to gain on that, you'll come up with a higher amount of, uh, |
| 04:29:03.01 | Jeff Sears | a volume of revenue generated for the season |
| 04:29:05.76 | Jeff Sears | And I think that will be really good. And I think that the most important thing, you're going to achieve the goal of having visitors enjoy the downtown historic district, patronizing both the shops and the restaurants |
| 04:29:22.37 | Jeff Sears | And I hope that you take that into consideration. Last thing is really quickly, a way for, |
| 04:29:30.21 | Mayor Sobieski | Okay. |
| 04:29:30.55 | Jeff Sears | Thank you. |
| 04:29:30.80 | Mayor Sobieski | I appreciate it. Thank you. |
| 04:29:31.16 | Jeff Sears | Thank you. |
| 04:29:33.71 | Babette McDougall | So we're good. |
| 04:29:34.55 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. |
| 04:29:34.57 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 04:29:34.60 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 04:29:34.80 | Mayor Sobieski | Any other public comment? |
| 04:29:36.14 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 04:29:36.88 | Babette McDougall | See you, man. |
| 04:29:37.77 | Mayor Sobieski | All right, we'll have a discussion on the dice, please. |
| 04:29:40.17 | Cox | I will go ahead and make a motion that we approve the resolution of the City Council of the City of Sausalito authorizing the temporary closure of Tracy Way and Sausalito for bicycle parking from March 1, |
| 04:29:54.34 | Cox | through October 31, |
| 04:29:56.25 | Cox | 2024 and authorize the police department to manage the bicycle parking operation and staff along the lines described by the police chief. |
| 04:30:06.21 | Mayor Sobieski | Motion is made in second. Is there any discussion? |
| 04:30:10.00 | Mayor Sobieski | All in favor, say aye. |
| 04:30:11.12 | Cox | Bye. |
| 04:30:11.15 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 04:30:11.61 | Mayor Sobieski | All opposed. |
| 04:30:13.18 | Mayor Sobieski | Motion carries unanimously. We'll introduce item 5D, introduction of waiver, first reading of ordinance |
| 04:30:18.36 | Mayor Sobieski | three. |
| 04:30:18.93 | Mayor Sobieski | Dash 2024 an ordinance of the city council of the city of Sausalito amending Sausalito municipal code section 2.58.040 relating to residency requirements on city boards, commissions and committees, which staff member is giving this report. |
| 04:30:35.99 | Sergio | I think it'll be me. During the last City Council meeting, there were some questions they came up with respect to residency requirements for EDAC. EDAC is a body established by resolution of the City Council. And one of the resolutions that created EDAC indicated that it would be subject to Sausalito Municipal Code Chapter 258. |
| 04:31:00.36 | Sergio | That chapter includes a specific residency requirement the proposed ordinance before you tonight would modify. |
| 04:31:07.21 | Sergio | Those provisions of the Sausalito Municipal Code to authorize the council to modify residency requirements for boards and commissions where it's appropriate, as determined by the city council. |
| 04:31:17.05 | Sergio | So that is the effect of the ordinance before you tonight. I'm able to take questions. |
| 04:31:22.15 | Mayor Sobieski | This does not change the residency requirement for any board or commission in and of itself. It simply allows city council to have the flexibility to do so by resolution rather than issuing an ordinance. |
| 04:31:33.33 | Mayor Sobieski | Correct. |
| 04:31:33.69 | Sergio | Thank you. |
| 04:31:33.74 | Mayor Sobieski | Yes. |
| 04:31:33.89 | Sergio | Bye. |
| 04:31:33.97 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 04:31:34.55 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 04:31:35.63 | Mayor Sobieski | Any other questions for the city attorney? |
| 04:31:39.69 | Mayor Sobieski | We'll take public comment. Oh, yes, a question from Councilmember Hoffman. Oh, sorry. We will take public comment, city clerk. Anyone in the audience? |
| 04:31:39.90 | Unknown | I will. |
| 04:31:48.59 | Mayor Sobieski | I think that better be indefatible. Ms. |
| 04:31:52.11 | Mayor Sobieski | I bet it's Google. |
| 04:31:55.07 | Unknown | I think I told you I signed up for everything tonight. |
| 04:31:58.75 | Unknown | So I wanted to address you about this issue of residency. |
| 04:32:04.74 | Unknown | If I'm not mistaken, there was something called the Business Advisory Committee, and I think that's the predecessor of what we're now calling EDAC, if I'm not mistaken. Now, I served on that Business Advisory Committee because I was required to as part of the chamber. |
| 04:32:22.64 | Unknown | And there were people on that committee that were not residents of Sausalito, but they had businesses in town. So I can see how being in this EDAC environment does sort of push the question of residency, especially if someone has a long, well-established business here. |
| 04:32:41.31 | Unknown | So I, |
| 04:32:43.23 | Unknown | I'm not sure why the whole business advisory council thing got thrown out the window because I wasn't here at the time, so I don't know. |
| 04:32:51.33 | Unknown | I don't know why they threw all those rules out. |
| 04:32:53.98 | Unknown | I just know that now there's this EDAC thing. And the EDAC thing seems to be this |
| 04:33:01.20 | Unknown | body that's still being defined, for lack of better words. And I'm not sure why this criteria for local business versus resident and local business was somehow |
