[8:11] Good evening everyone. Welcome to the regular meeting of the Sanfell City

[8:15] Council. Today is Monday, July 20th, 2026. I'll request the city clerk to

[8:19] call the role. >> Council member Bushy,

[8:22] » present. >> Council member Hill,

[8:23] » present. >> Vice Mayor Curts,

[8:24] » present. >> Council member Yeden Scaladia is absent.

[8:27] Mayor Kate, >> present. Thank you. So, good evening

[8:31] everyone and welcome. Thank you for joining us tonight. Whether you're here

[8:34] in the chambers or watching online or later commenting online, we appreciate

[8:39] your engagement in our community. At the end of tonight's meeting, I will be

[8:43] adjourning it in honor and memory of Esther Burn, who's a former city clerk

[8:47] for the city of Sanfell. I don't know if you'll all still be here at the end of

[8:50] the meeting, but I did want to note that we like to start our meeting by thanking

[8:55] all of our city employees. Every day across every department, they work hard

[9:00] to serve our community. I want to highlight that Sanfal Fire Department

[9:04] recently received the American Heart Association missions lifeline EMS

[9:10] emergency medical service gold achievement award for its commitment to

[9:14] offering rapid and researchbased care to people experiencing the most severe form

[9:18] of heart attacks and strokes ultimately saving lives. As a majority of the calls

[9:23] that we know that are received by our fire department do involve a medical

[9:27] issue. Thank you to the fire department for receiving this as it clearly

[9:31] demonstrates your commitment, ongoing commitment to providing a high level of

[9:35] service to all of our residents. So this evening, as many of you may

[9:40] know, there's been a recent change in state law regarding public participation

[9:43] at local government meetings. Beginning tonight, we'll once again accept public

[9:47] comment from individuals participating by telephone. Public comment is one of

[9:52] the most important parts of local government and it gives residents and

[9:55] community members the opportunity to share their experiences, perspectives,

[9:59] and ideas directly with the council and with the community. I also want to

[10:03] acknowledge something important. The First Amendment provides broad

[10:07] protections for speech, including speech that many people may find offensive or

[10:13] hurtful. While there are legal limits on certain types of speech, there's

[10:18] generally no lawful basis for the city to prohibit protected speech simply

[10:23] because it's offensive. That said, my hope and my expectation is that everyone

[10:30] who chooses to participate will help foster a respectful and welcoming

[10:33] environment. We can disagree passionately on issues before the

[10:37] council while still treating each other with dignity and respect. Productive

[10:43] public dialogue strengthens our community and while harmful or hateful

[10:47] comments discourage participation and undermine the civic engagement we all

[10:52] value. So, thank you in advance for making our public comment process one

[10:57] that reflects the very best of our community.

[11:01] We also include a land acknowledgement as part of our opening. This statement

[11:05] complements the ongoing collaboration and work we do with the tribe. We thank

[11:09] the original caretakers of this land. Sanfell is traditionally home to the

[11:12] Coast Miwok people, many of whom today are tribal citizens of the Federated

[11:17] Indians of Great Rancheria. And we honor their continuing involvement in

[11:21] stewardship practices that benefit us benefit us all. Thank you for being

[11:25] here. I'll now turn it over to the city clerk to share how the public can

[11:28] participate in tonight's meeting. >> Thank you, Mayor Kate. And before I

[11:31] start, I'm actually going to pass it over to city attorney Robert Epstein to

[11:34] report out on closed session from June 29th.

[11:36] » Thank you, Madam Clerk. Mayor Kate, the council met in a special close session

[11:41] on June 29th and uh we haven't met since then because we did not have a first

[11:47] meeting in July and so this is the first opportunity to report out of that closed

[11:52] session and my report is as follows. No reportable action was taken in the

[11:57] closed session on June 29th. >> Thank you. And now turn to city clerk.

[12:02] » Thank you, Mayor Kate. Tonight's meeting is being recorded and streamed live on

[12:05] YouTube for members of the public wishing to provide public comment. You

[12:08] can participate in person through Zoom webinar or by telephone. If you're

[12:12] joining by phone, you can call 669-444

[12:17] 9171 and enter the webinar ID 860-619-5675

[12:23] pound. When you wish to provide public comment, you can press star9 to raise

[12:26] your hand. When it's your turn to speak, you will hear a prompt that's asking you

[12:30] to press star six to unmute yourself. And if you're joining through Zoom, you

[12:33] can use the raise hand feature when you wish to speak. The host will call on you

[12:36] and prompt and prompt you to unmute as well. If you're commenting in person,

[12:40] you can form a line at the podium once Kate invites public comment. You'll have

[12:43] two minutes to provide comments. Displayed on the podium and the

[12:47] projector is a timer to help you stay within your two-minute time frame. At

[12:50] the conclusion of two minutes, your microphone will be muted so we may hear

[12:53] from the next speaker. You're invited, though not required, to introduce

[12:56] yourself and say what part of Centerfell you live in or if you're joining us from

[12:59] outside of Centerfell. And if you experience any technical

[13:03] difficulties during the meeting, you can contact me at city.clerk

[13:06] cityofanfell.org. Thank you.

[13:09] » Thank you. So, we have public open time for public expression at both the

[13:13] beginning of the meeting and at the end of the meeting. At the beginning, we

[13:16] take two to three people uh that are in the chambers and we'll check and see if

[13:19] folks are online. So, I'm going to open up this portion of the public comment.

[13:24] You're welcome, but not required to state your name and what part of Sanfell

[13:27] you live in. And as I just stated, we welcome a diversity of viewpoints and

[13:30] respectful disagreement. Help us maintain a welcoming environment by

[13:34] refraining from hateful or discriminary discriminatory remarks. Go ahead.

[13:43] » Testing. There we go. Good evening, council mayor. My name is Jared Mum. I

[13:47] am a local electrician and um I'm here tonight to just highlight the uh the

[13:53] amount of housing that Centerfell is looking at building here in the next few

[13:56] years. It's exciting, right? I'm when I look around at your website, I'm seeing

[13:59] thousands of units. And when we talk about that, when we show that to people,

[14:03] they're they're really excited for the opportunity to have more places to live,

[14:06] more uh projects to build here in the area. Housing is obviously a major issue

[14:10] throughout all of California, Marine County, and also here in Centerfell. Um

[14:15] if these projects go union, it'll mean opportunities for local workers, right?

[14:21] Folks that live here and nearby in the area. It'll mean more opportunities for

[14:27] young folks that are looking to get into an apprenticeship program and start a

[14:31] future for themselves, right? Can't tell you how many people we meet from, you

[14:36] know, all over the North Bay that are just looking for an opportunity. People

[14:39] that have plenty of experience working for a living, right? Showing up um

[14:44] putting on a pair of boots, going someplace every single day and and

[14:47] working really really hard and not really having much to show for it at the

[14:53] end of the day, right? We like to say that you're supposed to be working for a

[14:56] living, not just working for the heck of it. Right? If these projects go union,

[14:59] it's going to mean that there's opportunities for people to get into a

[15:02] training program, learn a trade, learn how to feed themselves, feed their

[15:06] families, hopefully own one of these homes that they're building. So, um,

[15:10] again, just exciting times and, um, looking forward for the future. Thank

[15:14] you.

[15:20] That was awesome, huh? Uh John McIntigert and uh I am uh lucky enough

[15:25] to serve the uh women and men of IBW local 551 as their business manager and

[15:31] that's the electrical union in this area. We um like to say from the Golden

[15:34] Gate to the Oregon State and um what what does that mean to be in the union

[15:39] at all? You know, people wonder is that in San Francisco? No, no, we actually

[15:43] have the unions here too. And if you're lucky enough to make it into one of the

[15:47] union construction uh programs, then you're going to have health care. You're

[15:52] going to have a pension. Um and the health care is going to take care of you

[15:55] and your family, not just yourself. It's not going to cost you anymore if you

[15:58] have one kid or six kids. The pension will be there at the end of your work

[16:02] days, you know, when you're done. And not at an age that you're too old to

[16:06] enjoy your pension. No, it'll be there at an age that you can still swing a

[16:09] golf club and lift up your grandkids and or go see them, you know, and enjoy

[16:13] yourself. But that's the whole intent, right? Work for a while and then the

[16:17] last third of your life then hopefully you're doing you're living that kind of

[16:20] life, a grandparent life. And I kind of looking forward to that myself. So how

[16:24] does somebody get into the program? How does somebody get into the building

[16:27] trades and why would they? And who are these folks? Right now we're at all of

[16:30] your job fairs. We go to Centerfell High. We go to Terinda High. We show up

[16:34] there. We have people on staff that that's their job to show up and speak to

[16:38] any young individual that wants to be in the in the building trades. And these

[16:41] are the folks that don't want to, you know, go to college. And when college is

[16:45] being pushed down a lot of kids' throats these days, they're saying, "Well, what

[16:48] about me? What's your option for me?" And if we don't have an answer for that,

[16:51] then you're dealing with the psyche of the young folks. Then what am I supposed

[16:55] to do? So when we show up there, we say, "No, no, no. You're special, too. You're

[16:59] brilliant at something. We're going to find out what that something is. Are you

[17:02] mechanically minded? Let's try and get you into the building trades. Let's get

[17:06] you into an apprentichip that you just heard about. And let's give you the

[17:09] opportunity to also to have the life that you hope for yourself that we all

[17:13] hope for our kids, right? We want them to be successful. They can be and in the

[17:17] building trades, we're waiting for them. So, thank you very much.

[17:25] » Good evening. My name is Kevin Collins. I moved to Sanfell 5 years ago from

[17:30] Santa Cruz County and there and ironically I'm a retired general

[17:36] contractor and in Santa Cruz County I was involved

[17:40] in zoning law issues related to land use and uh building height, parking

[17:47] availability and so forth. And I've been in increasingly alarmed by the proposals

[17:54] in Sanfell for 17story highrises jammed into freeway exits and clogged

[18:00] situations. And I'm here to uh urge your city and the

[18:08] Marin County Council of Mayors and Council members to uh confront this

[18:15] situation. I looked I was doing some web research today. I found a Yimba law.

[18:22] They have eight active lawsuits. One against Salelo, two San Francisco, one

[18:28] against the governor for daring to limit development in the Los Angeles burn

[18:32] areas. Certino, Los Angeles, Roondo Beach, and Santa Clara. There has to be

[18:38] a commensurate response to this. The chaos in Sacramento is not going to sort

[18:44] out this in any reasonable way. It's people are poking at circumstances like

[18:50] the builder's remedy for example which completely undermines local zoning

[18:54] authority as do several other laws passed and uh

[19:01] everyone cannot live in California. It is difficult to move here. It took me

[19:06] three attempts to move to San Francisco because it's expensive and it always has

[19:13] been and it always will be because it's desirable until it isn't. Thank you.

[19:22] » Thank you. And I'll take one more public comment in the chambers. Go ahead and

[19:24] then we'll go online. >> Hello. Um

[19:28] » pull down the microphone so we can hear you better. There you are.

[19:31] My name is Patricia Ree, Patty Ree, and I've lived in Gersell Park since 2009.

[19:39] I'm here today because I'm concerned about the possible loss of the B Street

[19:43] Safeway uh due to the Mil Creek project, and I I realize, of course, that it is

[19:49] still in its presubmission state. Um I'm not here to talk about parking or

[19:56] traffic. Uh, I am here to talk about the importance of a local grocery store that

[20:04] people can actually walk to and ride their bikes to without having to get in

[20:08] their car all the time and drive. Um, I would ask I have two asks. One of them

[20:16] is that this topic get added to the next month's agenda because I know that you

[20:21] can't really speak to open comments. Uh the second question would be that I

[20:27] would ask that Mr. Hill specifically since I understand that you are uh

[20:33] specifically um responsible for district 2 and that

[20:38] includes Gersell Park. I believe that's my understanding. I would like you to

[20:43] get specifically involved with this and actually engage and represent the the

[20:50] residents of Gersel Park and West End and Picnic Area which are also affected.

[20:57] And that's all I have to say. >> Thank you. And I'll just clarify that

[21:01] all of us including council member Micah who's not here we represent we represent

[21:05] all of San Rafale each of us. So, we might be elected by district, but I just

[21:09] want to clarify we always think of the city holistically.

[21:13] » That's great. Thank you for that. And I would love to have a point person.

[21:16] » Thank you. >> Thanks.

[21:18] » Is there anyone online that would like to provide public comment on anything

[21:21] not on tonight's agenda? >> Thank you. Just again, if you wish to

[21:25] provide comments online, you can use the raise hand feature or you can press star

[21:29] 9 to raise your hand. I see one hand raised.

[21:36] Hello, mayor and council members. My name is Josie Quimby and I'm an intern

[21:40] from 350 Marin, but I've also been a resident of San Rafale for the past 19

[21:46] years. I'm speaking today to thank the council in making our city more

[21:50] sustainable, but also encouraging the city to continue working towards climate

[21:54] action. As someone who is born and raised in Sanfell, I can assure you that

[21:58] the environment in our local community is very valuable to us, especially the

[22:03] youth. Young people in Sanfell are highly concerned about the fast

[22:08] approaching climate crisis. From sea level rise to increased chances of

[22:12] forest fires and extreme temperatures as a coastal community, San Rafell faces

[22:16] real risk from sea level r from rising sea levels and extreme weather events.

[22:21] Investing in naturebased and resilient infrastructure today saves lives,

[22:26] protects habitats, and prevents costly repairs down the road. I hope you all

[22:31] continue to think about our climate and the environment down the road for our

[22:35] city. Thank you for your continued efforts in creating a sustainable future

[22:38] for all Sanfell residents.

[22:43] » I see no other hands raised, but I'll give everyone a moment to use star9 to

[22:46] raise their hand or use the raise hand feature.

[22:51] I see no more public comment. >> Thank you. I will close the open time

[22:54] for public expression. Again, there'll be some more at the end of the meeting.

[22:57] We'll go to the next item, which is city manager and council member reports. I

[23:01] will return to interim city manager Paul Nasio.

[23:05] » Thank you, uh, Madame Mayor, members of the council. Just a couple of items to

[23:09] share. Um couple events that are uh coming up uh in the next week or so. Uh

[23:16] starting with later this week, July 25th is the um amazingly popular Touch a

[23:21] Truck event that is going to be happening at uh Sanfell High School at

[23:25] the Third Street parking lot. That will be on July 25th uh from 10:00 a.m. to

[23:30] noon. Also, um, uh, in the first week of August, again,

[23:36] we won't be having our council meeting first, uh, Monday, but August 4th is

[23:40] the, uh, national night out event, which is, um, again, an opportunity to help

[23:48] promote our police community, uh, relationships really at a neighborhood

[23:51] level. There'll be a host of neighborhoods that will be hosting uh,

[23:55] special events. Um, and we'll be providing additional information to the

[23:59] council. Uh and there's information on our website uh regarding that event.

[24:03] Again, it's August 4th uh from 6 pm to 8:00 pm. Uh if anyone is interested in

[24:09] holding an event, uh there is a registration form on the city's website.

[24:13] Um and again, police um fire personnel, elected officials, and number of city

[24:18] staff will be um visiting some uh those uh events throughout the evening. Um

[24:26] uh we announced this periodically but um and there was an event uh two Fridays

[24:31] ago at the San Rafale Theater, but city continues to be very excited about the

[24:36] um ongoing uh development and growth of our public art program and specifically

[24:41] um there was an event to celebrate the um uh four of the murals that have been

[24:47] part of that public art um event specifically on the Sea Street uh garage

[24:53] on Third Street. Um again, we had the statue at the B Street Community Center

[24:59] uh murals at the city plaza uh fountain as well as on Second Street. And uh we

[25:05] will soon be announcing I think the date might argue uh for uh art installation

[25:11] here at city hall. And so we um like to promote uh that the really wonderful

[25:15] events and the artists that are behind them. Very interesting stories. I think

[25:19] the last thing I'll I'll add is a we did get a notification from um state

[25:25] department of transportation aka Calrans regarding uh preventive maintenance work

[25:31] that is being done on um highway 101 uh through San Rafale both the freeway

[25:38] itself um some lane work as well as several onramps on and off ramps and so

[25:46] um this work is going to be done starting uh this evening, Monday, July

[25:51] 20th, going through Saturday, July 25th. Um uh the areas that are being worked on

[25:58] that are in the northbound 101 direction. Those will those areas will

[26:03] be closed from uh 1000 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. So, it's overnight work and there'll be

[26:08] signage, but we're urging folks to just be aware of um impacts of lane closures.

[26:14] Um southbound closures will occur um same date period from u 8:00 pm I'm

[26:22] sorry. Yeah 800 p.m. to 5:00 am. Um more detail on the schedule for the different

[26:26] ramps, but I won't go into that at this time. But thank you.

[26:31] » Thank you. I'll turn to my colleagues for their reports. Uh Vice Mayor.

[26:35] » Sure. Um >> wait, you're not on.

[26:37] » Oh, sorry. >> Out of practice. Uh I just want to add

[26:41] on to the comment about the public art event. Uh huge shout out to San Rafale

[26:46] Chamber uh downtown program and Stacy Lman who worked on it for a really

[26:51] really long time for San Rafale. Um it was great. And I'd also like to

[26:57] highlight the new branding and the tagline is look around. Um which I

[27:02] thought was a really nice nice addition to the whole program.

[27:06] Um HPSC, Homeless Policy Steering Committee, recently passed a new um

[27:14] resolution as part of our older adult committee. Um and that resolution um

[27:21] gives direction to the broader HPSC group to do a needs assessment

[27:28] specifically for older adults around homelessness. Um and a study we're going

[27:33] to be using community solutions uh group to help with that and use their

[27:38] toolkit which is what was originally done for homeless. Um and so we're going

[27:43] to be focusing on older adults and then do a report back by May 2027.