| 04:33:12.62 | Unknown | thrown out the window. But I think it's an idea to bring back and revisit, at least with regard to trying to put some structure around someone who is well-established with a local business and would like to be part of the solution going forward. And serving on a committee does that. |
| 04:33:29.94 | Unknown | But how do we thread this needle? So it's important that the residency requirement be honored |
| 04:33:36.38 | Unknown | But at the same time, when we have these successful businesses and they're willing to step up to a leadership role, |
| 04:33:42.26 | Unknown | We need to take that into account, and it was previously taken into account when it was known as the Business Advisory Council. Thank you. |
| 04:33:50.48 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. Any other public comment online? |
| 04:33:54.05 | Babette McDougall | We couldn't. |
| 04:33:54.31 | Babette McDougall | of |
| 04:33:54.44 | Mayor Sobieski | THE FAMILY. |
| 04:33:54.64 | Babette McDougall | Thank you. |
| 04:33:59.98 | Vicki Nichols | I'm just curious why I totally understand the need for EDAC |
| 04:34:10.10 | Vicki Nichols | uh, residency requirement to be expanded because we do have business, um, |
| 04:34:15.23 | Vicki Nichols | owners that don't live in the city. And I think they've been a, |
| 04:34:18.84 | Vicki Nichols | a major contributor to that committee. |
| 04:34:21.86 | Vicki Nichols | Um, |
| 04:34:22.81 | Vicki Nichols | It can we not do something just for that committee rather than changing every other commission. |
| 04:34:29.81 | Vicki Nichols | or whatever that |
| 04:34:32.70 | Vicki Nichols | I mean, I think that many of the commissions that you have |
| 04:34:36.21 | Vicki Nichols | or committees, um, |
| 04:34:39.23 | Vicki Nichols | it's very relevant that local residents serve on them. So, |
| 04:34:46.16 | Vicki Nichols | I'm just, I'm not understanding why it has to be either or. |
| 04:34:51.29 | Vicki Nichols | Anyway. |
| 04:34:52.61 | Vicki Nichols | I think you're opening up a big loophole for a lot of other committees. |
| 04:34:59.70 | Mayor Sobieski | Is there any other public comment? |
| 04:35:02.23 | Unknown | See you then. |
| 04:35:03.38 | Mayor Sobieski | public comment is closed. Is there any discussion here on the dice? |
| 04:35:05.67 | Kelman | I'll just say, Mayor, that if you read the staff report, it modifies the code to require a residency on a city board, community, or commission by default. |
| 04:35:13.52 | Kelman | And then on occasion to the city council wish to change that we can. |
| 04:35:17.63 | Kelman | And then it further says in conjunction with second reading adoption, staff will bring forth an agenda item authorizing non-resident membership on EDAC. So while yes, there could be a future council that decides non-resident membership on others, this is specifically asked to EDAC at this time and require council action for anything else. So with that said, I will make a motion. |
| 04:35:40.74 | Mayor Sobieski | And I'll suck it. Oh, I'll suck it. |
| 04:35:41.88 | Kelman | Bye. |
| 04:35:42.04 | Cox | Thank you. |
| 04:35:42.07 | Kelman | Thank you. |
| 04:35:42.27 | Cox | Thank you. |
| 04:35:42.37 | Kelman | We have to. |
| 04:35:42.97 | Cox | actually say, introduced by... Oh yes, maybe. |
| 04:35:46.74 | Cox | I move we introduce by title only and waive first reading of ordinance number 03-2024, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Sausalito, amending Sausalito Municipal Code Section 2.58.040 relating to residency requirements on city boards, commissions, and committees. Allow me to second that. |
| 04:36:05.10 | Mayor Sobieski | Motion is made and seconded. Is there any discussion? |
| 04:36:08.68 | Mayor Sobieski | All question all in favor I posed passes unanimously moving on, we need to do public comment for the item we're not hearing that is receive and file a report regarding the development of the 2024 building facility assessment study is there any public comment on that item which we are continuing to a future meeting. |
| 04:36:29.94 | Unknown | See you, none. |
| 04:36:31.38 | Mayor Sobieski | All right, we will close public comment for that. And now we will hear public comment on item 3D that was pulled off the consent calendar, which has also been continued to a future agenda. Adopt a resolution authorizing the city manager to execute the first amendment to the agreement with the county of Marin to increase the total amount available to the city of Sausalito to expanded homeless and housing opportunities to an amount not to exceed $1 million. Is there any public comment on this item? |
| 04:36:55.60 | Babette McDougall | Bye-bye. |
| 04:36:56.24 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 04:36:57.77 | Councilmember Hoffman | Can I just interrupt for a second? |
| 04:36:59.93 | Councilmember Hoffman | Point of order. |
| 04:36:59.98 | Mayor Sobieski | Point of order from the Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 04:37:01.37 | Councilmember Hoffman | Yeah, sorry. City managers leaning forward. I think there's a deadline on this, right? |
| 04:37:04.56 | Mayor Sobieski | I'm sorry. |
| 04:37:04.57 | Chris | I think- |
| 04:37:04.83 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 04:37:06.12 | Chris | Mayor, if I may, this item was heard by the Board of Supervisors today. And the longer we delay on taking action on it, I think that doesn't bode well. I think it looks funny to the county that we wouldn't do that. They're trying to give us half a million dollars. I know that this is something that's going to take a whole lot of conversation about how to accept it. I know that in speaking with Council Member Blaustein, she has some ideas about how to stretch that or approach that. But I think you need to take action on it tonight. |