[27:49] So more to come on that one just to follow it. Um I attended San Rafll's age

[27:54] friendly um advocate program and they really are shifting their attention to

[27:59] advocating for older adults. The Marin Wildfire uh Prevention Authority board

[28:05] meeting was last week. I attended with Council Member Hill the Junth

[28:11] celebration which now seems like eons ago but in June and I believe that's it.

[28:18] Thank you. >> Thank you uh Council Member Hill.

[28:22] » Thank you, Mayor. Um I am going way back because we did not give council reports

[28:26] at the meeting on June 15th. This goes really far back. Uh, I attended a

[28:31] meeting on June 2nd, the Measure Peace Subcommittee, also known as the New

[28:35] Library and Community Center at Albert Park. The survey is still open, folks.

[28:40] So, please consider uh going online and going to the survey. It's at city of

[28:45] samfell.org/albertarklcc.

[28:49] On Tuesday, June 9th, I attended the finance subcommittee meeting which

[28:54] covered budget and master fee schedule which was uh ultimately considered at

[28:58] the agenda on June 15th. On Saturday, June 13th, I attended the 47th annual

[29:04] Fairfax Festival Parade. Uh got to walk in the front with the the council uh

[29:09] town council of Fairfax. It was a wonderful event. And the final meeting

[29:14] of the year for Marin County Council of Mayors and Council members uh was held

[29:19] on June 24th um during which the incoming president Gay Paulson of

[29:25] Larkpur um was at least nominated and will be voted in uh potentially at the

[29:29] next meeting and vice mayor or vice president Shantel Walker of Sanelma is

[29:35] being considered for vice president. That's my report. Thank you, Council

[29:39] Member Bushie. >> On Julyh 17th, along with Mayor Mayor, I

[29:46] attended the San Rafll sanitation board meeting that um was a was interesting in

[29:54] that there are not one but two different um consolidation um steps on the agenda.

[29:59] One was for the operational consolidation well underway with um the

[30:03] CMSA and the other was for a broader um consolidation study to be funded jointly

[30:10] by all members of the JPA that would include the Sanfell sanitation um

[30:16] sanitation agency, the Ross Valley sanitation agency uh um the city of

[30:22] Porto Madera which is sanit sanitary district 2. all of the members um

[30:28] together to working on a major consolidation proposal and hiring a

[30:33] consultant to work with LAFCO on that effort. So big news in the consolidation

[30:38] front um at Sanfell Sanitation. On July 13th, I attended a meeting of Marin

[30:45] Transit. Um big news there too. Um the good news first um the roll out of the

[30:52] mascot study that has um that is being implemented is going well and some of

[30:58] the first data points are starting to come back. Um and one is that transfers

[31:03] are up 45%. Um so very excited um about the implementation of um of that phase

[31:12] of mascot. Um we're some of us are secretly hoping that this will lay the

[31:16] groundwork for a mascot too for even more um efficiencies and integration of

[31:21] the um the transportation organizations. Also importantly at Marin Transit uh

[31:28] they are fully implementing the um Clipper card only transfer. Um, that

[31:36] means that people who pay cash will no longer be getting the the little paper

[31:41] transfers that allows them to get on other um other transportation providers.

[31:47] There's a we've set the public hearing for September 14th on this measure. The

[31:53] um purpose is to um help our customers get on Clipper where the cost is lower

[32:00] um and they will qualify for um transfers for $2.85 85 which gets you on

[32:05] um on smart and gets you a long ways. So um September 14th, a hearing on that big

[32:12] change coming um in January of of next year for transfers on um Marin Transit.

[32:20] And finally, uh, last Saturday, I attended the memorial mass, um, for

[32:25] Esther Burn along with her successor, um, uh, city clerk and the city

[32:31] attorney, and a very sizable contingent of current and former, um, employees of,

[32:38] uh, the city of San Rafale. We met her sister, Esther's four sons, and we heard

[32:44] a poem read by her griefstricken husband. He read it in Irish and it was

[32:51] a poem about the anguish of grief. So it was a very moving um service and um and

[32:58] um reception. That's it.

[33:01] » Thank you, council member. I just have three meetings to report out on. Um I

[33:06] recently met along with assistant city manager Angela Robinson Pinon. We met

[33:09] with the Federated Indians of Great Rancheria. You heard the land

[33:12] acknowledgement at the beginning and we do connect with them periodically. So,

[33:15] we went up there and had a good meeting with and discussing um various issues

[33:20] that are um important to both our agency as well as theirs. As you know, I'm your

[33:25] representative on SMART, the Sonoma Marin Area Rapid Rail Transit. We had

[33:31] our meeting. We had some um updates to the budget. We also received the same

[33:36] mascots uh that council member Bushy just referred to update. Um and in

[33:41] addition, I'd like to share some of the writership numbers. So in June there

[33:44] were 150,000 riders. There's now been three monthly records in a row in terms

[33:49] of riderships. Fiscal year 26, which of course is now concluded, there was 1.47

[33:57] million riders. We're hoping to get to 1.5, but we're happy to be well over 1

[34:01] million. And that equals over 29 million passenger miles. The average weekday

[34:06] ridership saw a 21 increase over the prior year. And the Marine County Fair,

[34:11] as you many of you took advantage of, there was free transit on Bin Transit

[34:15] and SMART and it provided nearly SMART specifically provided nearly 12,000 free

[34:21] rides during the fair day. So that took a lot of cars off and when you go to the

[34:25] fair, if you've had to deal with the parking, you know how fantastic it is to

[34:28] have the train and to be able to walk. And then finally, TAM, the

[34:32] transportation authority of Marin, uh, our last month's meeting. First, we

[34:36] celebrated the completion of the Freighus roundabout. So, hopefully

[34:39] you've been through it. And I know we say that Americans can't handle

[34:42] roundabouts, but we can, and they're great and they're safer. So, we've

[34:46] gotten great feedback from that. Uh, in addition, a reminder that Marine Transit

[34:50] still is offering free summer rides for youth uh, under 18. That was a part of

[34:55] the general manager's report. Um we during the meeting in addition we talked

[35:00] about the marine transit allocation. Marine transit is funded through dollars

[35:04] uh that flow through TAM. So we heard a presentation from Marine Transit. And

[35:08] I'll end on a high note which is sharing that there is a grant that TAM has

[35:13] received and is utilizing for $544,000 which is to study school access safety

[35:19] action plan. So that is how do we look at a more granular level um around

[35:24] pedestrian bike uh car interactions that are close to schools. So when we're

[35:29] looking at improving infra infrastructure throughout the community

[35:33] especially prioritizing those ones closer to schools. So we just had an

[35:37] update when that report is finalized I will be sure to let the community know

[35:41] so they'll be able to look at it. So as always thank you city manager. Thank you

[35:46] to my colleagues for what they do um between the meetings that we have. But

[35:50] before we move on to the consent agenda, we do provide the opportunity for the

[35:54] community to comment on any of the reports that they just heard. So if you

[35:58] have a comment on what you just heard, now is your opportunity to do so.

[36:04] I don't see anyone in the room. Is there anyone online that would like to comment

[36:07] on these reports? >> I see one hand raised.

[36:12] » Thank you. And as always, you're welcome, but not required to state your

[36:15] name and what part of Sanfell you live in. And we uh welcome a diversity of

[36:19] viewpoints and help us maintain a welcoming environment.

[36:24] » Go right ahead. >> Hi, Mayor Kate

[36:28] is Susan Gilbert. I am a resident of downtown San Rafale. I deeply appreciate

[36:36] your advocacy on behalf of SMART, which makes it easier for all of us who

[36:42] appreciate public transit to be able to get from here to there safely and

[36:48] conveniently. And now in my 65th year freely, so I have deep appreciation for

[36:54] that. Um I have had a discussion with the police department and they have

[36:59] agreed to provide more oversight for the safety of the passengers who are on the

[37:06] paid platform of the um smart train. Uh there is a

[37:12] group of men ranging in age from 20 to 60 years old who frequent that area uh

[37:18] drinking, drugging, perhaps selling drugs, though I cannot confirm that. and

[37:25] it creates a feeling of lack of safety. I've also spoken to uh the Smart Train

[37:32] because it's their jurisdiction primarily and Sanfell's secondarily.

[37:38] Unfortunately, SMART only has one security officer on the entire line

[37:44] who's on duty at any given time. I spent two years teaching English and

[37:51] working there in Japan. And you can set your watch to the Shinkansen and the

[37:57] bullet train. They were always perfectly clean and quiet and you could expect

[38:02] decorum and safety on the platform. I'd love to talk with you at a time in the

[38:08] future about how we can achieve that for the safety and comfort of us all. Thank

[38:13] you so much.

[38:17] » I see no other hands raised. We'll give everyone a moment to press star 9 or use

[38:21] the raise hand feature. I see another hand.

[38:24] » Thank you. I'll close a public comment. >> Oh, there's one more. Sorry, there is

[38:27] one more hand. And as a reminder, I will mute you at

[38:32] two minutes.

[38:36] » Hello, my name is Brenda Gayen and I'm a resident of of San Rafale in the Gst

[38:41] Park neighborhood. I'm commenting tonight on the proposed uh redevelopment

[38:45] of the Safeway in Gstl Park. While I understand that the project is in very

[38:50] early stages of planning, I wanted to uh plea with the council and city staff to

[38:57] seriously work with the developer to maintain the Safeway or other valuable

[39:04] market for this Galile Park and surrounding downtown area. This is an

[39:10] area where we have a number of lowincome people, a number of elderly people that

[39:15] walk daily to and from Safeway Market. And to take away the market in favor of

[39:21] simple residential development with no lower story market would be a

[39:25] devastating impact to this community. We are not against housing. We think it

[39:31] should definitely be in scale with the neighborhood surrounding. But we also

[39:35] think that having that very very important resource for the neighborhood

[39:39] is extremely important. It will also be important as the recreation uh

[39:44] department is developed at the park adjacent at Albert's Park. Um lastly, we

[39:51] would like to um work with the city council to ensure that there's more

[39:56] parking provided for that residential development because the Gristol Park

[40:01] neighborhood and many neighborhoods surrounding

[40:04] um that Safeway are already at capacity with parking. daily we have trouble

[40:09] parking individual cars for homeowners and renters because this is an extremely

[40:14] dense neighborhood with historic homes that do not have in many cases driveways

[40:20] or even garages. Um and so the residential parking actually ends up a

[40:24] lot of times on the street. And so having a limited number of parking for a

[40:30] very dense development that's proposed would be devastating to the neighborhood

[40:35] and make life much more difficult. And just a reminder, I'm taking public

[40:40] comment on the council member and city manager reports. We appreciate all

[40:44] comments, but anything not on the agenda, if you could save those comments

[40:47] till the end of the meeting, that would be most appropriate. Is there anyone

[40:50] else that would like to comment on the reports?

[40:52] » I see no other hands raised. >> Okay. Thank you. I'll close the public

[40:55] comment. We'll move to the consent agenda. Are there any items that the

[41:00] council would like to hold? Okay. the agenda uh consent calendar. It's items A

[41:06] through R. I will open up the public comment on the consent calendar. As

[41:13] you've heard us say, you're welcome, but not required to say your name and what

[41:16] part of San Rafale you live in. And we welcome diversity of viewpoints and

[41:20] thank you for helping us to maintain a welcoming environment by refraining from

[41:24] hateful or discriminatory remarks. >> Good evening, Daniel Alm. uh through the

[41:29] Western Neighborhood Association, I rise before you in regards to consent to G.

[41:35] Uh I want to thank you for your continued support and the city staff and

[41:40] council for us to continue our Weston neighborhood picnic. This year will be

[41:45] our 23rd annual year. I really want to put a pin in. Community events are

[41:49] really important to the fabric of our community and your continued support of

[41:53] this helps our community feel a sense of belonging. Thank you.

[41:57] Thank you.

[42:04] » Hello, Mayor, city council members and staff. My name is Wayne Raburn. I live

[42:08] in San Rafale Meadows. I'd like to speak on item 2 I, the establishment of 350

[42:14] Midel for my housing development project subcommittee.

[42:17] Regarding the formation of the subcommittee for 350 Maridale affordable

[42:21] housing project, we view this step as positive in a light positive light as

[42:26] providing greater opportunity public engagement. This should allow for

[42:30] greater transparency about the development proposals that were

[42:34] submitted in response to the city's request for the proposals. We hope that

[42:38] through this subcommittee, the city will fully engage the public in the

[42:42] development selection process, allowing us to be informed and comment on the

[42:47] developer aspects that are in the table for cond consideration,

[42:52] such as the number of units, number of stories, building heights, and the

[42:56] amount of parking that each development has proposed along with the propo

[43:00] planned sequel review for the project. These are all elements that the public

[43:05] has the right to be engaged in and we expect expect to be able to have a say

[43:10] on how this development project unfolds and progresses.

[43:14] We also request that the city create a citizens advisory committee for this

[43:19] project with representatives from Sanel Meadows Midale Road and surrounding

[43:24] neighborhoods participating in the advisor committee. While this idea is

[43:28] not on the tonight's agenda, request that the city form a city advisor

[43:33] committee for the mayor 350 mayorell project in the very near future to

[43:38] coincide with the city's selection of development team for this project. Thank

[43:42] you.

[43:51] Good evening, mayor, city council and staff. Marian Nana for San Rafale

[43:55] Meadows with the plan interim shelter. Oh, this

[43:59] is in regard to 2J 350 Marital interim shelter site preparation. With the plan

[44:04] interim shelter at 350 Midale on the agenda, I would like to take this

[44:08] opportunity to speak to the city council and staff about the increase in homeless

[44:12] encampment activity that we have already begun to experience in our community.

[44:17] Over the past few weeks, we have observed the emergence of a greater

[44:20] number of homeless individuals and the establishment of three encampments. One

[44:26] behind the public storage facility next door to 350 Midale along the freeway. Uh

[44:32] two at the Chevron gas station on Midale Road and three an individual car camper

[44:38] on Meridale Road adjacent to Mount Olivet Cemetery.

[44:42] These are instances of homeless encampment that were not there this

[44:45] winter or spring. The San Rafell Police Department is aware of these encampments

[44:50] and they have been quick to respond to do what they can and we do appreciate

[44:54] their quick and thoughtful response to our concerns. But their hands are tied

[44:59] and all three encampments have remained in place for now at least. We welcome

[45:03] the police and fire department continue action to address these issues. These

[45:08] problems have begun before the interm shelter at 350 Maridel has even opened

[45:12] and they're likely to only get worse. We requested that the city council adopt a

[45:17] camping band throughout the area around 3 350 Midale just as has been adopted

[45:24] around Mahon Creek, Anderson Drive, and City Hall. In addition, the interim

[45:29] shelter at 350 Midale should not be open unless and until agreements with Calrans

[45:34] and Smart are finalized that will prevent ancillary encampment from

[45:39] becoming established around 350 Midil. Please move forward on these actions

[45:45] immediately. Thank you. >> Anyone else?

[45:56] » Good evening. My name is Gregory Andrew and I live in Saraphone Meadows. I'm

[46:00] here to speak on item 2J. The authorization of a construction contract

[46:04] with Gelotti Brothers in the amount of $1.1 million for the 350 Midale interim

[46:09] shelter site preparation.

[46:15] Thank you. Uh for the 350 Midale site preparation

[46:19] is another example of the city council's all too regular practice of awarding

[46:23] contracts as consent calendar items without any prior public or even city

[46:28] council review. This is just one of six contracts being awarded tonight through

[46:32] the consent calendar totaling a totaling a whopping $5.7 million. So, you're

[46:39] certainly starting off the calendar year uh with a bang. This contract and most

[46:45] of the other contracts, or at least some of the other contracts, were not

[46:47] publicly bid and none of them went through any public meeting prior to

[46:51] tonight's consent calendar. While it is stated that the Gelotti contract was

[46:55] priced at cost, there is no way to know if perhaps another company might have

[46:58] also performed the work at cost and for a lower price. It is poor public policy

[47:03] and not in our best interest to prevent the public from being able to first

[47:07] review and comment on how expenditures of taxpayer dollars are being spent. The

[47:13] authorization of this construction work is being approved prior to sequel review

[47:17] issues at 350 Midale being resolved by the Maring County Court. And so in appre

[47:22] approving this contract, the city is proceeding at risk of having the city's

[47:26] secret claims being overturned. The city has claimed that there is zero

[47:30] possibility of any environmental impact from this project on a site that has a

[47:34] tributary to Galan Galinus Creek and a secondary drainage, both of which are

[47:38] waters of the United States and which provide at least some habitat or may

[47:43] provide some habitat for special status species. to claim zero possibility of

[47:47] any potential impacts to these habitats is a dubious claim indeed. The city

[47:52] should not should withhold action on this construction contract until the SQA

[47:56] issues are first fully resolved. Thank you.

[48:00] » Thank you. Any other public comment on the consent calendar?

[48:05] I don't see anyone in the chambers. Is there anyone online that would like to

[48:08] comment on this? >> I do see a few hands raised. Just as a

[48:13] reminder, you can use the star 9 to raise your hand or use the raise hand

[48:16] feature and you'll be prompted to press star six to unmute yourself.

[48:19] » And just a reminder, so it's on the consent calendar cuz I know we are now

[48:22] adding in folks phoning in. So if you could uh just alert the council as to

[48:26] which item that you're referring to on the consent calendar, that would be

[48:30] helpful. Thank you.

[48:36] » Hello, Mayor and Council. This is Craig Murray with North Center.

[48:42] I want to thank you for having this open sessions for Zoomers and folks that call

[48:48] in. I'm calling in on item 2F cooperation agreement with county Marin

[48:54] for grant programs. Ren Min County's 2024.4

[48:59] action plan page 34 AP50 states that Min County has two areas of low-income and

[49:06] minority concentration. one the canal two unincorporated rent city and states

[49:12] the county could only invest in rehabilitation and affordable housing

[49:16] with federal dollars in these communities. This is a result of work

[49:20] undertaken to comply with the 2010 and 2019 voluntary compliance agreements

[49:25] with HUD. I request that the city council consider that the city as an

[49:30] entitlement city manage its own CDBG and home funds with staff under its goals of

[49:36] the housing element and the action and consolidated plan retain approximately

[49:41] 20% of its administration and apply these funds to all areas of Sanfell in

[49:45] need many charter and county seat cities manage their own entitlements

[49:52] as city continues with county management then I request that Centerfell members

[49:56] of the priority setting committee PSC considers other areas that are known to

[50:01] have qualifying low-inccome and minority qualifying areas such as Sandfell's

[50:06] California Hill and 9491 and Midell Road in 9493.

[50:12] Maryale Road supports a large population of qualifying minority and low-income

[50:16] households as well as seniors and children. And it has been over 50 years

[50:21] since the city has annexed area. And yet there are large sections without

[50:25] sidewalks, safe crossings, and improvements that can increase

[50:28] accessibility for these persons with disabilities and usability for seniors

[50:32] and children. Thanks again.

[50:46] Hi, Mayor Kate and city council Susan Gilbert. Again, I'm speaking to the uh

[50:53] 20 on the consent calendar, the resolution to purchase the fireboat. I

[50:59] think this is a very important piece of safety equipment, which I'm very

[51:04] enthusiastic about Sanfell acquiring. Um, I could see its usefulness

[51:10] particularly considering the terrible tragedy we suffered a couple years back

[51:16] during the canal fire. Um, and also of course the tragedy that happened last

[51:23] week on the bay. These types of boats can be crucial in preventing injuries or

[51:29] deaths. So, thank you so much for considering that resolution.

[51:42] Hello, my name is Phoebe Reyes and I live in Rafll Highlands near Sun Valley.

[51:47] Um I am calling to or chiming in to talk about item I believe it's 3A regarding

[51:54] the um increase in transfer taxes. >> I'm I'm going to interrupt you just so

[52:00] you know. We're happy to take your testimony now, but we're not on that

[52:03] item. We're actually on the consent calendar item, which is the one prior.

[52:07] So, if you wouldn't mind waiting and calling in during that item, that would

[52:11] be really helpful. >> Could you kindly tell me about how long?

[52:14] Um, uh, roughly. [laughter] >> Sorry, I'm new here. Don't show up to as

[52:19] many city council meetings as I'd like to.

[52:21] » Yes. Now, we normally don't have back and forth like this, but this is a new

[52:24] transition. Uh, we will be hearing a presentation by staff on item 3A. Um and

[52:30] that that and then the council member will u ask questions and then we'll be

[52:33] open up the public comment. So it depends on how many questions and the

[52:37] presentation probably in another half hour or so.

[52:40] » Yeah. First I very much thank you.

[52:46] » I'm seeing no other hands raised. >> Okay. Thank you. I'll close the public

[52:50] comment and it again um trying to be flexible because we really do appreciate

[52:54] people calling in and it's most helpful to have them calling in under the

[52:57] appropriate agenda item. So, uh, thank you for all the testimony that we heard

[53:01] on the consent calendar. Um, I don't know if there are any additional

[53:04] questions from the council. And if there aren't any, then I would request a

[53:08] motion on this item, please. >> I move the consent calendar.

[53:11] » Second. >> Moved and seconded. Roll call, please.

[53:14] » Council member Bushy. >> I.

[53:15] » Council member Hill. >> I.

[53:16] » Vice Mayor Curts. >> I.

[53:18] » Mayor Kate. >> I. That motion carries 40. Thank you.

[53:21] We're moving on to our first public hearing, which is the proposed November

[53:26] 2026 ballot measure, revenue enhancement, real property transfer tax

[53:30] rate. I'll turn it over to our interim city manager.

[53:54] Okay. Uh, thank you, Madame Mayor and members of the council. has noted this

[53:58] um public hearing is to consider um an action recommended by staff for

[54:05] the city council to adopt a resolution that would among other things uh place

[54:12] on the November 2026 uh ballot um an ordinance that would

[54:18] amend the city's uh existing real estate property transfer tax. Um, I'm gonna

[54:25] give a brief presentation and then quickly get to uh council uh question

[54:30] comments and the public comment for this item. Um again just a summary of the

[54:34] staff recommendation is um the adoption of a resolution uh calling the municipal

[54:39] election for the purpose of submitting to the electors a measure to modify

[54:44] Sanfell municipal code section uh related to the real property transfer

[54:49] tax which would um if approved if placed on the ballot by the council and

[54:54] approved by the voters would increase real property transfer tax rate. Um, we

[54:59] would also be adding an oversight provision consistent with um, most all

[55:03] of our other voter approved tax measures. And then the technical part

[55:07] about uh, requesting the county of Marin to consolidate and conduct the election.

[55:12] Uh, direction of the city attorney to prepare an impartial analysis and

[55:16] authorizing um, mayor and council member Bushy to

[55:20] file ballot argument andor rebuttals for the measure. So the background on this

[55:26] uh piece is part of a ongoing discussion that we've had in this chamber with the

[55:30] council and at council subcommittees regarding sort of some strategic

[55:35] planning around long-term fiscal stability and long-term fiscal

[55:40] sustainability. Um we won't rehash the lengthy meeting we had at the end of

[55:45] June where the council adopted the annual budget um 200 plus million dollar

[55:50] all fun budget. We did some balancing measures, some belt tightening, did some

[55:54] budget flexibility um to address some emerging needs. Uh

[55:59] but one of the things that we've been attempting to highlight throughout our

[56:02] discussions uh with the council on the city budget and fiscal um situation is

[56:09] really the um large and growing list I would say of unfunded and unmet needs

[56:16] that we don't currently have adequate funding uh to address. Uh the slide that

[56:22] we're sharing here actually was uh included in our last budget presentation

[56:27] um really to give examples within uh various categories

[56:32] um within our baseline funding which is costs that we are going to incur

[56:37] regardless of whether or not we have additional funding. Um some that still

[56:41] remain outstanding is um kind of a shortfall in our um kind of equipment

[56:46] replacement and a lot of our assets when they come up for um at the end of their

[56:51] useful life uh increasing costs related to uh liabilities and claims and that

[56:56] whole area which we will hopefully have some time for some more detailed

[57:00] discussions in the coming uh months. um at or near the top of the list

[57:05] continually um and it's highlighted by the council is our infrastructure uh

[57:10] funding needs. Um we are continuing to advance you know our capital program

[57:17] with um limited available funding a for maintenance and prevented maintenance.

[57:23] Most of the projects that end up funded in the capital plan are as a result of

[57:27] one-time funding and grants that we're able to secure. Um but there was an item

[57:32] actually approved I believe on the consent calendar a few minutes ago. Our

[57:36] annual uh payment maintenance program um about a million three million five a

[57:41] year goes into that. We are between two and a half and $3 million a year short

[57:45] of being able to fund our ongoing street pavement maintenance program at a level

[57:51] required to actually maintain current conditions, let alone improve them. and

[57:57] um you know arguably absent um either additional funding or rep prioritization

[58:02] of funding in that area, we will continue likely to see a decline in our

[58:07] um roadway conditions. Um also on that list is sidewalks, storm drain

[58:12] improvements. Uh we have a park um capital plan um park maintenance plan.

[58:18] We've identified about $10 million worth of um funding needs over the next 10

[58:23] years, separate and distinct from the demands on our park infrastructure

[58:28] related to new development, which was somewhat addressed by council's recent

[58:33] actions related to the um park impact fee. But in terms of just baseline

[58:38] maintenance and replacement costs for our current service levels, that's an

[58:41] area unfunded need. um public safety. Uh kind of well not top of the list but

[58:48] among the top of the list is um ongoing uh funding to be able to sustain if not

[58:55] expand our safe team. um alternative response to some of the calls for

[59:01] service related to our unhoused population or any individuals in crisis

[59:05] that um um need uh a response that doesn't necessarily require um sworn law

[59:12] enforcement or our fire and paramedic um staff. Uh we can have a long

[59:17] conversation and we will eventually on sort of public staffing uh going forward

[59:21] as we continue to see increased calls for service uh changing demographics and

[59:27] um just continued uh pursuit of best practices in the area fire and EMS. Um

[59:34] and then we've added some other areas on this list. Again, this was also included

[59:37] in the budget document and in the staff report. There's a little more extensive

[59:41] discussion of all of these. Um, I want to bring this slide back to the council,

[59:46] which is another, um, I guess piece of information that

[59:52] speaks, I believe, to uh, the context for the need to at least look at other

[59:58] revenue sources. And this is looking at um, of the property tax that is paid by

[1:00:07] all property owners who own property in the city of San Rafale. Um and this is

[1:00:12] the 1% constitutional state um property tax um rate of 1%. Um city of San Rafll

[1:00:22] near the kind of center right of this chart uh we retain uh 12.2%

[1:00:27] of every dollar that is collected. Um, and this chart basically shows um our

[1:00:33] allocation uh in comparison to the amount of property tax that's retained

[1:00:38] by other uh Marin County cities and towns and also on the blue bars um how

[1:00:46] much of that u property tax paid in each jurisdiction actually goes to Marin

[1:00:52] County. So just to be clear for San Rafll we retain 12.2% 2% uh county marin

[1:00:59] retains 19.2%. Um

[1:01:04] we are um I would say well below the average if you do a straight numerical

[1:01:08] average would be uh in excess of 16%. But this is just it's just a a fact of

[1:01:15] um how our dollars are allocated. And without arguing good, bad or

[1:01:20] indifferent, um being on the lower end of the scale while at the same time

[1:01:25] being a fullervice city where we run our own police department, our own fire

[1:01:30] department, have our own library that not all the cities on this chart um have

[1:01:34] responsibility for. Um while on the one hand we can compare our financial

[1:01:40] situation, our taxes to other cities and towns in Marin County, we all are

[1:01:45] dealing with a different um deck of cards, if you will, that we've been

[1:01:49] dealt with. So we're trying to do the best we can with the resources we have.

[1:01:52] Um but this is one of the reasons why um the city has relied on and continues to

[1:01:58] rely on um additional funding sources such as um you know voter approved sales

[1:02:04] tax measures, library tax measure, the paramedic tax measure. It's to bridge

[1:02:10] the gap between the service level and service level demands, the cost to

[1:02:14] deliver those services and the revenues that we would be receiving kind of on

[1:02:18] the natural uh to support those. and we can talk more about that. So this is

[1:02:23] just lays a little bit of the context. Um this is not our first discussion um

[1:02:29] in these chambers regarding ballot measures in general and specifically um

[1:02:34] options for November ballot. Um we included um this discussion both in a uh

[1:02:43] agenda item we did last February regarding long-term fiscal

[1:02:46] sustainability and strategies. We also uh discussed it in the context of both

[1:02:51] the proposed and the adopted budget um when it was presented as well as at the

[1:02:55] subcommittee. And this just summarizes that um you know going into tonight's

[1:03:02] recommendation uh staff uh had continued to look at the options potentially

[1:03:07] available to the city. Kind of narrowed our analysis down to two uh potential I

[1:03:14] would say viable options for the November ballot. Uh the first one being

[1:03:19] uh what we're coming back to and recommending which is looking at

[1:03:22] increasing the property transfer tax. Current tax rate is um $2 per thousand

[1:03:29] uh or effective tax rate of 0.2%. Um, and an increase to a uh 1% which is

[1:03:37] $10 per thousand or 1% uh would generate an additional $6 million per year, which

[1:03:44] um is um not the beall and endall, but would make arguably a significant

[1:03:50] contribution towards addressing at least some of the highest priority needs um on

[1:03:54] our unfunded needless and significantly as a general purpose tax. Um, in order

[1:04:00] for this to be enacted, it would require a majority vote, 50% plus one of the um

[1:04:08] um voters that would be uh participating in that election. Uh we've also had been

[1:04:14] looking at and continue to explore um an alternative which would be a public

[1:04:21] safety parcel tax. Uh which would be um as proposed a or contemplated uh a tax

[1:04:30] on a square footage of building improvements for all properties within

[1:04:35] uh the city. Um the what we were looking at was a rate

[1:04:41] that would generate about $3 million per year. Uh this is about half of what the

[1:04:45] measure P uh parcel tax that was approved in November 2024

[1:04:51] via a citizens initiative. Um um and so this has a different um

[1:04:58] obviously effective

[1:05:01] net tax depending on uh the size of the property and the size of the structure.

[1:05:06] Um with some property owners having some significant uh tax bills as a result. Um

[1:05:11] but also a as a special tax for this to be enacted it would require a twothirds

[1:05:17] vote of the um electors participating in the in the November election. Um we

[1:05:24] shared also with the council um last month um sort of uh some scenarios of

[1:05:31] how either a uh revenue from a property transfer tax um as suggested um that

[1:05:39] would generate $6 million, how that could be allocated. um essentially

[1:05:44] between infrastructure improvement needs and uh public safety

[1:05:48] needs and how we might uh potentially propose a public safety parcel tax were

[1:05:54] we to proceed um uh with that albeit at a uh reduced overall dollar amount but

[1:06:00] potentially a little bit more uh funding for public safety because of its

[1:06:05] dedicated nature. So, um, from that I want to, um, move forward to since this

[1:06:12] was presented to the council and we signaled this, um, at the time, uh, the

[1:06:16] city did conduct a survey, a poll of, um, likely voters in the November 2026

[1:06:25] election. I will note as I go through these slides that um Curtis Bellow from

[1:06:31] the polling firm of FM3 is uh joining us um online this evening and is available

[1:06:36] to answer any questions that uh may come up on either the information presented

[1:06:41] here or anything else related to uh the survey but went through the um

[1:06:47] methodology uh for their survey. Um, I'm not a survey expert, but this was a

[1:06:53] effectively a split poll where everybody received certain questions and then the

[1:06:57] poll was split to test these two alternatives um in in the sample. And um

[1:07:05] b just going to share highlights of of those results that um um both a public

[1:07:12] safety parcel tax and a property transfer tax received um initial

[1:07:18] support. uh just when asked sort of cold the question would you be likely to

[1:07:24] support um either of these measures? Um and what how these slides show is the

[1:07:31] definitely yes and the probably yes um right around 50 51% uh for both measures

[1:07:38] and similarly um probably no definitely no uh about a little over a third of the

[1:07:45] respondents. Um um the definitely nos are important because those are unlikely

[1:07:51] to sort of change their opinion over the course of um between now and November.

[1:07:56] Um so that's um important number but also is the um level of undecided um

[1:08:04] opinions um in the sample. So it depends on more information and how things are

[1:08:09] going at the time etc etc. um for the public safety tax. Um we're showing the

[1:08:16] initial uh sort of voter sentiment and then as these surveys do to help um

[1:08:23] really dig a little deeper, the respondents are presented with likely

[1:08:27] arguments in favor of the measure to see how their opinion might be um swayed or

[1:08:34] how it moves. and in this case uh for the part public safety tax up to about

[1:08:38] 60% and then when presented with uh sample arguments or statements in

[1:08:45] opposed or or critical of the measure reasons not to support the measure um

[1:08:50] that what's important here to take away is that um while there was a majority

[1:08:55] support beginning, middle, and end for this measure, it didn't come close to um

[1:09:00] hitting the twothirds vote requirement that would be required uh for a special

[1:09:05] tax. Um, when looking at the general purpose uh real estate property transfer

[1:09:10] tax, again um again given the margin of error in these samples that Curtis can

[1:09:16] speak to better than I can, right around the required threshold um out the gate

[1:09:24] with um hearing arguments in support of the measure and the reason why we would

[1:09:29] be advancing it. Uh it went up into the mid uh 50% range. to to get some um bump

[1:09:35] there. Um but it's noteworthy that arguments that were presented uh in

[1:09:41] opposition to the measure also had the effect of reducing some of that. So the

[1:09:47] takeaway here is that uh between the two measures uh the public safety tax

[1:09:53] doesn't really look like it has a path towards getting a twothirds u support

[1:09:58] regardless of the effort that that may go into that. Um and the recommendation

[1:10:04] that's before the council tonight for a real estate transfer tax um has a

[1:10:11] potential path to uh passage and support, but want to be clear that it by

[1:10:16] no means um falls under the you know slam dunk these rarely do. But um it's

[1:10:23] based in part based on these results that we're advancing uh the

[1:10:26] recommendation that's that's before you this evening. Uh I'll just end this part

[1:10:31] of the presentation to by um highlighting that within the survey um

[1:10:37] there were also a number of questions aimed at both um what are the areas that

[1:10:44] the prospective voter and the community more broadly defined um feel are

[1:10:50] important to support in a um tax measure and a revenue measure. And this uh the

[1:10:57] far right column here adds the extremely important and very important um those

[1:11:02] two numbers. Um and at the top of the list um number one, not surprisingly, is

[1:11:08] maintaining our 911 emergency medical, police, and fire response times, which

[1:11:12] is a key component of why we would be uh putting this before the voters,

[1:11:17] preventing the deterioration of streets and roads. Check addressing impacts of

[1:11:22] homelessness, including litter and illegal dumping. So some of the what's

[1:11:27] interesting here is among the highest priority needs that we've identified,

[1:11:31] they seem to also be the ones that resonate most strongly with at least the

[1:11:36] respondents um from the survey. Um there's a long long list below this, but

[1:11:41] I just wanted to highlight um those areas among others. Um so again, the

[1:11:47] recommendation before the council this evening is essentially to um pursue

[1:11:53] um asking the voters if they would be uh supportive of increasing the real estate

[1:12:00] property transfer tax um as a general purpose tax um again uh with a increase

[1:12:07] to a rate of of 1% that would generate $6 million uh dollars per year. I should

[1:12:13] note that in the staff report and in the resolution is the actual ballot language

[1:12:19] that is being proposed. I probably remiss that I didn't cut and copy that

[1:12:23] into this, but we can uh highlight that for sure uh before we um get to any

[1:12:29] council decision on this. Um, I wanted to end with just a few more um kind of

[1:12:34] background and context pieces in terms of um not so much um why we're

[1:12:41] contemplating bringing a property trans a tax measure to the voters um but why

[1:12:47] specifically a property transfer tax. And we did look at other tax measures

[1:12:51] including other general purpose taxes which include um you know the transient

[1:12:57] occupancy hotel tax. Uh many cities have utility users tax on the books that the

[1:13:02] city of San Rafll does not have. Uh the business license tax. I would just say

[1:13:06] that the hotel tax and the business license tax um would not be generating

[1:13:12] anything near this amount of revenue even with um you know bringing them to

[1:13:18] arguably the maximum rate that would even contemplate uh bringing forward.