| 04:37:31.24 | Mayor Sobieski | night all right thank you for that information and thank you councilmember often for the catch |
| 04:37:35.03 | Mayor Sobieski | We will hear this item then as a regular item. Can we please have a staff report from our city staff concerning this item? |
| 04:37:46.81 | Chris | One of the things that the city council did was advocated that the city of Sausalito reach out to Marin County for assistance with homelessness and reached out to the state of California. The city was granted $167,000 a year ago and was granted another $500,000 by the state of California through the county of Marin. The city has expended $193,000 of that on reimbursing ourselves for encampment expenses and set aside $307,000 for the Dorothy Gibson house conversion into housing for the unhoused and homeless persons. And the work that was done alongside that was with the Dorothy Gibson estate to honor the bequeathment which stated that the city should use that property for housing of a city employee and parallel to that was the idea that the city would then get matching funds from the county in the amount of five hundred thousand dollars which the board of supervisors approved this morning so in total there are eight hundred and seven thousand dollars that the city has to work with in terms of providing housing for unhoused persons at the dorothy gibson site and the staff presentation kevin mcgallick and |
| 04:38:52.00 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 04:38:55.56 | Chris | Load that up if you want to see pictures. |
| 04:38:57.97 | Chris | Yeah. |
| 04:38:58.53 | Babette McDougall | that beforehand, I'll ask the city attorney, do we have to make a motion to go past 12 o'clock? |
| 04:39:08.23 | Sergio | Only if you guys have a bylaw or council protocol that requires it, and I don't think you do. |
| 04:39:23.54 | Unknown | We're about to approach that. |
| 04:39:25.44 | Babette McDougall | That's what I'm asking. I wasn't sure. |
| 04:39:27.12 | Unknown | about to approach that timeline. |
| 04:39:29.63 | Unknown | Go ahead. |
| 04:39:31.03 | Kevin McGowan | Sounds great. I'm Kevin McGowan, public works director. Good evening still, council members and mayor. I appreciate the time to talk to you this evening. While Walford is bringing up the quick presentation, I only have a couple of quick slides. Uh, the Dorothy Gibson property at four 29 and a half Johnson street is a flag lot. And what that means is it has a long kind of driveway approach into a very, pretty small lot itself. And, uh, |
| 04:39:58.27 | Kevin McGowan | Going second slide. There's only a couple slides here. So as you can tell from the parcel map, as well as a aerial, this is just a flag lot, fairly small in size. It's general width is only 47 and a half feet. So it's pretty darn small to begin with. Next slide, please. This is just a summary of the costs that are indicated in your staff report and a quick pictures of the actual property at this point it does need some help our new project managers are working on that right now so Ali Iqbal is working on that project to get some quotes to get things moving next slide please as part of developing this site for two units one upstairs upstairs, one downstairs, one of those needs to be accessible. And so we need to have a path of travel from one of the parking stalls, which are shown in orange. They can be tandem on the site as well. There's no other way to do it. And to get the little purple lines are indicating a path of travel to the building itself, generally on the first floor. Next slide, please. Now, there was a question about installing an ADU, an accessory dwelling unit, and we reached out to our architect on this. The maximum size that we can install in this area is about 16 by 20. That's really small. But regardless, I've tried to indicate that on the property here with the big green square or rectangle. And there might be a possibility of putting something like this in place. However, we cannot disrupt the path of travel. So at this point, this is just a sketch. It doesn't mean it can't be done. It means we haven't studied it enough, but we wanted to take those thoughts into account and report back to you. So next slide. Just some general pictures of the property, just to give you an idea of how kind of small this is. But that's it for my presentation right now. I'm still in the evening. Sounds good. |
| 04:41:59.16 | Cox | question. |
| 04:41:59.53 | Kevin McGowan | Thank you. |
| 04:41:59.85 | Kevin McGowan | Thank you. |
| 04:41:59.99 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 04:42:00.02 | Kevin McGowan | Thank you. |
| 04:42:00.09 | Mayor Sobieski | you |
| 04:42:00.54 | Mayor Sobieski | Questions, please, for the dice. |
| 04:42:02.53 | Cox | City Manager, you talked about the Board of Supervisors approving funds. How much of the funds available to us have we already committed, and how much is not yet committed? |