[1:13:22] So, the property transfer tax we believe is um at least um

[1:13:29] interested in a couple of respects. Number one, it's a tax that we already

[1:13:33] have on the books. So, it's just increasing existing tax. Um, number two,

[1:13:38] the tax rate is um, arguably, you know, depending on the cities that

[1:13:45] we're comparing to, and I'm looking at all of the cities in California that

[1:13:49] have property transfer tax, which by the way is by state law only the purview of

[1:13:54] charter cities. So, general law cities do not have the ability under state law

[1:13:59] to enact um, a property transfer tax. Um but uh

[1:14:05] we shared before and we'll see on here our current tax rate on the low end and

[1:14:10] uh significantly for cities that do have property transfer tax, it generally

[1:14:16] provides a significantly I would argue significantly higher share

[1:14:20] of overall general fund revenues than the 1.5 million that we collect out of

[1:14:25] $110 million general fund budget. Um, and so this chart does sort of compare

[1:14:31] existing property transfer tax. Um, and I drew the line right at the the San

[1:14:36] Rafale. So you can see clearly the cities whose have these taxes on the

[1:14:40] books that generate um um whose general fund is more reliant on property

[1:14:45] transfer tax which from a finance director's perspective is also appealing

[1:14:50] relative in the sense of diversifying our tax base as opposed to going back

[1:14:55] for another sales tax increase or other some of the other taxes. Um also uh on a

[1:15:01] per capita basis uh there are charts about you know gross property tax

[1:15:06] revenues but those are very skewed by sizes of city. So to normalize that,

[1:15:11] this is the property transfer tax revenue uh on a per capita uh basis. And

[1:15:17] again, Sanfell there is on the green line in the middle of the chart and it

[1:15:21] shows you of all the cities that have the property transfer tax on the books,

[1:15:26] the vast majority of them are uh generating significantly more revenue uh

[1:15:30] per capita. So, um um and then the last chart, which um

[1:15:37] I'm going to attempt to explain just shows really the property transfer tax

[1:15:44] rates that cities that have property transfer tax on the books um charge. I

[1:15:49] will note um of interest that while I have a number of cities, I think 25 26

[1:15:54] cities in the state with property transfer taxes, this is actually sorted

[1:15:58] by county. So you'll have sort of your Alama County, East Bay cities um off to

[1:16:05] the right. Um, and then when you get into Elserto and Richmond, you're in

[1:16:10] Contraasa County, and then you get into some of the Southern California counties

[1:16:14] until you get to San Rafll, which is next to Santa Monica that has one of the

[1:16:19] highest rates. And then City County, well, Sacramento, City County, San

[1:16:23] Francisco, and then Sanonteo, Santa Claras, and at the far end you have

[1:16:28] Sonoma County, which is the Paluma and Santa Rosa's um on on that. And uh this

[1:16:35] chart tries to uh display two things. One is uh the comparative

[1:16:41] uh real estate transfer tax. Um and if it can if it shows on the video, the

[1:16:48] sort of the purple are the cities that just basically have a flat property

[1:16:52] transfer tax applied across all uh transactions at that rate. Um there are

[1:16:58] several cities, maybe about six or eight of them that have the so-called tier

[1:17:03] structure. So they'll have a certain um tax you'll see at the bottom. Some of

[1:17:09] them, you know, anything up to 300,000 and then up to a million, one and a

[1:17:12] half, 2 million, two and a half. So some of the, you know, these cities that may

[1:17:16] go up into the three, four, five, and six% um only do that for their higher

[1:17:22] value, but it just shows that there's a taring of them. Um and I would just note

[1:17:27] that with our recommendation to consider um without a taring structure increasing

[1:17:33] our rate to 1% uh the San Rafale bar would be up at that first line which is

[1:17:39] the 1% the horizontal line and um while I didn't put the proposal on here you

[1:17:45] could see how it then compares sort of with the other cities that um have the

[1:17:50] existing taxes on the books. um we have not done a lot of research on to what

[1:17:55] extent some of these cities might also be contemplating bringing forward

[1:17:59] additional taxes on it but um thought that would be uh somewhat um

[1:18:05] illustrative. Um so just to wrap up our staff recommendation uh this evening is

[1:18:11] for the council to consider and um adoption of a resolution to call the

[1:18:17] general municipal election uh to place the measure on the November 2026 ballot

[1:18:23] increasing the real estate property transfer tax uh and then requesting that

[1:18:27] the county consolidate and conduct the election. have the city attorney

[1:18:31] authority to prepare impartial analysis and then uh mayor and council member

[1:18:36] Bushy to file arguments. So with that I will conclude the presentation. Um happy

[1:18:43] to answer any questions you have. I said Curtis Bellow is joining us remotely. Uh

[1:18:48] if there's any questions on sort of the needs component, we have also staff

[1:18:53] available here at the meeting to help uh answer any questions council might have.

[1:18:58] » Thank you. Thank you for that staff report and as you mentioned we have

[1:19:02] talked about it in the finance subcommittee as well but we haven't had

[1:19:06] a chance to talk about it um up here on the dis. So I'll start with questions

[1:19:09] first. Uh vice mayor do you have any questions?

[1:19:12] » I just have a couple of questions and thank you for um we had followed up

[1:19:17] earlier in the day with some additional questions but I want to share a couple

[1:19:20] of those because I think the responses are really helpful for people to

[1:19:23] understand. Um right now it's being proposed that the

[1:19:28] it's a general it'll be a general fund um revenue stream and I was wondering

[1:19:35] what the thought was in terms of uh not doing a percentage of infrastructure

[1:19:42] versus public service. Um like we have with marine wildfire we have a lot of uh

[1:19:48] percentages and earmarked and why why it's considered not to do that for this

[1:19:53] one.

[1:19:56] Um so I think the short answer of that question is um while as we shared in the

[1:20:02] presentation there's definitely some thought as to how the city would most

[1:20:07] likely um allocate the funding and um under general purpose it's important to

[1:20:13] note that ultimately that decision is to the city council. they are by law and by

[1:20:18] definition discretionary dollars to be spent on whatever the council deems um

[1:20:24] appropriate. Um, you know, it is important though when we're going to the

[1:20:27] voters seeking a tax increase to be um as transparent as we can be as to the

[1:20:34] needs that are driving it and how this fund uh could assist once we start um

[1:20:40] building into the actual ordinance or ballot measure uh those

[1:20:47] carveouts or allocations then it starts to move into the special tax category.

[1:20:53] So for instance, NWPA by its nature is a special tax and then there's allocations

[1:20:59] and how you're using it within that. But that's the that's the main distinction.

[1:21:03] » Yeah, I appreciate that. Thank you. Um, is there any thought in or analysis at

[1:21:09] this point in terms of how much the tax would generate from commercial sale

[1:21:13] versus residential? >> Um,

[1:21:18] I will say, Vice Mayor Curts, that we have that data. Um I don't have it at my

[1:21:24] fingertips. Um but we did look at the last I believe 8 to 10 years of um

[1:21:33] actual real estate property transfer tax paid in terms of the number of

[1:21:37] transactions the value of the transactions

[1:21:41] and I want to say that there's um

[1:21:45] residential versus commercial is somewhere in that in distinctions in

[1:21:49] that database. >> Okay. Thank you. Um

[1:21:52] » I will say the vast majority will be on residential

[1:21:56] just because of the volume. >> Yeah.

[1:21:59] Um can you share a little bit about how

[1:22:03] this I mean it was talked about the finance committee but other groups or

[1:22:07] areas that you've started to uh to review the possibility of of going down

[1:22:12] this path just so it this isn't I mean we know that this is not the first time

[1:22:16] as you had mentioned we've we've discussed this in different forums

[1:22:20] » um publicly but have you um had an opportunity to share at this point with

[1:22:25] others? uh a little bit uh but I would say um

[1:22:30] other than the um the work we've done at the staff that we brought to the fine

[1:22:35] subcommittee and the pieces that it brought to this committee I would say

[1:22:39] that most of the engagement um with uh select members of the community has been

[1:22:46] in response to questions or inquiries that we have received as they've been

[1:22:51] following this uh item going through um less So, um, frankly, in terms of, um,

[1:22:59] you know, proactive outreach, um, um, and as you know, and as the city

[1:23:04] attorney will want me to say, um, should the council put this on the ballot, uh,

[1:23:09] we are precluded from, um, using staff resources, um, and city resources in a

[1:23:15] campaign advocacy, um, area, but we will absolutely be ensuring that we're um,

[1:23:23] available to um um share information and put out information that might be

[1:23:29] helpful to the community in deciding. >> Great. Thank you. And the last question

[1:23:34] I have is um why was a flat 1% rate recommended instead of a graduated

[1:23:39] structure that places more of the burden on higher value transactions?

[1:23:44] Um yeah, that is a good question because it was something that that was looked at

[1:23:48] and um also informed by looking at some of the other agencies that do have those

[1:23:53] structures in place and I would say um three

[1:24:00] kind of main reasons. Um the first one is that um because of the concentration

[1:24:07] of the transaction really in the lower end of that that as soon as we were to

[1:24:12] say for instance we're recommending an increase for um properties over even say

[1:24:18] $2 million let alone three million the amount of incremental revenue um is

[1:24:23] diluted significantly. I think um I don't have it in front of me, but I

[1:24:28] think you know almost half of the real estate property transfer tax comes from

[1:24:33] sales under one and a half million and if you go up to 2 million it's it's over

[1:24:38] half if not twothirds of of the revenue. So in our situation it gets diluted uh

[1:24:43] very quickly. Um that is not necessarily a reason not to

[1:24:49] do it. Um, however, we also did include in our survey some questions about

[1:24:54] whether or not doing a tiering would um um impact uh voter sentiment, at least

[1:25:02] as um represented by the survey. And uh that did not move the needle. In fact,

[1:25:08] when we posed questions about uh taring, it actually lowered the support. I don't

[1:25:15] pretend to know why. Others might have opinions on it, but there wasn't really

[1:25:18] a a compelling reason both from a financial standpoint. Um, and the last

[1:25:23] one, which I'll shouldn't even mention, but um, given that we are limited in law

[1:25:29] to the 75 words in the ballot question, trying to explain a tiered

[1:25:34] tax structure takes up most of the ballot question to

[1:25:39] begin with, and the pros and cons of of doing that didn't pan out for us.

[1:25:43] » Great. Appreciate it. Thank you. So, Thank you, Council Member Bushy.

[1:25:47] Questions? >> Thank you. Um my questions um revolve

[1:25:51] around comparison of San Rafale to our neighbors. I want to start with um early

[1:25:57] in your presentation you um showed that San Rafale retains about 12% of property

[1:26:06] tax revenue and our neighbors in the fine city of Mil Valley though retain

[1:26:11] twice that. Why is that?

[1:26:20] I don't know that there's an easy answer to that question. Um

[1:26:26] uh other than what I may have tried to explain before that, um the property the

[1:26:35] allocation of the baseline Prop 13 property transfer tax was put in place

[1:26:42] following the passage of Prop 13 uh back in 1979

[1:26:48] and um which is when Prop 13 was approved by the voters in the state of

[1:26:53] California. Um and then uh the enabling legislation was I believe AB8 which is

[1:26:59] the legislature. And so, um, to try to make it very simple, the

[1:27:06] legislature came up with a property tax allocation formula

[1:27:13] that was developed to with the purpose of ensuring that any city's

[1:27:22] uh share of property tax post Prop 13 was in proportion to their proportionate

[1:27:29] share of property tax pre-prop 13. So on a statewide basis, so if um and so what

[1:27:36] this suggests is for cities before that could set their own property tax rates.

[1:27:40] So cities that had a quoteunquote high property tax rate going into Prop 13 who

[1:27:46] would have been much more negatively impacted by a statewide 1% figure. they

[1:27:52] keep more of the uh local property tax than a city that may would have had a

[1:27:59] lower property tax rate at the time. So all other things equal, it's the formula

[1:28:06] that um implemented Prop 13 >> in 1979

[1:28:11] » in 1979. >> Okay. So this this happened a long time

[1:28:13] ago. This was set and we cannot change it. That's the important

[1:28:17] » we cannot change that. The other area or two that impacts this number over time

[1:28:23] is obviously new cities, new incorporations. Um but for instance um

[1:28:29] when uh cities will annex um areas into the city, then there's a tax sharing

[1:28:37] agreement that uh takes place that they're negotiating with the county. And

[1:28:41] so if we were to annex another area of unincorporated and negotiated a higher

[1:28:46] share than 12.2 two for that annexation our average goes up. So that's another

[1:28:50] area where that number changes over time as cities grow and annex. And the second

[1:28:56] one you mentioned earlier in the context of utilities but um consolidations

[1:29:01] because all the special districts that allocate. So some of these cities for

[1:29:04] instance that are served by fire districts, the fire districts get a

[1:29:08] portion of that property tax. You would think that they'd have a lower property

[1:29:11] tax share but it doesn't always pan out that way. But if going forward we were

[1:29:16] to and we're discussing some consolidations ourselves with Merinwood,

[1:29:19] there's the potential that we would receive some of their property tax and

[1:29:22] this number could change through that process.

[1:29:25] » But setting aside those like literally adjustments around the edges. um

[1:29:29] focusing on what happened in 1979 and where it leaves the city of San Rafll,

[1:29:35] » it leaves us disadvantaged from by a factor of 100% compared to Mil Valley of

[1:29:42] property taxes. >> And that that disadvantage is part of

[1:29:46] the justification for turning our attention to other sources of revenue

[1:29:50] because if I'm correct, um San Rafel is the only charter city in Marin County.

[1:29:55] Correct. >> I believe so. So, we're the only city

[1:29:58] that could have a real estate transfer fee.

[1:30:02] » Yep. >> Okay. So, we're on our own.

[1:30:05] » Can I can I underscore that because I I on that chart we just showed the you

[1:30:09] know the average allocation of property tax for marine cities and towns is I

[1:30:14] think was 16.2 which is 4% more than our 12.2. That would have if we had that

[1:30:21] level it would we would be receiving about $9.6 6 million a year in

[1:30:27] incremental property tax and I would submit that we might not be having this

[1:30:32] conversation if we were >> we'd be even happier if we had Mil

[1:30:35] Valley's 25%. So just putting that out there um but comparison so that what and

[1:30:40] what's um driving this now turning our attention to the newly proposed tax um

[1:30:46] real estate transfer tax um we have no we have no comparators in Marin County

[1:30:52] because we're the only one that can do this. Correct. on. So that leaves us

[1:30:56] with looking sort of across the North Bay. In your other um chart showing all

[1:31:02] of the the different counties other than Southern California, when we look across

[1:31:08] the North Bay, we see that they were below 1%. We would

[1:31:14] not be we would be jumping from one of the lowest

[1:31:21] trans um real estate transfer taxes to one of the highest in the North Bay. Is

[1:31:26] that right? >> Uh that would be correct.

[1:31:29] » Okay. And this is driven by our the fact that we're taking our 0.2%

[1:31:37] tax and turning into 1% tax. It's 5x >> of the tax rate.

[1:31:43] And how did you select that number just for

[1:31:49] ease of mathematics? Um

[1:31:54] well two things. It was the you know do you

[1:32:00] propose an increase in the property transfer tax for a $2 million

[1:32:04] incremental revenue and how does that move the needle on the need? So it's a

[1:32:08] combination of the needs that are well in excess of it. what would

[1:32:15] represent a meaningful uh increment. Um, hey, we could put

[1:32:21] another couple million into streets and roads. We can put a couple million into

[1:32:24] public safety. We could deal with some of our parks and facilities. that would

[1:32:27] make a significant uh in and within that larger cohort of comparisons

[1:32:36] still be within the um the range of what um

[1:32:43] cities that have these taxes on the books are able to generate. So, in

[1:32:47] short, to make it worth our while, we needed to make it a significant increase

[1:32:51] to get a a a meaningful um increase in funding for our our needed priorities

[1:32:59] because of this anomalous thing that happened back in 1979. And the other

[1:33:03] thing I would note that is um in the staff report and implied in the ballot

[1:33:09] question is unlike a parcel tax, unlike a sales tax, unlike a business license

[1:33:14] tax, this is paid one time at the time of the transaction of the sale. So it's

[1:33:19] not a tax that those who are um you know paying the tax you know are paying on a

[1:33:27] ongoing annual basis. So there's a distinction between how a property

[1:33:32] transfer tax functions and most other taxes that we are able to um enact.

[1:33:38] » Great. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member Hill.

[1:33:43] » Thank you, Mayor Kate. I have a few questions. Uh when I look at the um

[1:33:48] draft ballot statement at the very bottom, it indicates uh with annual

[1:33:54] audits and public spending disclosure. Can you elaborate on what that would

[1:33:58] mean? I presume it meant that um at least it involves the voter approved tax

[1:34:03] oversight committee including this as part of its uh um oversight, but I just

[1:34:09] wanted to hear if there's any more or if you could elaborate a little bit on how

[1:34:11] that would go to that committee. >> Yeah, I'll speak to that and then maybe

[1:34:17] um ask Curtis if he has other Curtis Bellow other comments on it. Um so the

[1:34:23] part of the uh ballot question that references the ordinance change uh so

[1:34:28] right now I would say that the u our existing property transfer tax was

[1:34:34] enacted prior to prop 218. So was enacted by a council not by uh uh the

[1:34:43] voters. And so if this is placed before the voters and passes, we're essentially

[1:34:49] adding the same language that we have on um most all of our existing voter

[1:34:55] approved um uh tax measures. Um and yes, it would uh

[1:35:02] also fall under the purview of oversight of the voter approved tax oversight

[1:35:07] committee as currently constituted in their charter with a bit of a caveat

[1:35:13] because as we um have shared prior with the finance committee and we took action

[1:35:18] at the council um vote approved tax oversight committee, you know,

[1:35:22] appropriately um flagged that for a general purpose tax um oversight is is a

[1:35:29] little bit of a um tricky wicket because we don't necessarily track those. We

[1:35:34] track the revenue separate. We know what we're collecting because it goes into

[1:35:38] the general fund. Um they're generally not set up so that we can um you know

[1:35:44] account for all the dollars that are being spent from a general purpose tax.

[1:35:49] Um but that said um it is important to um include an oversight component. Um

[1:35:57] the other part is obviously you know all of our financials are subject to our you

[1:36:03] know regular annual independent audit. uh we do reporting to the council on all

[1:36:07] of this and what Curtis might add if I'm missing something is that um

[1:36:15] irrespective of the tax the tax rate and the mechanism of the tax what has is

[1:36:21] consistently um important to note when we're doing poll and what we're doing

[1:36:27] survey is to uh reassure the voters that these are locally controlled dollars

[1:36:33] that the state can't come and take from us at some future date. And that we are

[1:36:40] serious about um transparency in terms of oversight and audits and reporting

[1:36:47] and um

[1:36:50] whatever how we um allocate the dollars in the budget and how we do this will be

[1:36:55] um an important piece of it. >> Thank you. My next question is um

[1:37:01] regarding impacts. Um, so I can I think everyone in the room can do this kind of

[1:37:07] math, which is if you sell a property and the sale price is 1 million, then

[1:37:11] the tax rate for this particular tax would be $10,000.

[1:37:16] Aside from the math, um, can you contemplate what the impacts

[1:37:21] would be to real estate industry? >> Um, I'm not sure if I can speak to the

[1:37:28] impacts on the real estate industry. um if that's the question.

[1:37:32] » How about locally? >> Yeah. No, I guess what I would what I

[1:37:35] would say and this question does come up and um others will have their opinion

[1:37:39] and we'll see. But um I would just say that um it's not uncommon for the real

[1:37:46] estate property transfer tax and we have one on the books currently um is oftent

[1:37:52] times um um the real question is is it borne by

[1:37:57] the buyer or the seller on the property. So an argument is that it increases the

[1:38:02] cost if it's on largely on the buyer and may um you know kind of eat into the

[1:38:10] equity that a seller might be um otherwise getting from it. Um and I

[1:38:16] remind you we're talking about 1% of the sales price. So, um there are scenarios

[1:38:20] out there where a property transfer tax like many of the other fees that are

[1:38:24] associated like a real estate commission can be uh on both sides of the ledger

[1:38:30] like split between the property owner I'm sorry yeah the seller and the buyer

[1:38:35] that's um not uncommon um and then what get comes into play uh at least from

[1:38:40] some personal experience although it's been a while is that depending on the

[1:38:44] housing market right when you're in a buyer market then um some of these costs

[1:38:51] through the negotiation between individual buyer and seller um can be

[1:38:56] negotiated to be picked up by one side or the other. The other extreme is in a

[1:39:01] quote unquote you know sellers market when properties particularly residential

[1:39:05] properties are you know going over asking price cash only and they're

[1:39:11] flying off the market. It's not uncommon for the property transfer tax to then be

[1:39:15] um kind of swooped up into the transaction costs.

[1:39:20] Um, and um, that's all I'm gonna say about that.

[1:39:24] » Yeah. Well, thank you for addressing a very broad question on the real estate

[1:39:29] industry. So I and my final questions are are not to go through every unfunded

[1:39:34] need that you articulated but I do want to for the sake of emphasis understand

[1:39:39] what is meant by our pavement program is we'll will we need to increase it by 2

[1:39:45] million a year just to maintain PCI um which is our pavement uh if you

[1:39:51] can elaborate on the initialism and then just make certain that is it do we

[1:39:55] degrade by a half a percent a year a percent a year I just want to understand

[1:39:58] just so that a community member can understand

[1:40:03] how this translates into road quality. >> So, I'm going to ask our public works

[1:40:08] director, uh, April Mi Miller to assist on this. Um, but one thing I'll say at a

[1:40:14] very, very high level, and she can speak more to it, is, um, you know, we talked

[1:40:20] about $2 million. I think in the staff report we actually bumped that up to

[1:40:24] between two and a half three because I think in like 2022 or $23 we were in the

[1:40:30] that $2 million range and let's just say that um pavement condition index you

[1:40:36] know has you know numbers associated but they're in you know excellent condition,

[1:40:40] good condition, fair condition and we're at the very bottom of the um fair

[1:40:45] category and uh at our current funding level it will continue to deteriorate.

[1:40:51] rate. The question of how much funding is needed per our most recent reports to

[1:40:57] maintain it at the current level, let alone bring it up um is going to be

[1:41:03] probably in excess of the $2 million. April,

[1:41:07] » that sounds accurate. Um, yeah. So, just to weigh in a little bit more, so since

[1:41:12] we've been we've had such a limited budget on pavement over I mean, I've

[1:41:16] been here six years for six years on, you know, we've been using the money to

[1:41:22] just focus on maintenance. We've been doing slurry seals. We've been, you

[1:41:27] know, sealing cracks on roads that typically you would grind an overlay. We

[1:41:31] just been stretching every dollar we can to try to keep these roads just alive as

[1:41:36] long as possible. So to your question on how fast it will go down, like we're

[1:41:42] we're trying to put as many band-aids as we can to to keep the roads going, but

[1:41:48] it's hard to determine at what point they'll it'll just drop. I mean, we are

[1:41:52] we have been losing like a point a year consistently for the last five years,

[1:41:57] but it's sort of unknown since we are doing preventative maintenance on roads.

[1:42:04] So, you can't really tell how bad the underlying condition is on the road. We

[1:42:08] know what it is because we knew what it was before we did the pavement

[1:42:12] maintenance, but we are stretching our dollars to the maximum right now and

[1:42:17] it's it has been successful over the last few years.

[1:42:21] » Got it. And not to um try to create fair uncertainty depth, but what I'm hearing

[1:42:24] you say is that there could actually be underlying literally underlying problems

[1:42:28] with the with the substructure and things that may not be seen that

[1:42:32] patching may be able to alleviate for a season, but that there could be major

[1:42:36] problems where a road could fail and have to do emergency repaving.

[1:42:42] » Uh potentially, yes. Usually it just gets it starts to deteriorate more and

[1:42:46] more. Um yeah, quicker. So typically like if a

[1:42:50] road was more in the good condition, we would slurry seal it every seven to 10

[1:42:55] years. These roads that we're slurrying are in the poor condition, we should

[1:42:59] probably be slur if we're going to slurry them to keep them alive, we'd do

[1:43:01] it like every three years. We don't have the money to do that. So we're still

[1:43:04] trying to do in that 7 to 10 year mark, but yeah, the the roads are continuing

[1:43:08] to get worse and worse in that underlying condition.

[1:43:11] » Thank you, Director Miller. And can I can I add one more thing to that that I

[1:43:15] think we shared in one of the CIP is that you know the the goal is to do all

[1:43:19] the maintenance you can do to avoid the reconstruction of the road which happens

[1:43:23] eventually at a much more significant cost. So there's you know how

[1:43:28] aggressively can we maintain um what you're trying to avoid is having

[1:43:34] to get into the major reconstruction which uh this funding would not

[1:43:39] be enough to support. >> Okay. Thank you. And as I said, I would

[1:43:44] not uh inventory all of our unfunded needs, but there is one other which is

[1:43:47] the safe team uh $750,000 a year that we cannot that we don't have a plan for

[1:43:53] beyond this year. Can you just confirm that what the safety does and what would

[1:43:58] happen what could happen if we can't fund it?

[1:44:02] Um again I will ask um police chief uh Spiller to assist with this but yes as

[1:44:09] the council is aware uh we have been able to maintain what was initially a

[1:44:14] pilot program through some one-time funding. Uh, credit to the department

[1:44:19] and Chief Biller's uh, staff for identifying some grant funding that we

[1:44:24] were able to um, uh, receive that as you noted, we have secure funding for the

[1:44:31] current level of service through the current fiscal year, maybe a couple of

[1:44:35] months through the current contract, and then we're going to continue to be

[1:44:39] looking for um, how to keep this together. And um what uh the reason why

[1:44:45] this is on this list is not only um a candidate for

[1:44:51] stable recurring annual funding, but potentially also funding source to meet

[1:44:56] the um demands and potentially increasing the days and hours of

[1:45:01] operation of the safe team. Chief, >> that was perfect. I couldn't have said

[1:45:05] anything better. Uh so as the council's aware, you know, we had a very

[1:45:09] successful three-year pilot of the safe team. Um and at the conclusion of the

[1:45:13] three-year pilot, we extended that contract to coincide with the fiscal

[1:45:17] year and then did a one-year extension. So at the completion of this fiscal

[1:45:21] year, the safe team won't be funded. There's no permanent funding solution

[1:45:26] for the safe team. So absent this, the manager and I will be scouring

[1:45:31] opportunities and additional grant opportunities and other philanthrop

[1:45:35] philanthropic opportunities to uh offset the expenditure and that's based on the

[1:45:41] current deployment of a two-person team 12 hours a day or excuse me yes 12 hours

[1:45:47] a day every day of the calendar year. There has been question from the

[1:45:51] community uh from community groups and even council members what are the

[1:45:56] opportunities to expand the program. So uh that will be a part of what um we

[1:46:02] could potentially leverage this additional revenue for.

[1:46:06] » Thank you chief. Those are my questions. Thank you.

[1:46:09] » Thank you. I just have one um hopefully easy question. So this is already on the

[1:46:14] books and you mentioned in answering council member Hill's question about uh

[1:46:20] why it is going to the voters. So that original 2% was done by the council but

[1:46:26] not this council and I don't see anywhere in the staff report when this

[1:46:29] was originally we we've already agreed to do this in

[1:46:34] this community. This is not a brand new tax. It's an increas increasing one that

[1:46:39] already exists. So, I don't recall. I don't know if Council Bushy recalls. So,

[1:46:44] it wasn't in the last 20 years when we've been here. [laughter]

[1:46:48] Um, but I'm curious you and and I'm um Oh, I see it. City attorney, deputy city

[1:46:56] attorney arriving and then you mentioned 218. Why is it that the council can't

[1:47:01] make the decision from the dis and why do we need to go to the voters? I

[1:47:05] believe that the original ordinance was adopted in 1990 1991.

[1:47:12] » Okay. >> Sometime around that

[1:47:13] » by the council at that point >> by the council prop it's like a

[1:47:18] municipal history lesson. Prop 218 came in 19

[1:47:25] 97 98. >> Okay. which said that for these specific

[1:47:30] types of taxes, they need to go to the voters and cannot be done through

[1:47:34] council resolution. >> It didn't specify real estate transfer

[1:47:38] tax, but the type of um revenue generation now requires a voter

[1:47:46] approval. >> Can I add that Prop 218 did two things?

[1:47:49] It required that um any and all taxes require voter approval and it also

[1:47:56] stipulated that special taxes require a twothirds vote.

[1:48:01] » Okay. >> Yeah.

[1:48:03] » See, yeah, we're everybody's going to try.

[1:48:05] » We did a little bit of history um background research on this. So,

[1:48:08] ordinance 1303 was adopted by the city council in 1978 and then subsequently in

[1:48:13] 1990, ordinance 1595 was adopted by the city council and then about a week later

[1:48:18] there was an urgency ordinance that amended that slightly um in 1990.

[1:48:23] » Okay. So, if they had done a 1% then we probably wouldn't be having this

[1:48:26] conversation. So, right because there was no retro of reducing it to another

[1:48:31] number. So that that chart that you showed, those were all cities and towns

[1:48:36] that back before Prop 218 increased it to those numbers. Okay. Just again, it's

[1:48:42] a lot of context and and to understand why um we have an opportunity that other

[1:48:47] cities and towns might not have. Okay. I don't see any questions right now. We've

[1:48:51] asked a bunch and I know that the public would like to weigh in. Um so I'm going

[1:48:56] to go ahead and open up the public comment for this item. If you are in the

[1:49:00] room and would like to comment, uh, we'd love to hear from you. And just a

[1:49:04] reminder, we'd like to know what part of Sanfell, if you do live in Sanell, what

[1:49:07] part you live in. You're not required to say your name, but we would welcome

[1:49:11] hearing it. And we are maintaining a welcoming environment by refraining from

[1:49:15] hateful or discriminatory remarks. Welcome.

[1:49:18] » Hi. Good [clears throat] evening, um, mayor and members of the city council.

[1:49:22] My name is Jen Feifer. I grew up in Sanfell, own a home in this community,

[1:49:26] and I've spent more than 25 years in Marin real estate. Tonight, I'm speaking

[1:49:31] speaking on behalf of all homeowners. I want to be fair. The city has real

[1:49:36] needs. Aging streets, storm drains, and the pressure of emergency response. Um,

[1:49:41] it's not imaginary and I respect [clears throat] the work you do to

[1:49:44] manage it all. Um, I appreciate you reaching out to us, the community, um,

[1:49:50] before you place re the revenue measure um, before the voters, but I'm here to

[1:49:55] say no to this idea that you've proposed. Today, when a resident sells a

[1:50:01] home, the city transfer tax is $2 per thousand. This measure makes it $10,

[1:50:07] which is five times higher on a typical Sanfale home. That's about $10,000 more

[1:50:13] taken at the closing table. and it's permanent with no sunset. I have a

[1:50:18] listing now closing this Friday for $3.3 million and the trustees are paying

[1:50:23] 6,000 in city transfer taxes. If this were to pass, they would pay $30,000

[1:50:30] just for the city transfer tax. That doesn't include the county. So, you want

[1:50:35] to come to my listing appointments with me and try to explain this? Um, I'm

[1:50:39] going to condense this, but I'll email it to you. [snorts] Um,

[1:50:45] I think all residents should pay for 911 response times and storm drainage su

[1:50:51] systems and flooding and addressing the impacts of the homelessness and street

[1:50:57] and road maintenance and maintaining self safe places for kids to play. I

[1:51:02] agree with all that, but I think everybody should pay for it. You're

[1:51:05] proposing that one household at one very hard moment in time should pay the

[1:51:12] senior who is finally right sizing or downsizing or moving to assisted living

[1:51:17] where they're going to have to pay pay tens of thousands of dollars

[1:51:21] » before um >> sorry you got muted at the two minutes

[1:51:26] so no so so thank you for your comments and yes I will email you. Thanks so

[1:51:31] much.

[1:51:38] Good evening. Can pull that down. >> Good evening. Hi, my name is Sandra Del

[1:51:43] Regno and I live in Rafll Meadows in San Rafll. And I am against this tax for a

[1:51:50] couple of reasons. Number one, because to sell a house, it will in it will have

[1:51:57] to increase the value because you know, you want to get so

[1:52:02] much money for your house. You've spent money, you fixed your house up, you're

[1:52:06] going to add it to the cost. This over the last couple of years, everyone's

[1:52:12] talking about the high cost of housing. This will just increase the cost of

[1:52:17] housing. And what no one's addressing is all the

[1:52:22] new construction. There's 1,900 units going into Northgate. There's highrises

[1:52:29] going into San Rafale. All of those units are going to bring revenue into

[1:52:35] the coffers of San Rafale. That's significant money you're going to

[1:52:40] get get. You're not addressing all the extra money that you're going to be

[1:52:45] getting from all the new construction and all the new housing. I'm against

[1:52:49] this specific tax. Thank you.

[1:52:55] » Anyone else like to comment on this item in the chambers?

[1:53:04] » Hi. Uh my name is Noah Bugby. I'm a rising senior at Archie Williams. I was

[1:53:08] not planning on speaking, but something I've heard a lot through my time living

[1:53:12] in San Rafel is that we have an increasingly

[1:53:16] aging population, most of whom are the people that own the homes. And basic

[1:53:21] economics says that this will deincentivize selling your home or jag

[1:53:25] up the price, making it harder for the younger residents that we desperately

[1:53:28] need to come in. So, I'm just curious if the effects of that have been studied

[1:53:33] when we need a younger population. Thank you. Any

[1:53:40] other comments in the chambers?

[1:53:45] Okay, I don't see anyone in the room. Is there anyone online that would like to

[1:53:50] provide comments? >> There are some hands raised. Just as a

[1:53:53] reminder, you can raise your hand using star9 if you're calling in or you can

[1:53:56] use the raise hand feature on Zoom. And uh I will be muting you at two minutes.

[1:54:01] I do see a few hands raised.