| 04:42:14.70 | Chris | We've spent none of the Board of Supervisors' money, that $500,000. We've been allocated $193,000 to reimburse ourselves for the rent-ship park. So we have about $307,000 of the state money left, and this $500,000 would be in addition to that, which is unspent. So there's about $807,000 there. one of the things that's stipulated in the county's grant is that housing be adhered to, as explained by the senator's allotment, which means services for unhouse persons, housing for unhouse persons. And then they also added emergency severe shelters or severe shelter funding as potentially use of the money that is unexpended or is remaining from the project that we are getting ready to bid as soon as we get direction from the council. |
| 04:43:26.47 | Chris | Thank you. |
| 04:43:31.92 | Chris | Yeah, Kevin, can you pull that slide back up? Because that shows the amount committed and what's left and what the total allocated with two units would be. |
| 04:43:41.88 | Kevin McGowan | Walford, that's slide three. |
| 04:43:49.52 | Kevin McGowan | I think the intent shown in your staff report under the fiscal impact has to do with showing |
| 04:43:57.08 | Kevin McGowan | How are we doing there, bud? |
| 04:43:58.19 | Kevin McGowan | um showing the design cost as well as the dorothy gibson cost for their interior renovation and the exterior renovation otherwise known as site work and then we've got a contingency in there as well so i'm |
| 04:44:16.28 | Kevin McGowan | Thank you. |
| 04:44:30.98 | Kevin McGowan | Simple as it can be. We reached out to our architect to give us kind of a rough estimate of that. They're suggesting that about $250,000 is needed. That includes soft cost. |
| 04:44:44.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:44:45.23 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:44:45.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:44:46.15 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:44:47.66 | Unknown | out |
| 04:44:50.88 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:44:50.90 | Karen | Thank you. |
| 04:44:56.97 | Kevin McGowan | That sounds correct. It's late. Math doesn't work for me past 10. |
| 04:45:03.50 | Cox | And my mic wasn't on. |
| 04:45:09.49 | Mayor Sobieski | Other questions? |
| 04:45:09.76 | Cox | It's just confirming for members of the public that we have roughly $150,000 of the $1 million left in our budget based on our |
| 04:45:18.94 | Cox | current project estimate that the cost of an ADU is $250,000 if we were to endorse moving forward with an ADU in addition to the already |
| 04:45:32.85 | Cox | Um, |
| 04:45:34.42 | Cox | to the renovations already proposed, that would cost the city an additional $100,000. |
| 04:45:40.95 | Mayor Sobieski | That's when we're blasting at our hand up. |
| 04:45:42.85 | Unknown | Oh, it's fine. I mean, I didn't have an opportunity to talk about why I pulled it off or even mentioned the questions that you. So I don't know if we want to do that after public comment or if you want me to. |
| 04:45:52.47 | Mayor Sobieski | I think it's just the Q&A, then public comment, and then we'll have discussion. |
| 04:45:53.22 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:45:57.74 | Unknown | So you get an opportunity to say why you pulled something off first, and then it's in the context of that that we have a discussion, but it's late. So let's take both comments and all. |
| 04:46:02.63 | Mayor Sobieski | but it's- |
| 04:46:04.13 | Mayor Sobieski | Are you sure? Because I'm happy to follow. I'll take public comment. It's okay. I apologize if I got it wrong. It's okay. Don't worry. Public comment, please, on this item, city clerk. |
| 04:46:05.52 | Unknown | to follow. |
| 04:46:07.78 | Unknown | or something like that. |
| 04:46:09.43 | Unknown | It's not you, it's okay. |
| 04:46:13.57 | Babette McDougall | We have Senator Bushmaker. |
| 04:46:18.97 | Babette McDougall | is. |
| 04:46:19.19 | Mayor Sobieski | fishmaker. |
| 04:46:22.73 | Sandra Bushmaker | Okay, I'm unmuted. |
| 04:46:24.84 | Sandra Bushmaker | Yeah. |
| 04:46:25.31 | Sandra Bushmaker | Just a question. Obviously, this is a change in use from that which Dorothy Gibson in her estate plan had suggested. And that went from, you know, residential for city employees to now the residents for the unhoused. |
| 04:46:43.57 | Sandra Bushmaker | I'm just wondering, have the neighbors been apprised of this situation and this change of use? |
| 04:46:50.67 | Sandra Bushmaker | If not, I think they should be. |
| 04:46:54.69 | Mayor Sobieski | Are there any other public comment? |
| 04:46:55.74 | Babette McDougall | you |
| 04:46:56.73 | Babette McDougall | Yeah, Bikinickles. |
| 04:47:03.70 | Vicki Nichols | I'm not sure how many of you knew Dorothy or had the pleasure of knowing Dorothy. I know several of you did. |
| 04:47:11.03 | Vicki Nichols | But, |
| 04:47:11.80 | Vicki Nichols | I think, you know, my conversations was her, she always intended for her house to be the |
| 04:47:18.32 | Vicki Nichols | The place I think it's admirable to consider this ad you, but I also know Dorothy she would have had this remodel done by now, probably by herself. So we're missing an opportunity for someone to take advantage of her gift. |
| 04:47:33.81 | Vicki Nichols | And I would urge you to just go ahead, proceed with the plan set, |
| 04:47:38.28 | Vicki Nichols | Director McGowan has outlined, and let's get this done, and let's get some help to the people that really deserve it. |
| 04:47:45.16 | Vicki Nichols | and honor Dorothy's intentions. Thank you. |
| 04:47:52.52 | Mayor Sobieski | Any other public comment? None. |
| 04:47:54.43 | Mayor Sobieski | All right, now bring you back to the Dias, Councilmember Blaustein. |