[1:54:08] Hi, my name is Phoebe Reyes. I live in San Rafale in the Sun Valley

[1:54:11] neighborhood. I'm going to keep it brief, but uh I um also work as a

[1:54:16] realtor and I highlight everything that Jen was saying. Jen Feifer, who was the

[1:54:19] first to speak at the podium. Um it is incredibly difficult to buy a house in

[1:54:25] Marin County. And I hear everything that you're saying in terms of, oh, yes, all

[1:54:28] these fees are negotiable, but with the years of experience I've had selling

[1:54:33] houses, I can promise you that these costs are going to be uh the sellers

[1:54:38] will bear these transfer tax costs 99% of the time. Um, it is already so

[1:54:44] expensive for sellers to even consider selling the house. Yes, they're going to

[1:54:49] make some money, but I have a client who's selling right now, and the only

[1:54:52] reason he's selling in San Rafale is because he has to pay for $18,000 worth

[1:54:57] of um care for, you know, he's got $8,000 for his wife for memory care plus

[1:55:02] the thousands of dollars he has to go into for assisted living. And so when

[1:55:06] you look at these transfer taxes, San Rafale is the only

[1:55:11] city in Marin County that offers these. And I could see how you think it's a

[1:55:15] benefit in, you know, certain financial aspects. I I appreciate everything that

[1:55:19] you put together, but really you you the city council is approving so many new

[1:55:23] housing units. It's ridiculous. And then to add the cost of like to add this

[1:55:30] extra transfer tax is I think you can raise taxes or

[1:55:35] see these costs borne o over people who are not just the sellers. You know,

[1:55:41] everyone's going to benefit from these who live in San Rafale. And you know,

[1:55:44] from the from the community perspective, getting buyers into San Rafale, they

[1:55:49] want Southern Marin. So, we need to have incentives to benefit San Rafale. And

[1:55:54] that I don't think the transfer taxes is the right answer. I think if we allow

[1:55:58] more businesses in downtown, make it easier for things to open, we have lots

[1:56:02] of vacancies downtown, let's make it easier for small businesses. I do not

[1:56:05] agree with this transfer tax increase. Uh especially not at

[1:56:16] Hi. Good evening, Mayor Kate. Good evening. And city

[1:56:21] council chief spiller, city general manager. Um, I very much appreciate the

[1:56:29] aspect of this resolution that would pay for the maintenance for the safe team.

[1:56:37] Uh, I deeply appreciate the Sanfell Police Department and the work that I

[1:56:42] that they do in the downtown neighborhood in which I live and the

[1:56:47] safe team which provides a different type of support in particular for those

[1:56:53] who have mental health issues that can compromise the safety of those who live

[1:56:59] in the neighborhood. Um, [clears throat] also I was a little surprised by the

[1:57:05] survey results which said that uh many of the respondents didn't think that

[1:57:12] safety and patrolling was an issue. But then again um the the main issues happen

[1:57:20] in downtown San Rafale and only 2 to 3,000 of us live here. The other 57,000

[1:57:26] do live in the outskirts. So that probably makes sense. So I just wanted

[1:57:32] to say thank you very much for those of you who

[1:57:36] are in support of this resolution. I feel deeply grateful for both um the

[1:57:43] safe team, the Sanfell PD for the hard work they're doing and I appreciate the

[1:57:50] city council and the mayor's work as well.

[1:58:04] Hi, this is Victoria Dwit and uh I'm opposed to this increase in tax. Um, it

[1:58:11] might be worth noting that the UCLA Center for Regional Policy Studies has

[1:58:16] cited unintended consequences resulting from high property transfer tax,

[1:58:22] including reduced turnover of higher price

[1:58:26] properties, which reduces property tax. It impedes building new housing or

[1:58:32] improving struggling commercial property where property tax revenue could be

[1:58:37] increased. It can slow revitalization efforts and it reduces housing

[1:58:42] affordability. Another note is that there's my understanding it's a state

[1:58:47] law that cities and counties can charge $110

[1:58:53] per thousand for property transfer tax which is what every other city and the

[1:58:59] county does in Marin. It's only because Sanrell is a charter city that they can

[1:59:05] adopt an additional amount on top of the $110.

[1:59:11] So the 1%, it's not just 1%, it's the 1% plus 110 cents per thousand. Um,

[1:59:19] I think the increase is excessive and ill- advised and I suggest the city do a

[1:59:24] more thorough assessment of other sources of revenue. Even it means if it

[1:59:28] means that you get it from several sources rather than just going for the

[1:59:32] big bang of, oh, let's just hit the property transfer tax. We get $6

[1:59:37] million. Let's go for that. Um, I suggest doing an overall assessment of

[1:59:42] all revenue. Thank you.

[1:59:53] Good evening. My name is Grace Scarity. I live in Terinda and I am very much

[1:59:59] opposed to this text. I also um sent an email a little bit late uh today, but

[2:00:08] you'll see it in the record. Um I think the city needs to do a lot more um

[2:00:18] statistical analysis and research um regarding what other cities are

[2:00:24] doing. Um as uh Victoria Dwit just mentioned uh we

[2:00:32] have an already excessive uh charge in San Rafale. Um, and all the alternatives

[2:00:39] just seem to be uh increased taxes, increased taxes. What about savings? And

[2:00:45] what about joining with other cities? I mean, why do we have to have all our own

[2:00:52] services and everything? Um, it's it's just mind-boggling to me. Um the J had a

[2:01:00] very good opinion article recently about that and u the consolidation of services

[2:01:07] and how much uh savings that would lead. But then of course um cities uh lose

[2:01:15] city employees lose very well- paid jobs and uh everyone else loses power and

[2:01:22] they're fifing them. So, uh I urge you to look at other savings opportunities

[2:01:30] uh or even other uh incremental opportunities that are

[2:01:36] not always about taxing and taxing the residents. And you may want to think

[2:01:43] about increasing taxes on all these housing developments that are going up

[2:01:49] and having them take care of the roads much more. Thank you.

[2:02:02] » Hi. Hi there. My name is Chris Backer and I'm a resident in downtown San

[2:02:06] Rafale. Um, Council Member Eli Hill is my member and I also am a realtor, been

[2:02:12] practicing here for 13 years. And I just wanted to comment that um, a couple of

[2:02:16] things that I've noticed when when the commentary relates to these this money

[2:02:22] going to the general fund and not having an active way of tracking where the

[2:02:26] money goes. That's concerning to me on multiple levels because we often look at

[2:02:31] Sanfal being a place that already has a tax on the books. And when we've talked

[2:02:36] to the city in various in uh instances about maybe talking about a transfer

[2:02:41] tax, the response is not really you haven't been able to track the money a

[2:02:46] lot. So now they're coming back, you're coming back for a 5x on that number and

[2:02:50] the tracking isn't really there is pretty concerning even with citizen

[2:02:54] oversight. I also want to echo some of the other comments about maybe we should

[2:02:59] all bear this together because if you're just relying on a couple of transfers of

[2:03:03] real property, it's just we're not really in it together. And I I really

[2:03:07] applaud all the council here for asking really great questions and being

[2:03:11] intelligent on this. So, I don't really want to belabor that point cuz I think

[2:03:14] you are looking at this very holistically and just going at a small

[2:03:19] group of people just doesn't seem like a very intelligent way to try to fund, you

[2:03:25] know, the services. And then lastly, you was brought up earlier about the elderly

[2:03:29] population. A lot of people who are selling, I'm working with someone right

[2:03:32] now. I have to sit there and talk to them about what the current rate is and

[2:03:35] how much money that is. Um, and then I explain to them that there's a city

[2:03:40] resale report and they say, "What's that?" And I say, "Well, you pay the

[2:03:43] city $363 to come in and look at what you've done to your house." And then

[2:03:47] that adds up to more permit fees. And now I have to talk to them about quad

[2:03:53] quintupling their transfer tax. It starts to add up and that's why people

[2:03:57] actually aren't moving when those are the population we need to get out of

[2:04:01] their homes. Thank you for your consideration.

[2:04:08] I see no more hands raised, but I'll give everyone just a moment. Okay.

[2:04:12] » Okay. I do see another hand. >> Oh, okay.

[2:04:15] » I see two names on here. If there are two people in the same space and you

[2:04:19] both want to provide comment, please let us know so I don't mute you.

[2:04:33] You can press star six to unmute.

[2:04:43] » Brian, >> sorry I was muted. Can you hear me now?

[2:04:48] » Yes. >> Hi, uh, Brian Walsh, West End. I agree

[2:04:51] with all the comments made and I would appreciate it if you do put this to a

[2:04:54] vote so you can hear what the rest of the community has to say on this and I

[2:04:57] oppose it. Thank you very much.

[2:05:04] » I see no other hand raised. This is the last call.

[2:05:10] » I see no hand raised. >> Okay. Thank you. We'll close the public

[2:05:13] comment on this item. uh we received some great input but I heard two

[2:05:17] questions that I think are worth commenting or uh providing information

[2:05:20] on. One is uh and it kind of goes to the industry conversation but the effect on

[2:05:26] any new homeowners um and then the second one was housing units are coming

[2:05:31] online and there was in inference or implication that there'll be lots of

[2:05:36] money coming with that those units as well. So maybe you could speak to that.

[2:05:43] » Okay. Um so I'll try to address the questions related to that second uh

[2:05:49] question which is um

[2:05:53] sense that we're not taking into account all the new housing and the revenue

[2:05:59] that's going to come from that. Um, so this actually gets to that conversation

[2:06:05] we were talking about, which is how much revenue does the city actually receive

[2:06:11] from um any new development? Now, granted, there's property tax and if

[2:06:15] there's commercial industrial, there's sales tax multipliers. But in general,

[2:06:21] um, for most cities in California and for our quote unquote low property tax

[2:06:27] cities in that 12% range, um, generally speaking, the cost to provide the, um,

[2:06:36] services that the new uh, development brings in terms of population and folks

[2:06:43] to the city. um generally does not actually cover the incremental costs. So

[2:06:49] I would just say simply that for the most part when we're looking at new

[2:06:55] development and we're looking at impact fees so that they're paying their fair

[2:06:59] share, we're looking at potentially establishing uh financing districts so

[2:07:04] that new developments generate additional revenue. Um, it's not to

[2:07:09] cover the deficiencies and the gaps that we have in our current

[2:07:15] budget math to deal with the uh costs and the service demands of our existing

[2:07:20] population. We're challenged to just try to help make sure that new development

[2:07:27] doesn't make that problem worse by covering their cost. And happy to have

[2:07:34] we'll probably have more conversations about it. The exception to that is, you

[2:07:38] know, retail, um, at least back in the day. But retail generally generates more

[2:07:44] revenue than the cost. Um, but for, um, housing, unless you're looking at three,

[2:07:52] four, five million um, housing units, that revenue isn't

[2:07:57] going to cover the cost of services, affordable housing, significant uh,

[2:08:01] funding gaps. And so I would just submit that looking to development and revenue

[2:08:08] from new development to help address some of these core areas of underfunding

[2:08:13] is not um realistic or even even possible.

[2:08:19] Um >> I don't know if you want to take a stab

[2:08:22] at the effect on new homeowners, but I I I will say that we did receive a letter

[2:08:26] from the Marin um Association of Realators that also made a similar

[2:08:30] assertion. So, I definitely think industry um philosophy or approach uh

[2:08:37] does say that there can be a negative impact. So, I'll just leave it at that

[2:08:41] » and I I wouldn't dispute that and there are folks that understand that better. I

[2:08:44] would just say that there are lots of costs associated with the purchase and

[2:08:48] the sale of the property just like there's a lot of costs on developers and

[2:08:52] so you know I'm not surprised by you know developers that are saying our fees

[2:08:57] are making projects infeasible and that any tax on the real estate makes the you

[2:09:02] know transaction more challenging but um there's a lot that goes into that. Um, I

[2:09:10] would say, and I'm going to probably get in trouble for saying this, but I'm

[2:09:13] going to say that because folks who live here love living here, and there are

[2:09:17] folks that are, you know, would love to be able to relocate to San Rafale. Um,

[2:09:22] part of the reason, um, why our property values are where they're at and what the

[2:09:28] market demands for properties is because of the quality of life and the level of

[2:09:33] service that we can provide in this community. And so there is a at least a

[2:09:37] connection between our ability to maintain that um actually supports

[2:09:41] ongoing um value in ownership in the community.

[2:09:46] » Thank you for that. Um any additional questions? Do you have a question, Vice

[2:09:51] Mayor? >> No, but I also heard the question around

[2:09:55] other options for revenue generation.

[2:10:03] Um yes, I heard that too. Um so a comment that I would make on that is um

[2:10:09] kind of yes and yes, which is um by no stretch would uh any semblance of

[2:10:17] revenue that would be generated by this um solve the city's financial problems.

[2:10:24] Uh, I will say that we're not looking at this to deal with our short-term budget

[2:10:28] structural um that operating deficits because that we have to address. This is

[2:10:33] really where are there areas that we need to be putting more dollars in. Um,

[2:10:38] so it's going to be a combination of revenue measures and I would submit um

[2:10:44] that uh a property transfer tax increase would be one of the potential uh revenue

[2:10:51] areas. We've been discussing and looking at others including um maybe trying to

[2:10:55] get back a little bit more of the um hotel assessment that is being levied on

[2:11:01] visitors into the city so that the city could retain some of that. But um I'm

[2:11:06] glad you reminded me what's what's really important is that not only is one

[2:11:12] revenue measure not the beall endall solution because we have to look at all

[2:11:17] of them, but I would submit that just revenue enhancements isn't the answer.

[2:11:22] It can't be because we're never going to be out of trying to um keep up with the

[2:11:28] costs and the demands for services by just natural revenue growth are always

[2:11:34] going back to the voters. It's a combination of um being strategic about

[2:11:39] the appropriate revenues to generate. It's about what services and what

[2:11:44] service levels we can and can't afford. And there's some tradeoffs there. And in

[2:11:48] some jurisdictions, knock on wood, there's actually a discussion about what

[2:11:52] services we can and can't provide. Um, and so, um, managing costs,

[2:11:59] ensuring that the money we have is spent on the most important things, and then

[2:12:05] trying to maximize and diversify the revenue that we do bring to that

[2:12:08] conversation is just one part of the long-term sustainable financial picture

[2:12:15] for any city. Any additional questions from the council?

[2:12:22] So, um, I'll open up to comment and just to have you clarify that the action

[2:12:26] before the city council is to whether or not to put it before the voters so they

[2:12:30] can weigh in on this issue. So, that's the action.

[2:12:35] » That is correct. >> Okay. I just want to clarify to place

[2:12:37] the question before the electorate at the November 26 election. And just

[2:12:43] wanted to clarify because I know in all of this and we might have started to

[2:12:46] lose that sight thinking that we are actually taking the action to increase

[2:12:49] it or not but it would be before the voters if it were to pass this evening

[2:12:53] to put on the ballot. Um I will start with vice mayor your comments.

[2:12:57] » Great. Thank you. So um I have been doing my notes and listening and and we

[2:13:02] did get quite a few letters so I appreciate that. Um so a bit of a

[2:13:06] rhetorical question is how quickly can we spend $6 million? and having gone

[2:13:12] through the budget process and for a number of years. That's $6 million goes

[2:13:16] by very very quickly. Um local control is meaningful only when it's ex

[2:13:21] exercised transparently and with public consent and that is exactly what we're

[2:13:26] trying you know we are doing here is to with this process to bring it forward.

[2:13:31] Um I definitely support bringing it forward to the public for the ballot. Um

[2:13:38] the measure is expected to generate approximately six million in new annual

[2:13:42] revenue and that really only represents a very very small percentage of our

[2:13:46] entire budget um and of our general fund. So the it's you know the way we're

[2:13:52] looking at it right now we have so many critical services um between public

[2:13:58] service a police fire streets parks and other daily operations. We want to keep

[2:14:03] those going as strong as possible and we need to keep those going for our

[2:14:07] community. Um it's definitely not a slush fund. Uh it's it's about really

[2:14:13] keeping um that on as well as we know we have looming infrastructure needs.

[2:14:19] I do want to mention that we have we do I want to make sure that everyone

[2:14:23] understands we have our San Rafll property tax transfer and we also have a

[2:14:28] county transfer tax. But the county transfer tax funds does not directly

[2:14:33] come to San Rafale as in within our spending being able to manage directly.

[2:14:39] So those go for county services as well as support of the entire community. So

[2:14:44] that this is an opportunity for us within our toolbox of of a opportunity

[2:14:50] to raise additional revenue. Um consider it sort of our bake sale. Um but much

[2:14:56] more important than that because it is something that we do need the support of

[2:15:01] the voters to support us on that. Um the staff report, thank you, really framed

[2:15:08] the need and it's been an ongoing discussion over many many years

[2:15:13] basically of of their rising service demands and infrastructure needs and

[2:15:19] costs that are actually outpacing traditional revenue growth. revenue

[2:15:23] growth these days is not the, you know, mortar, the stores, the retail, what

[2:15:28] we're seeing. It's it's really changed. Um, and so I think that using this tool

[2:15:35] at this time and putting it to the voters is super important. Um,

[2:15:42] and that's a local authority that we have and it's a gift that we have uh to

[2:15:47] to address these local needs. We're asking the voters, not the council

[2:15:51] alone, to decide whether this is the right approach. Being a charter city

[2:15:55] gives us the ability to consider this option. It does not eliminate

[2:15:59] accountability. There was a question around accountability

[2:16:03] um and and that is built into the proposed measure um to ha to ensure that

[2:16:10] that accountability is there. It still requires voter approval, public

[2:16:14] disclosure, annual audits, and independent oversight. Every city has to

[2:16:18] evaluate the revenue tools legally available. Um, and San Rafll's charter

[2:16:24] gives us this option and [music] it's our responsibility to determine whether

[2:16:27] it is fair, necessary, and accountable and then let the voters decide. And I

[2:16:31] hope that we're able to move that forward and and look to the voters to

[2:16:35] get their um support. >> Thank you.

[2:16:39] » Thank you, Council Member Bushie. >> Well, raising taxes is never popular.

[2:16:45] um it's not something we like to do. Um however, as we discussed at Great Lakes,

[2:16:51] the unique and complicated history of what has happened with property taxes

[2:16:58] u distinguished from this real estate transfer tax.