| 04:47:57.03 | Unknown | Thank you. So I just wanted an opportunity to speak to why this was pulled. And first of all, I appreciate very much the work that was done by our city manager and also by Councilmember Hoffman, Councilmember Kelman, and myself in negotiating with the county to receive the million dollars. And also I know there's a lot of legwork done with Senator McGuire's office to match that amount. And I in no way want to compromise the allocation of funds from the county to the city. The reason that I pulled this off is we are in a very rare situation where we were bequeathed a property to provide housing for our city workers. And we already know that we're in a serious housing crisis. We have an unprecedented level of RENA numbers. We have not enough housing to go around. And we have people who are serving our community who very much deserve to live in our community. And Dorothy Gibson left us this amazing gift. And I agree with Vicki Nichols that probably she would have done the remodel by now. And I appreciate that that is a huge part of the plan. And I don't want to derail that. but I would also like to ask that we give direction to staff to consider or at least take a look at the possibility of a third and or fourth unit on the site whether that's an ADU or an addition I know that there are organizations I spoke today with Eli Beckman who's the mayor of Puerto Madera who started his own ADU firm like a buildU firm, and he said if he knew it was for workforce housing, he'd be maybe willing to give us a special deal. And I just would like to ask that, yes, we move forward, but that we at least have consideration for an additional unit on the property. And also that we have a conversation with neighbors about what the footprint's going to look like and what will go there as well, because we wouldn't be able to put forward the design without substantial review anyway. So I think just as part of that conversation, it's our duty in being bequeathed this property that we do everything we can to maximize its use given the housing situation that we're in. So that's why I pulled it off and I would welcome any discussion about how we might be able to at least entertain the idea of doing that, because I really want everyone who works for Sausalito that wants to live in Sausalito to be able to live here. |
| 04:50:06.83 | Unknown | at |
| 04:50:07.03 | Cox | I'm going to go. |
| 04:50:07.10 | Unknown | I'll point out that |
| 04:50:07.98 | Cox | ADUs don't require neighborhood approval. It's ministerial review only. But obviously the rest of the building renovations may or may not require neighborhood approval. I think more importantly is reaching out to the heirs to ensure that whatever we propose to do would be suitable to them. |
| 04:50:34.13 | Unknown | I think what I'm asking for is support for direction to staff to pursue or consider an addition of an ADU or an additional unit on the property while still approving the agreement made with the county. And I understand that we would have to find funding for that. I believe that we could. I just don't want to give up on the full extent of use of this property because of timing or qualifications or otherwise. So that's all I'm asking for. If we can just add a line that says direction for staff to look into that, it would mean a lot, I think. |
| 04:50:54.84 | Unknown | you know, |
| 04:51:03.83 | Cox | I'm supportive of that. I'm in support of that as well. |
| 04:51:07.17 | Mayor Sobieski | I agree. |
| 04:51:08.51 | Mayor Sobieski | . |
| 04:51:09.79 | Cox | Thank you. |
| 04:51:09.82 | Councilmember Hoffman | Okay. |
| 04:51:10.11 | Kelman | Thank you. |
| 04:51:10.16 | Scott Thornburg | Mr. Huffman, I'll come back. |
| 04:51:11.39 | Scott Thornburg | Thank you. |
| 04:51:12.32 | Councilmember Hoffman | Yeah, let me just give you some context. So we, anyway, this is going to be quick. We received it as a bequest from Dorothy Gibson in 2019. |
| 04:51:27.04 | Councilmember Hoffman | You know, anyway, there were obviously challenges with 2020 with COVID and now moving forward with projects. But so I've been talking with Kevin about this since, what, Kevin, 2021 for sure. And I was surprised when I got back from deployment in the fall of 2020 that it was still... |
| 04:51:45.63 | Councilmember Hoffman | there but not really surprised because it was COVID right okay |
| 04:51:48.82 | Councilmember Hoffman | So I knew Dorothy. She was amazing. There is a deed restriction on the property to be used for staff. And so the idea is that |
| 04:52:02.07 | Councilmember Hoffman | we're going to try to marry those two. We actually have a staff member who will qualify for housing under the |
| 04:52:09.28 | Councilmember Hoffman | grant that we received. And we can use that. So this is an income producing property. |
| 04:52:15.03 | Councilmember Hoffman | And the idea is that we also do the second unit |
| 04:52:18.56 | Councilmember Hoffman | that qualifies for the same grant so we can use the same money for that. We actually authorized that |
| 04:52:25.49 | Councilmember Hoffman | in the in may of 2022 the city council voted 50 to move forward with two units on that lot using dorothy gibson's house so i think we should move forward on that i have no objection to exploring other things i will tell you that i have talked to the executor about the concept i've talked to her for years about this um and uh in 2022 she was happy that we had authorized money to move forward from our general fund so this is great news that we're not using money from our general fund |
| 04:52:51.85 | Councilmember Hoffman | But I think we do need to move forward that. And I think that's the priority, right? I mean, I have no problem exploring other issues, but I think to your point, it's ministerial for an ADU, but we also have to deal with |
| 04:53:04.29 | Councilmember Hoffman | the executor of the estate who actually lives is one of the contiguous properties. I did talk to the property owner behind as well. And she knew Dorothy and was good friends with Dorothy too. So those two are supportive of the concept that we have moving forward. I don't know. The addition of another unit, I think, would be – I think we would have to talk to the neighbors and things like that because there would be issues of – |
| 04:53:32.33 | Councilmember Hoffman | the narrow driveway and access and loss of all that stuff. And I'm understanding that ADU, you know, priorities too, but |
| 04:53:39.74 | Councilmember Hoffman | So anyway, I would suggest that we at least move forward to authorize the motion today to move forward to accept the funds to move it and move forward to construction as quickly as possible. |
| 04:53:52.75 | Unknown | I think that's what I had suggested. So I'll make a motion to move forward with the staff report and authorize the city manager to execute the million-dollar agreement with the county of Marin with the addition of direction to staff to consider and explore the option of a third unit or an ADU on the property as well. |
| 04:54:13.42 | Unknown | Great. |
| 04:54:14.77 | Mayor Sobieski | Motion is made and seconded. Any discussion? All the question, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? |
| 04:54:18.96 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 04:54:20.97 | Mayor Sobieski | Motion castes unanimously. Moving on. |
| 04:54:23.24 | Unknown | on. |
| 04:54:23.80 | Mayor Sobieski | Yes, thank you, Kevin, and thank you. |
| 04:54:24.07 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:54:25.96 | Unknown | Good night, Kevin. Good morning. |
| 04:54:28.85 | Mayor Sobieski | And thank you, Ms. Dorothy Gibson. |
| 04:54:31.88 | Mayor Sobieski | Communications. This is the time for the City Council to hear from citizens regarding matters not on this agenda, except in very limited situations. |
| 04:54:41.39 | Mayor Sobieski | well we don't read all that it'll be fine just to hear from anyone who has comments on anything not on the agenda anyone want to make a comment |
| 04:54:50.26 | Mayor Sobieski | Mrs. McDougal. |
| 04:54:57.74 | Unknown | Getting chilly in here. Got my jacket on. So I, |
| 04:55:02.90 | Unknown | I want to encourage you once again to think about restoring full democracy to the council chambers. |
| 04:55:09.25 | Unknown | It's a really huge missed opportunity. Tonight was another good example of some pretty substantial people who have a lot to offer if you simply will engage. And there are ways of doing it so that it doesn't loom and spin out of control or that you feel as though you have lost your ability to hold a tight gavel. It actually can work quite well. It's been known to last sometimes until one o'clock in the morning. I'm kidding. But the point is that by instilling in each individual citizen their rightful voice, you will be achieving something really quite important in this post-COVID era, something that was inadvertently lost, thanks to the mechanization that we now have at our disposal. So please, seriously consider bringing back democracy to the council chambers, full democracy. |
| 04:56:06.49 | Mayor Sobieski | Any comments online? City Click. |
| 04:56:25.39 | Unknown | Hi, and good morning. |
| 04:56:25.51 | Unknown | I, |
| 04:56:28.54 | Unknown | I'm Sophia Collier representing Save Our Sausalito. |
| 04:56:32.61 | Unknown | which is a citizens group in opposition to the luxury condo development at 605 Bridgeway. |
| 04:56:38.38 | Unknown | And, you know, when I attend council meetings, I'm always inspired. |
| 04:56:41.94 | Unknown | by how much people love Sausalito. |
| 04:56:45.65 | Unknown | and how much effort goes into trying to make good decisions and ensure its future. |
| 04:56:50.58 | Unknown | Our beautiful city really is an accumulation of all that effort from all of us and everyone before. |
| 04:56:56.81 | Unknown | So right now we're facing a project |
| 04:56:59.47 | Unknown | that truly threatens the city's heart and heritage. |
| 04:57:03.20 | Unknown | If we allow an 85 foot |
| 04:57:05.74 | Unknown | last tower to be built in the middle of our historic district |
| 04:57:10.07 | Unknown | It will be the end of the historic district and start a domino effect of ultra-luxury housing on the waterfront. |
| 04:57:17.50 | Unknown | We must not let this happen. This is our moment. |
| 04:57:21.06 | Unknown | And I want to call your attention to today's update to our urgent petition against the project. |
| 04:57:26.69 | Unknown | We are now up to 662 signatures |
| 04:57:30.22 | Unknown | from Sausalito residents and many more from others. |
| 04:57:34.27 | Unknown | I urge you to heed the petition |
| 04:57:37.00 | Unknown | and also to take time to read the comments, because those comments are truly the voice of Sausalito, and they have a lot of wisdom in them. Thank you very much. |
| 04:57:47.89 | Kelman | Thank you. |
| 04:57:47.90 | Unknown | I mean, |
| 04:57:48.24 | Kelman | I think. |
| 04:57:48.68 | Kelman | Mayor, may I suggest that the city manager reach out to Sophia in coordination with the city attorney? |
| 04:57:55.65 | Kelman | on that topic. Yes, absolutely. Thank you. |