[2:17:03] um have put us in a position where much of the funds that the check that each of

[2:17:11] us write uh twice a year, very little of it stays in San Rafale instead goes to

[2:17:17] the county, putting us at a disadvantage um and requiring that the city of San

[2:17:22] Rafale find other ways to fund necessary services that everyone depends on. this

[2:17:29] prop this real estate transfer tax is one is uniquely available to San Rafll

[2:17:37] um amongst the cities although as um the vice mayor points out the county has one

[2:17:43] as well that actually is more than um than ours um and we we will become

[2:17:52] closely aligned um with with the county but it will give us a another avenue

[2:17:58] venue to um bring some equalization. That's probably a bad word to use when

[2:18:03] I'm talking about taxes, but to another source of revenue um for our needed

[2:18:08] services um in the context of the relatively low amount of actual property

[2:18:16] taxes that stay in San Rafale. So, for that reason, um, and for the many many,

[2:18:23] um, hearings and public meetings that we've been through on all of the topics

[2:18:28] in the the list of the things that our constituents want. This is one way that

[2:18:34] we can um increase the funding available for those um, needed projects um, and

[2:18:41] services. And so, therefore, I support bringing this measure to the voters.

[2:18:48] Thank you, Council Member Hill. >> Thank you, Mayor Kate. Uh, building on

[2:18:52] my colleagues uh existing comments, I would underscore a couple of things.

[2:18:57] First, just that every letter that uh constituents wrote in about the impacts

[2:19:02] and people's opposition to this, this does create impact to people's

[2:19:06] livelihoods and and and does have an impact on how people buy and sell. And

[2:19:13] that said, wait against our unfunded needs. um as well as what I would

[2:19:19] characterize as sufficient analysis by staff looking at other municipalities

[2:19:23] noting that the city of San Rafale is a charter city and can uniquely take um be

[2:19:29] able to integrate this tax is something that other municipalities have examined

[2:19:33] as well. Most recently Salo these these this is why municipalities contemplate

[2:19:38] converting from uh general law over to a a charter city. the property tax

[2:19:45] allocation is as has already been elaborated upon prop 13 uh I will just

[2:19:51] say from this dis could use for some reform beyond just this moment prop 13

[2:19:56] has a lot of impacts on the state of California uh I know it's difficult for

[2:20:01] anybody in the assembly or senate to consider it but from this das I hope

[2:20:05] that folks will contemplate that this is one of the impacts of prop 13 uh I do

[2:20:10] support that this would go to the voter for consideration based on the survey uh

[2:20:17] and the likely revenue that it would uh generate. I also would like to to the

[2:20:23] degree possible and I appreciated your testimony uh city manager that the voter

[2:20:28] approved tax oversight committee can't readily and very easily say well this

[2:20:32] exact dollar went to this exact allocation to the degree possible. I

[2:20:35] hope that there's a way that we can at least start to create the ability for

[2:20:40] that committee to uh assess that. Thank you.

[2:20:44] » Thank you. Great comments. um appreciate staff for all the work that you've done

[2:20:49] and Curtis, I know you're listening online for doing the voter polling. I

[2:20:54] appreciated seeing that slide that shows what are the key issues and the key

[2:20:58] services that our community wants and they've pretty much been similar over

[2:21:02] the last decade of what we want and more. And uh the reality is we have the

[2:21:07] world that we want to live in and the world that we do live in. And the

[2:21:10] pragmatic reality is uh we have many unfunded needs. We tal heard talked

[2:21:16] about pavement. We talked about the safe team. So I no one disputes that the need

[2:21:20] is there and we even heard that from the comments uh from the public and thank

[2:21:24] you for the letters as well as folks that called and participated today. And

[2:21:28] so what is the tool? What is the mechanism to look at revenue

[2:21:31] enhancements? If you've been coming to our meetings, you know that for all the

[2:21:35] the financial discussions we've been having, we've been looking at revenue

[2:21:38] enhancements which include tax measures. And I can assure you, we are continuing

[2:21:42] to go after all the grants that are out there for the safe team or for uh

[2:21:47] matching grants for infrastructure improvements. None of that's going to

[2:21:50] stop. That's all a given. And in order to have the type of community we want

[2:21:55] with the type of love and care that we wanted to see, um I I want to put that

[2:22:00] tradeoff before our voters because it is a trade-off. The impact of this fee,

[2:22:04] Council Member Hill said that very well. There is an impact and we understand it.

[2:22:08] And the trade-off is the benefit that it brings the community. I want to see what

[2:22:12] the voters have to say uh about that and I hope that they support it. Uh but

[2:22:16] again, that will be a conversation that we'll have in the community. So, um

[2:22:20] thank you all. I will now uh entertain a motion on this item, please.

[2:22:27] I'll make the motion.

[2:22:31] Uh recommended action. adopt the resolution calling for a general

[2:22:35] municipal election on November 3rd, 2026 for the purpose of submitting to the

[2:22:39] qualified electors of the city a measure to modify chapter 3.2 322 of the San

[2:22:46] Rafale municipal code to increase the real property transfer tax rate and add

[2:22:50] an oversight provision. authorizing and requesting that the county of Marin

[2:22:55] consolidate and conduct the election, directing the city attorney to prepare

[2:22:59] an impartial analysis and authorizing Mayor Kate and Council Member Bushy to

[2:23:03] file a valid argument and rebuttal for the measure.

[2:23:06] » Thank you. Is there a second? >> Second.

[2:23:08] » Moved and seconded. Roll call, please. >> Council member Bushy,

[2:23:12] » I. >> Council member Hill,

[2:23:13] » I. >> Vice Mayor Curts,

[2:23:14] » I. Mayor Kate, >> I. That motion carries 40. Thank you.

[2:23:18] The next item on our agenda this evening, switching gears literally, is a

[2:23:23] change in speed limit on 18 Sanfell Roadway segments.

[2:23:29] I will turn this over to staff.

[2:24:04] Good evening, city council members, um, uh, Mayor Kate and city staff and

[2:24:09] members of the public. Uh my name is Kelly and I'm a traffic engineering

[2:24:13] technician with the city of centerfell department of public works. I'm joined

[2:24:16] today with our consultant for this project, Jimmy. He is a

[2:24:21] uh transportation engineer and planner with parametrics. Um we're here tonight

[2:24:25] to present on the change in speed limit on 18fell roadway segments. Um so to

[2:24:32] provide a little bit of context on where how we've gotten here. Um, so one of the

[2:24:37] objectives in the city's work plan is to implement new traffic safety laws. And

[2:24:42] as a part of this effort, we've been we're continuing to implement uh

[2:24:47] assembly California assembly bill 43 or AB43 for short. Um, which gives cities

[2:24:53] the ability to reduce speed limits on roadways as they meet the criteria set

[2:24:58] forth in AB43. Um, so we have presented previously

[2:25:02] about a year and a half ago on this effort. Um and as a part of that effort,

[2:25:07] we call it phase one now. Um we reduce the speed limit in downtown San Rafll on

[2:25:12] certain roadways such as Fourth, Fifth, Mission, and the North South Crossroads

[2:25:18] between those. Um so those all saw a reduction in speed limit from 25 mph to

[2:25:23] 20 m hour. And this was to create a more continuous 20 mph uh downtown Sanfel.

[2:25:30] And as we were going through this phase one effort, we saw a lot of community

[2:25:35] input and feedback on interest in expanding this reduction in speed limits

[2:25:39] to roadways outside of downtown Sanfell. Um so through city or city staff

[2:25:45] evaluation and then consideration of community input, we have put together a

[2:25:50] list of phase 2 locations that would all see a 5 mile per hour reduction in their

[2:25:56] existing speed limits. So, I'm going to pass it over to Jimmy who will provide a

[2:25:59] little more information on the AB43 criteria and then also the phase 2

[2:26:05] locations. Thank you.

[2:26:09] » Good evening, uh, council members, Mayor Kate, thank you. It's an honor to

[2:26:14] present again on speed limits in San Rafll. I know we've heard this

[2:26:18] presentation before. I do want to do just a little bit of review of speed

[2:26:23] limits and how they come to be. We'll talk about, as Kelly mentions, what

[2:26:27] we're now calling phase one and phase two of this project and what some of the

[2:26:32] next steps are coming forward.

[2:26:36] Uh, if we'll remember some of what we talked about a year and a half ago, most

[2:26:42] people are surprised to find out that speed limits aren't necessarily set by

[2:26:48] cities. We can't prescribe what we think is the best speed for a vehicle to

[2:26:53] travel and then set a speed limit. The California Vehicle Code describes two

[2:26:58] situations of how speed limits can come to be. On the left, you'll see primma

[2:27:02] fascia speed limits, which means at face at uh bespoke speed limits are are

[2:27:09] presumed as 25 miles an hour on most residential local streets. So, you'll

[2:27:14] see a picture on the left here of San Rafale. On all other roadways, speed

[2:27:20] limits are set by an engineering and traffic survey. This is a study of

[2:27:25] speeds and other roadway characteristics that must be performed by a traffic

[2:27:29] engineer. And the way the speed limits are determined is based on the 85th

[2:27:35] percentile speed. And another way that we think of 85th percentile is the speed

[2:27:39] at which 15% of vehicles travel at or above. So in essence, as per the

[2:27:45] California Vehicle Code, speed limits have always been set by the fastest

[2:27:49] portion of drivers traveling the roadway.

[2:27:53] This leads us to AB43. As of 2024, all provisions of AB43 went into effect and

[2:28:00] for the first time in California. Now, jurisdictions have to do two

[2:28:06] additional things. They can take they have to take into account the presence

[2:28:09] of vulnerable roadway users that is children, seniors, persons with

[2:28:14] disabilities, the unhoused when establishing speed limits and the

[2:28:18] proximity of those users to these roadways.

[2:28:21] Uh and importantly, AB43 now permits jurisdictions to reduce speed limits by

[2:28:27] an additional 5 miles an hour in certain areas if these roadways meet a number of

[2:28:33] characteristics. Uh so cities still cannot set their own speed limits, but

[2:28:38] what AB43 provides is in some situations an additional 5 miles an hour reduction

[2:28:44] from what would have otherwise been the recommended speed limit.

[2:28:49] Also in 2024, Sanfell adopted its local road safety plan. One of the

[2:28:54] recommendations from the LRSP was to consider lowering speed limits in

[2:28:59] compliance with AB43. The LRSP

[2:29:03] sets forth what we now call the high collision network. And as you'll see,

[2:29:07] this network in San Rafale, where the most crashes occur, uh is centered on

[2:29:14] downtown. And the primary collision factor of the

[2:29:19] greatest number of crashes in San Rafale is due to high speed.

[2:29:24] One other reason why we always take speed limits seriously and the speed at

[2:29:30] which uh vehicles are traveling on the roadway is because this this span

[2:29:35] between 20 and 40 miles an hour really greatly depend greatly drives the

[2:29:41] outcome of people that are involved in collisions. This graph shows out of

[2:29:47] pedestrians that are hit with a vehicle traveling 20 miles an hour, there's a

[2:29:51] 10% chance that that results in a fatality. But if that vehicle is

[2:29:55] traveling at 40 miles an hour, the chance of fatality increases greatly to

[2:30:00] 80%. And so we take great care in thinking about the traveled speeds

[2:30:05] within this band.

[2:30:09] As you may remember, uh, we established a 20 mph zone largely throughout

[2:30:14] downtown about a year and a half ago, adopted by council in February 2025.

[2:30:20] This came in conjunction with another requirement in the California Vehicle

[2:30:24] Code to update an ENTS and update speed limit validation every seven years.

[2:30:31] And now, as a result of uh broadly supportive feedback, we are evaluating

[2:30:37] and presenting the results of this further evaluation of roadways on other

[2:30:41] roadways uh other areas outside of downtown.

[2:30:46] A quick overview on the top band here is the timeline that phase one uh was

[2:30:53] enacted in the ordinance for downtown speed limits in the spring of 2025. in

[2:30:59] phase two is coming alongside just afterwards

[2:31:03] after uh the adoption of an ordinance and installation of signage. There's a

[2:31:08] required 30-day warning period where citations are not given yet and then

[2:31:13] after that warning period citations can be valid. The full implementation of

[2:31:19] both phase one and two signage striping education and evaluation phases is yet

[2:31:26] to come in the coming months.

[2:31:30] Previously, I presented a slide showing some other Bay Area uh newsworthy

[2:31:37] moments, installation of reduced speed limits from neighboring jurisdictions.

[2:31:42] And now, proudly, we have a picture here of San Rafale here on Mission Avenue

[2:31:47] just adjacent to where we are tonight, but other 20 mph signs have gone up in

[2:31:52] downtown. And then to remind ourselves of what we

[2:31:59] have taken into account both in phase one and in phase two of this evaluation,

[2:32:03] we've looked at the proximity of roadways to businesses. We've looked at

[2:32:08] previously adopted speed limits over the years, not just the current established

[2:32:13] speed limit. For each roadway evaluated, we've done a crash history analysis.

[2:32:18] We've looked also at the presence of vulnerable roadway users in proximity to

[2:32:23] these roadways. And we've also taken into account

[2:32:28] future infrastructure projects, existing infrastructure projects, as well as

[2:32:33] cclick fix, other public input, and then done this in consultation with city

[2:32:38] staff and the police department. So here on this map, we're here to

[2:32:43] display the draft results of phase two. Of course, roadways outside of downtown.

[2:32:48] We've identified 18 roadway segments that are eligible for an additional five

[2:32:54] mile an hour reduction from their current established speed limit. And

[2:32:58] again, I want to emphasize this isn't us going out and just choosing roadways and

[2:33:04] saying that we can set speed limits. There is a very fixed set of criteria

[2:33:07] that roadways have to meet and match existing measured travel speeds in order

[2:33:13] for them to be eligible for this additional 5 mph reduction. But you'll

[2:33:18] see that they are scattered on all sides of downtown. Less roadways meet the

[2:33:24] criteria for qualification north of downtown. But each one of these

[2:33:28] recommended speed limits does represent a 5 mph reduction from the existing

[2:33:33] speed limit. A full list of the speed limits are included here on this slide

[2:33:38] and the extents from those roadway segments upon which we're recommending

[2:33:43] them for adoption. And then finally, we'd also like to mention we have the

[2:33:49] city has hosted a public website since October of 2024. It does have an online

[2:33:54] input form. This phase two of public engagement has been presented to the

[2:34:01] bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee as well as the police advisory

[2:34:05] and accountability committee. These draft results have been adjusted and

[2:34:10] updated to reflect input from both of those bodies.

[2:34:16] So to talk about next steps, this um presentation is being brought tonight.

[2:34:23] Roadways can be reduced by 5 m an hour as per AB43 with the adoption of an

[2:34:32] ordinance or resolution. So that is also bring being brought to council.

[2:34:38] And then going forward, the city looks to undertake, in addition to installing

[2:34:42] signage and striping and a 30-day warning period prior to issuing

[2:34:47] citations, uh, steps to inform and educate the public on speed limit

[2:34:52] reductions, as well as putting a plan in place for evaluating effectiveness of

[2:34:57] reducing speed limits themselves.

[2:35:04] With that, we'll conclude and open it up for questions.

[2:35:07] Thank you, Kelly. Thank you, Jimmy. I'm sure we have some questions. I'll start

[2:35:11] with the vice mayor. Go ahead. >> Thank you. Just one quick question as

[2:35:14] around I remember years ago when I was on the school board, there was a

[2:35:18] situation where I believe it was on Point San Pedro, we actually the between

[2:35:23] the school district and the city increased the speed limit. Um, and I

[2:35:27] remember there was a lot of conversation that it just did not seem like a

[2:35:32] reasonable or rational approach. And I was wondering if you could describe when

[2:35:36] that would happen and and if you anticipate there would ever be a

[2:35:39] situation these days that we would actually increase the speed limit.

[2:35:46] » Yeah, happy to address that question and thank you for bringing this up. There is

[2:35:50] a phenomenon that is known in traffic engineering circles called speed creep.

[2:35:56] And it's actually quite rational of a conclusion when speed limits are set

[2:36:04] based on the fastest trunch of traveling motorists. And when speed limits are

[2:36:09] required to be updated every seven years, when you raise the speed limits,

[2:36:13] people then have leeway to travel faster. the next cycle comes around and

[2:36:18] you measure speeds again and people are traveling faster and so hence the

[2:36:22] recommended speed limit has to be increased and that phenomena of speed

[2:36:26] creep has been recognized and was also addressed in AB43.

[2:36:32] One of the provisions also allows in situations where you would recommend

[2:36:38] raising the speed limit to retain the existing speed limit. And so in the

[2:36:43] future, this difficult conversation would have another, uh, another avenue,

[2:36:49] pun intended, to for resolution. >> Great. Thank you. Thank you, uh, Council

[2:36:55] Member Hill. Questions? >> Thank you, Mayor Kate.

[2:36:58] » Yes. Thank you, Jimmy, for coming back to us. This is about a year and a half

[2:37:01] ago that we had you before us, and, uh, I appreciate you being here again, uh,

[2:37:05] to bring in phase two. uh since we're talking about AB 43 U and you did a

[2:37:11] great job I think explaining how we got here but I can't tell you the number of

[2:37:15] times I go in front of the community and they're like why can't you just lower

[2:37:18] the speed limit so I appreciate your explanation of it. My question um is on

[2:37:24] the number of times that we have periodically we have to do this uh ENTS

[2:37:30] uh study just to hold these um these speeds. So it sounds like because we did

[2:37:35] phase one and phase two staggered, would we conduct two ENTS studies in about

[2:37:41] seven years or would we do it all at one shot maybe um so we don't have to keep

[2:37:45] redoing them over and over again staggered?