| 04:57:56.78 | Mayor Sobieski | Absolutely. Thank you. I think that's a great direction. Collier is an artist and resident in town and neighbor of mine. Any other public comments? Daniel Chagru. Daniel Chagru. |
| 04:58:05.35 | Andrew Bickford | that. |
| 04:58:05.42 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:58:18.58 | Mayor Sobieski | Mr. Chigurh, can you unmute yourself? |
| 04:58:24.61 | Barbara Brown | Hello, can you hear us? |
| 04:58:27.07 | Mayor Sobieski | Yes, we can hear you, but we cannot see you. |
| 04:58:29.86 | Mayor Sobieski | Hello. |
| 04:58:30.73 | Mayor Sobieski | We can hear you. Hello, hello. |
| 04:58:31.65 | Unknown | Hello, hello. |
| 04:58:33.86 | Mayor Sobieski | He can hear you. Go right ahead. |
| 04:58:37.74 | Mayor Sobieski | Is there anyone else waiting to make public comment? |
| 04:58:41.67 | Mayor Sobieski | That's it. |
| 04:58:42.70 | Mayor Sobieski | We'll give them another second or two to get their audio together. |
| 04:58:46.16 | Mayor Sobieski | So... |
| 04:58:46.76 | Barbara Brown | Can you hear us? |
| 04:58:47.68 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 04:58:47.96 | Mayor Sobieski | Yes, we can. |
| 04:58:49.25 | Mayor Sobieski | Oh, you can. |
| 04:58:49.70 | Barbara Brown | Okay, so this is Barbara Brown. For some reason, my Zoom, probably the late hour, wasn't working. So my husband is Dan Chagru, and he's here. |
| 04:59:00.11 | Barbara Brown | And we're both very seriously concerned about the project |
| 04:59:06.41 | Barbara Brown | the Bridgeway condo development. |
| 04:59:09.61 | Barbara Brown | And as an architect, I've worked on numerous historic buildings in town and was honored to have designed the addition of the Sausalio Women's Club, the only building in town |
| 04:59:20.13 | Barbara Brown | on the National Register. |
| 04:59:22.39 | Barbara Brown | I agree with the historic architect, Jerry Holen, |
| 04:59:25.60 | Barbara Brown | whom our city so wisely hired. Ms. Holen says that the proposal is, I quote, not in performance with the Secretary of Interior's standards, the design is out of scale, |
| 04:59:38.33 | Barbara Brown | with the existing waterfront |
| 04:59:40.66 | Barbara Brown | streetscape. |
| 04:59:42.13 | Barbara Brown | And it overwhelms |
| 04:59:44.34 | Barbara Brown | and damages the area of Sausalito." End quote. We believe that this site |
| 04:59:49.98 | Barbara Brown | could support mixed-use housing |
| 04:59:52.68 | Barbara Brown | but only if designed with appropriate massing scale and height befitting our historic district. |
| 05:00:00.59 | Barbara Brown | Thank you so much for your attention on this critical matter. |
| 05:00:05.57 | Barbara Brown | And this now, this is my husband now, Dan. |
| 05:00:08.46 | Unknown | Oh, hello. |
| 05:00:09.89 | Unknown | Hi, my name's Dan Chagru. I live at the corner of Princess and Boakley with my wife Barbara. |
| 05:00:16.30 | Unknown | We were shocked like so many others to learn about this potential condominium development in the news media only a few weeks ago. |
| 05:00:24.69 | Unknown | So we tried to figure out how this happened. We examined city documents and discovered a great deal of conversation and scrutiny |
| 05:00:32.40 | Unknown | in Appendix A of the housing element regarding a number of potential sites in town. |
| 05:00:38.06 | Unknown | What we didn't find |
| 05:00:39.81 | Unknown | was much conversation about this particular site at 605 through 613 Bridgeway. We feel overlooked. We feel as though this building site did not receive the scrutiny and due diligence that every other site seems to have received. |
| 05:00:55.34 | Unknown | with its lack of adequate parking, |
| 05:00:57.58 | Unknown | and domineering size, this project would have a dramatic negative impact on the historic district and surrounding neighborhood where we live. |
| 05:01:02.34 | Unknown | is that. |
| 05:01:06.19 | Unknown | Also, please keep in mind that despite its overwhelming size, this project |
| 05:01:10.79 | Unknown | is designed to produce only a very few affordable units. |
| 05:01:15.10 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:01:16.99 | Mayor Sobieski | Any other public comment? |
| 05:01:19.26 | Babette McDougall | No further comments. |
| 05:01:21.59 | Mayor Sobieski | So |
| 05:01:22.35 | Mayor Sobieski | So we're closing public comment for that item. We're moving on to city council member reports. Does anyone have anything to say? |
| 05:01:28.97 | Kelman | I'll only offer up that Bay Wave sea level rise. Marin County identified a grant. SB1 is a non-competitive grant. All I have to do is apply for it. The minimum amount we could receive is $200,000. The most we could receive is 1.2. |
| 05:01:43.28 | Mayor Sobieski | Are we applying for it? |
| 05:01:46.42 | Kelman | Of course, yes. |
| 05:01:47.45 | Mayor Sobieski | Sure. |
| 05:01:47.82 | Kelman | Sure. |
| 05:01:47.97 | Mayor Sobieski | You could pick it up. |
| 05:01:48.00 | Kelman | You could pick it up. Definitely. |
| 05:01:51.16 | Mayor Sobieski | Any other reports? |
| 05:01:52.64 | Mayor Sobieski | you |
| 05:01:52.96 | Mayor Sobieski | All right. Do we need to take public comment on reports? I forgot. |
| 05:01:56.95 | Mayor Sobieski | No. |
| 05:01:57.30 | Chris | Okay. City manager report. Very quick, this is Mayor and Council members of the public, and thank you for bearing with me. The February 10th meeting report has been issued by the consultant. I'll make that a matter of public record so that the public sees what she reported as a result of that meeting. I want to say that we are still working on our insurance. We have reached out to providers, four pools and one private provider. We have the workings of an agreement with a private provider, not a pool. And one last attempt at one pool, and then we'll get back to you on where we think we would end up in terms of our coverage so we would have something in effect by July 1st of this coming year. |
| 05:02:03.39 | Mayor Sobieski | THE FIBER |
| 05:02:40.52 | Chris | Also want to let you know that we are hiring interns in our offices. We hired one to help Chad Hess and one to help me. And the first thing that intern will do is do a stare and property audit, as well as look at our website and look at the reconstruction and freshening up of that so that we don't have issues that we'll point it out this evening. Thank you. |
| 05:03:00.78 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you, City Manager. And then future Jen Iams. Anyone on the die is supposed to add any? Seeing none, we have to take public, Council Member Hoffman. |
| 05:03:17.78 | Councilmember Hoffman | It goes to the issue tonight with the public comment, the written public comment. And I'm surprised to hear that there's no requirement for us to attach written public comment to the agenda. But I think we used to do it a different way that was much easier for people to see and review and, frankly, easier for me to see and review when I was getting ready for a meeting. I think it's still the way that the Planning Commission does it, which is, |
| 05:03:43.43 | Councilmember Hoffman | you kind of contempor, and I mean not immediately, but contemporaneously add public comment to the agenda. |
| 05:03:50.77 | Councilmember Hoffman | and then you put the name of the person under the piece of public comment. So anyway, |
| 05:03:56.62 | Councilmember Hoffman | I don't know. Maybe I need to talk to just a few minutes about that. It may not be a... |
| 05:03:59.51 | Mayor Sobieski | to speak about that. It may not be a... |
| 05:04:01.53 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 05:04:01.62 | Councilmember Hoffman | you |
| 05:04:01.87 | Mayor Sobieski | Yep. |
| 05:04:02.11 | Councilmember Hoffman | Maybe that's not a standalone item. Sorry. |
| 05:04:03.66 | Mayor Sobieski | I'm sorry. Thank you. |
| 05:04:05.53 | Babette McDougall | I can shed some light on that. |
| 05:04:07.02 | Councilmember Hoffman | We can't have a discussion now. |
| 05:04:07.05 | Cox | We can't have a discussion now, but it's not on our agenda. We're just identifying future agenda items. |
| 05:04:10.44 | Councilmember Hoffman | but it's not a lot. |
| 05:04:11.41 | Councilmember Hoffman | And, uh, |
| 05:04:11.47 | Mayor Sobieski | Thanks, mate. |
| 05:04:12.35 | Kelman | I'm just saying. |
| 05:04:12.52 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 05:04:13.67 | Mayor Sobieski | are they? |
| 05:04:13.82 | Kelman | Thank you. |
| 05:04:14.17 | Mayor Sobieski | Yeah. |
| 05:04:14.81 | Cox | ARE THERE ANYTHING THAT |
| 05:04:14.87 | Mayor Sobieski | Are there any other future agenda items? |
| 05:04:16.77 | Kelman | Mayor, I'd only like to offer up that when Amy's report from strategic planning session comes to us, there were six items that we |
| 05:04:23.84 | Kelman | collectively either unanimously or at least a quorum with staff agreed were our priorities and i'd like to see them woven into the agenda |
| 05:04:30.66 | Kelman | in a balanced fashion. I know our agenda has been really, really heavy the last couple of meetings. |
| 05:04:36.33 | Kelman | So if we could try to make sure those get fit in, I know you guys are your best. |
| 05:04:37.61 | Mayor Sobieski | So, |
| 05:04:41.43 | Mayor Sobieski | Absolutely. That was the direction. |
| 05:04:45.38 | Mayor Sobieski | I don't know. You want to add to that? Yeah. That was the direction to staff. |
| 05:04:49.09 | Mayor Sobieski | you |
| 05:04:49.43 | Mayor Sobieski | So, you know. |
| 05:04:50.83 | Mayor Sobieski | So public comment on items A, B, and C. |
| 05:04:54.24 | Mayor Sobieski | Any public comment on what? |
| 05:04:57.02 | Mayor Sobieski | We just went over. |
| 05:04:59.43 | Mayor Sobieski | No? Oh my gosh. Then, closing public comment, |
| 05:05:03.13 | Babette McDougall | Hold on, Senator Bushmaker's on there. |
| 05:05:09.41 | Mayor Sobieski | We cannot hear you, Ms. Bushmaker, would you kind of- |
| 05:05:10.94 | Sandra Bushmaker | Real quick, I'm really glad to see that you're asking for public comment after these reports, rather than before the reports. Yes. |
| 05:05:18.43 | Sandra Bushmaker | as has been your practice, so that we know what to comment on. That's it. Thank you. |
| 05:05:23.68 | Mayor Sobieski | I actually listened to you, Ms. Bushmaker. |
| 05:05:27.95 | Mayor Sobieski | Made sense. |
| 05:05:29.12 | Sandra Bushmaker | Well, I appreciate that. Very. |
| 05:05:30.97 | Mayor Sobieski | I agree. |
| 05:05:31.06 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 05:05:31.11 | Mayor Sobieski | So that's where it will now live. |
| 05:05:33.71 | Mayor Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 05:05:33.81 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 05:05:34.70 | Mayor Sobieski | I adjourn the meeting at a quarter past 12 on Wednesday, March the 6th. |
| 05:05:39.33 | Mayor Sobieski | Good night to everyone. Thank you for your perseverance. |
| 05:05:50.35 | Karen | Thank you. |
| 05:05:51.97 | Karen | Thank you. |