[2:37:50] » Yeah, that's a great question. It is easiest for cities to perform an ENTS

[2:37:55] for all roadways within their jurisdiction all at the same time and

[2:37:59] with the same cadence. Not every city does it that way. Um, but one of the

[2:38:03] other advantages of AB43 is the seven-year requirement for recycling

[2:38:10] your ENTS's now has a provision where that can be lengthened to 14 years and

[2:38:15] and so um kind of arresting the very quick cadence was another rationale of

[2:38:23] AB43. If a speed limit is rational, then it can stand for a longer period of

[2:38:29] time, as long as there are no other uh triggers for re-evaluating speed

[2:38:36] limits, new developments or different land uses that have changed the roadway

[2:38:39] characteristics. If it all remains the same, uh that validity can be extended

[2:38:43] longer than in the past. >> Thank you, Jimmy. Uh my other question

[2:38:47] is on enforcement. This is a question I get from the community a lot. Um, I

[2:38:53] would appreciate and maybe it's not it's probably not for you, Jimmy. It's

[2:38:56] probably for Oh, thank you, Chief. I see Chief Spiller, uh, coming down from the

[2:39:00] gallery. Uh, my question as you as you come down, Chief, is um, as we

[2:39:04] contemplate not just this, but just generally, could you share where we are

[2:39:08] with our traffic pool and and how, uh, traffic enforcement might be rolled out

[2:39:12] and how it operates generally? >> Absolutely. So, we um our traffic uh

[2:39:18] officers, our designated traffic officers are assigned to respond to

[2:39:22] community complaints as well as uh documented areas of injury collisions.

[2:39:26] That that's the primary driver of the designated traffic officers. All of the

[2:39:32] police officers that work a beat or have patrol responsibilities are also able

[2:39:37] and responsible for traffic enforcement in their geographic area. So, um, you

[2:39:43] know, when we respond to community complaints, the traffic sergeant just

[2:39:46] assigns those complaints to the traffic team and that team, those resources eb

[2:39:51] and flow depending on our staffing reality. Um, and then as you all know,

[2:39:59] our work plan is very uh specifically directed toward changing driving

[2:40:04] behavior and um um increasing traffic safety through enforcement engineering

[2:40:12] with partnering with engineering and uh education to the community. So, it's a

[2:40:16] multi-pronged approach. Uh but enforcement happens both at the beat

[2:40:20] officer level, the traffic directed traffic officer level um throughout all

[2:40:25] of the shifts 247 365. >> That's super helpful. Thank you very

[2:40:30] much.

[2:40:33] » Council member Bushy, any questions? >> No questions.

[2:40:36] » Okay. Um I just had one and actually the chief already answered the question that

[2:40:40] I had because enforcement is really critical. So thank you council member

[2:40:42] Hill for asking that. Um Jimmy, you'd said in your presentation about the last

[2:40:48] phase or in that uh project timeline is around effectiveness and that you would

[2:40:53] be looking at what are the metrics to show that whether these are effective or

[2:40:57] not. Ult we're doing this because we need to reduce our KSI which is um the

[2:41:02] acronym for people that are fatalities are seriously injured in our community.

[2:41:06] So, I'm wondering or hoping that that metric would actually look at those that

[2:41:14] data. Um, and I didn't hear you say that, but we we know that that data is

[2:41:18] what drives I know we look at it at TAM and we're the county marine ser like

[2:41:23] number one in terms of those numbers and that's not a good thing to be number one

[2:41:26] in because it shows that we have high incident. So, could you speak to how you

[2:41:30] would be looking at utilizing that data with this information? I I I don't know

[2:41:35] what that looks like, but I think that is our ultimate goal here.

[2:41:40] » Yeah, certainly the uh LRSP does a great job of describing, let's

[2:41:46] say, a prior condition to speed limit reductions. And one of the uh nice

[2:41:51] things about having so many roadway segments where speed limits are

[2:41:55] recommended for reduction is that you'll have a suite of streets where nothing

[2:42:01] was changed except for speed limits. And you can do a before and after of crash

[2:42:06] results. Uh you can also do a before and after of measured speeds because the

[2:42:10] next time we come around and do an ENTS, we would take the same speed survey with

[2:42:15] the same methodology. And you can do that for roads that receive no treatment

[2:42:21] but speed reduction. You could also compare that to the effectiveness of

[2:42:23] roads that reduce their speed limits in addition to other infrastructure

[2:42:27] improvements or traffic calming measures. And so, um, I don't mean to

[2:42:31] lay out exactly what that evaluation should include or how it will be

[2:42:36] conducted or when, but there there will be plenty of data to be able to utilize.

[2:42:39] » I see Director Miller coming down because the other part about that is

[2:42:42] when we could actually start to when will this have been in place long enough

[2:42:46] to start to look at some behavior change.

[2:42:49] » Yeah. something not directly involved with AB43, but uh we actually just

[2:42:55] applied for a grant for safe streets for all with the transportation authority of

[2:42:58] Marin in order to update the local road safety plan. So as if we get that grant,

[2:43:04] we would actually do more studies to analyze the collision history in the

[2:43:08] next couple years. So we would have an updated data point, okay, from the local

[2:43:12] road safety plan. have to be strategic on how we want to do it as a city like

[2:43:17] because if if we're doing with local road safety plan with TAM then maybe we

[2:43:22] wait a few more years to do it on our own with our updated ENTS.

[2:43:28] » Okay. No, that's helpful because we want the data. We're going to get data and we

[2:43:31] want to make sure that um well that we're looking at and analyzing it see

[2:43:36] what the effect is in the real world. Okay. I don't see any other questions at

[2:43:40] this point. So, I will open up public comment on this item. If you're in the

[2:43:44] chambers and would like to comment, now is your opportunity. And you're welcome,

[2:43:47] but not required to say your name and what part of Summerfell you live in.

[2:43:51] » Good evening again. Daniel Alm speaking through Western Neighborhood Association

[2:43:55] board. Uh we are excited that the Miracle Mile and Weston Avenue and

[2:43:59] Greenfield Avenue have been identified. These are key areas within our

[2:44:02] neighborhood that our community members have desperately wanted slower speeds

[2:44:07] on. uh pivoting and speaking through myself as a committee member on the pack

[2:44:13] adviser and comm I would like to share my own comments that it is a

[2:44:18] disappointment for me to that second and third street uh meet all of the

[2:44:24] qualifications for this all but for speed creep and the average speed and

[2:44:29] the based on the data second and third street desperately need slowing and it's

[2:44:34] unfortunate that because of our mean average speed. We cannot get a reduction

[2:44:39] on those two streets.

[2:44:43] » Thank you. Other comments in the chambers?

[2:44:53] » Uh hello Kate um Mayor Mayor Kate and city council members. My name is David

[2:44:58] Seltzer and I live on Lincoln Avenue. I just wanted to voice my strong support

[2:45:02] for the proposed reduced speed limits here in parts of San Rafll. As a side

[2:45:07] note, I a few weeks back I actually had a stroke. So, I'm not currently able to

[2:45:11] drive until I get some follow-up evaluations. So, this injury is making

[2:45:15] me especially think about children or ch or people with disabilities that can't

[2:45:20] drive and their safety getting around the city. So, if I stumble with my

[2:45:24] words, I'm still recovering. Hence why I'm reading this rather than speaking

[2:45:28] off the cuff. Uh, so I live on Lincoln Avenue and I've long felt the speed

[2:45:32] limit on the north end of the street is too fast for such a dense residential

[2:45:37] area. We have so many families and children living in this neighborhood. So

[2:45:41] this change in speed limit better represents this reality and paired with

[2:45:45] those new improved pedestrian signals. I think this is um a great improvement for

[2:45:52] pedestrian safety. Um, as we've just seen in the presentation, we have tons

[2:45:57] of uh data that shows that the severity of injuries and likelihood of death of

[2:46:01] pedestrians or cyclists is directly related to car speed. Also, most of that

[2:46:06] data was uh accumulated before the increased popularity of trucks and SUVs,

[2:46:11] which are more dangerous to pedestrians um and the increase of destructive

[2:46:17] driving. So reducing speed limits to offset the increased danger from drivers

[2:46:21] is so important to improve pedestrian and cyclist safety. Um additional note I

[2:46:27] see an item about uh improved uh um oh dear uh

[2:46:36] uh traffic calming me measures. So I'm looking forward to that as well. Uh

[2:46:40] thank you for your time and thank you for all your continued attention to

[2:46:44] pedestrian and bicycle safety. >> Thank you David. We wish you a speedy

[2:46:48] recovery.

[2:46:51] Anyone else in the chambers? I don't see anyone approaching the das.

[2:46:56] So, is there anyone online that would like to comment on this item?

[2:46:59] » I do see a hand raised. Couple hand raises.

[2:47:07] » U good evening uh Mayor Kate and council

[2:47:12] members. My name is Kevin Hagerty. I'm a board member of the point San Pedro road

[2:47:16] coalition. The coalition supports the consistent speed limits on Point San

[2:47:21] Pedro Road. Specifically, we support the proposed

[2:47:26] reduced speed uh limits on the section of Point San Pedro Road between Marina

[2:47:31] Boulevard and Porttoello Drive. We hope that this action will result in the city

[2:47:38] considering in the future speed reductions of the rest of Point San

[2:47:42] Pedro Road. Finally, the coalition appreciates and

[2:47:46] supports improvements the city have made to safety on Point San Peter Road.

[2:47:54] Thank you.

[2:47:57] » Thank you. Any other on

[2:48:03] » Hi, Brian Walsh from the West End. Um, thank you very much for meeting with all

[2:48:07] of us tonight. Thank you, Jimmy, for his brilliant presentation. I actually took

[2:48:11] photos of your slides. Thank you so much. And Eli, for your questions about

[2:48:16] enforcement, which historically has been a problem

[2:48:20] getting the police to come out when we call them about speeding or red light

[2:48:24] runners. So, I would suggest that the board speak to Sergeant Graham and the

[2:48:28] traffic uh committee, the traffic enforcement team to monitor these 18

[2:48:35] streets with the new speed limits and after the 30-day warning start issuing

[2:48:40] violations. And secondly, if um April Miller could see us, her staff uh

[2:48:46] readjust the radar boards. These are the signs that display in real time the

[2:48:50] speed limit. They they need to be changed for the new threshold. Um that's

[2:48:54] it. Thanks so much. I think this is a wonderful idea for our community.

[2:49:00] » I'm seeing no other hands raised, but I'll give everyone a moment.

[2:49:07] » I see no further public comment. >> Thank you. I will close the public

[2:49:10] comment. We got great input, but we also got a question also comment around

[2:49:14] second and third and maybe you could just speak to that um why a segment

[2:49:19] might not u meet the qualifications or that specific segment. Actually,

[2:49:26] » as the commenter had noted and as we had presented to the pack, the traveled

[2:49:31] speeds as measured in the traffic survey as part of the ENTS were too high to

[2:49:37] qualify for a reduction from the existing 25 mph speed limit to 20 mph.

[2:49:43] » So, people are already speeding too much that we can't reduce the speed limit.

[2:49:49] Yes, that is the logical conclusion of how the CBC is currently set up to

[2:49:54] establish speed limits. Correct. >> Yeah. I didn't want to phrase it that

[2:49:57] way, but it is a way that we all think about it.

[2:49:59] » Yeah. >> Okay. So, we will continue to look at

[2:50:01] infrastructure or other ways that we can continue to reduce speeding in those

[2:50:05] areas uh if we can't have the tool of the speed limits. Okay. Any additional

[2:50:10] questions? I don't see any. So, >> Oh, yeah. Go ahead, Council Member Hill.

[2:50:15] » Thank you so much. What what related to second and third, what discretion does

[2:50:20] the city of San Rafll and our traffic engineering um folk have over the timing

[2:50:27] of lights to land exactly at the speed limit? Uh do we have discretion to

[2:50:33] assert this this the posted speed limit through the timing of the lights?

[2:50:46] Fakri, city traffic engineer. Um, so we have a consultant currently which has

[2:50:52] been updating the signal timing coordination and the speed limit is part

[2:50:57] of it. So the progression is the posted speed limit as you also know that

[2:51:04] there's a lot of concern with second and third. It's the main

[2:51:10] arterial. So that moving people is also a concern. But within that speed limit

[2:51:17] so when the coordination happens that's what so I've already informed them on

[2:51:23] also on fourth street we change it because it was 25 mph so now progression

[2:51:29] is based on 20 m hour so if you speed theoretically it won't help you you hit

[2:51:35] a red light but if you continue with 20 m per hour then you hit the green

[2:51:42] » thank you say

[2:51:45] Thank you. I don't see any other questions, so I'll thank you. Say, we'll

[2:51:49] come back for comments. Uh, Vice Mayor, go ahead.

[2:51:52] » Thank you. I mean, rarely do we have and this is great news and we know that

[2:51:58] there'll be more uh interest in wanting to do more streets. Uh, appreciate the

[2:52:03] objectivity around the process even though we don't necessarily agree with

[2:52:06] the process all the time. Um, and it's great to see this coming forward. So,

[2:52:11] thank you and I'm looking forward to the next round of updates.

[2:52:15] » Thank you, Council Member Hill. >> Thank you, Mayor Kate. Thank you, uh,

[2:52:20] thank you, team, uh, Jimmy and Kelly and say, uh, for presenting and answering

[2:52:26] all of our our questions. Uh, it's clear, well, it's clear to me when I

[2:52:31] joined the council in 2021, one of the things that really vexed me was the fact

[2:52:36] that we did not have discretion over our own speed limits. There was a lot of

[2:52:40] speeding going on on in our community during the pandemic and I don't and I

[2:52:44] don't think that's unique to this community. So I appreciate that we've

[2:52:48] built upon the passage of AB43 went into effect in 2022 and it's taken us this

[2:52:54] long to be able to do it. Of note in this the staff report for this was

[2:53:00] almost 400 pages long and it was that long because the ENTS is very thorough.

[2:53:06] So I appreciate not only Jimmy U and parametrics came in but that staff in

[2:53:11] the city has I think appropriately invested in our community safety to

[2:53:15] ensure that we can arrive at this moment.

[2:53:18] I would also as a opportunity in this comment look forward to uh a point when

[2:53:25] AB 645 which allows for six pilot cities to automated to do have automated speed

[2:53:31] enforcement in their communities. Not the least of which is the city and

[2:53:34] county of San Francisco has seen, I think, initial signs that that is

[2:53:38] working very well there. I hope that that can come to our community so that

[2:53:41] um motorists uh will uh obey our our laws and not have to wait for an officer

[2:53:48] or to uh hopefully learn not to do so uh but obey the speed limits. These speed

[2:53:53] these speed limits are there for the safety of our community. Thank you.

[2:53:58] » Thank you, Council Member Bushy. I just want to contrast this to what it

[2:54:04] was like on Point San Pedro Road 10, 15, 20 years ago. It was the the chamber was

[2:54:12] full. It was massive controversy. Um that changing the speed limit could be

[2:54:20] done, must be done, couldn't be done. It we we went in circles. Um people

[2:54:25] complained and then we did the study and then we had to raise it because that um

[2:54:31] then and we had to sell that that um it created so much controversy um and took

[2:54:39] so much time um from this body and from our staff. In contrast, um we now have

[2:54:46] new laws, um a rigorous analysis, all 400 pages, um of it, and I think

[2:54:53] community outreach as well, um and a um a um joining of the enforcement and the

[2:55:02] public works um approach to this, the visual friction um and some of the

[2:55:08] safety improvements that have been done particularly on on on Point San Pedro

[2:55:12] Road to get give it more of sort of an urban feel and not, you know, a road

[2:55:17] along the ocean that you can, um, speed on like they do in the car commercials.

[2:55:21] Um, so, um, it's great to have this low contourocy approach to adjusting speed

[2:55:29] limit. So, um, I'm delighted to be here, um, to see this on this this day. So,

[2:55:36] thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you, Kelly. Thank you,

[2:55:39] Jimmy. Thank you say and all of DPW for bringing this forward to the council. We

[2:55:44] have committed as a body and as a community to vision zero which is an

[2:55:47] approach of how do we using all the tools across the board that are

[2:55:52] available to the city uh take action to reduce fatalities and serious injury in

[2:55:58] our community to bicyclists and pedestrians. We have already made that

[2:56:01] commitment. This is 100% following that commitment and that policy that this

[2:56:06] body has already approved. So, uh, thank you for taking the philosophy and

[2:56:11] putting it into action. Um, it's fantastic and as was mentioned by the

[2:56:16] vice mayor, I think there'll be more streets that we'll be wanting to add as

[2:56:20] we start to see how much safer it makes for everybody to utilize our streets.

[2:56:24] So, so thank you. I would entertain a motion on this item, please.

[2:56:30] » I'd like to make the motion. I move to introduce the ordinance. Wave

[2:56:36] further reading and refer to it by title only.

[2:56:39] » Second. >> Moved and seconded. Roll call, please.

[2:56:42] » Council member Bushy. >> I.

[2:56:43] » Council member Hill. >> I.

[2:56:45] » Vice Mayor Curts. >> I.

[2:56:46] » Mayor Kate. >> I. That M motion carries 40. The city

[2:56:49] clerk could read the title of the ordinance, please. An ordinance of the

[2:56:52] city council of the city of Centerfell regarding speed limit changes on 18

[2:56:56] Centerfell roadway segments outside of downtown pursuant to sections 22357 and

[2:57:01] 22358 of the California vehicle code. Thank you. Thank you all. And in a

[2:57:06] related traffic venue, our next agenda item is the city of Sanfal traffic

[2:57:11] calming program policy.

[2:57:21] Welcome saying.

[2:57:47] Good evening mayor and council members and member of public. Uh my name is Sed

[2:57:53] Fakri a city traffic engineer. I started working for the city uh on February in

[2:58:00] February 2025. So tonight agenda is 4A traffic calming

[2:58:07] program policy which is really how to manage speed and volume on residential

[2:58:13] streets.

[2:58:24] So the goal and intent of this policy is to address excessive speed and volume on

[2:58:30] residential streets and to create objective standards, definitions and

[2:58:36] thresholds for excessive speed and volume

[2:58:40] uh and also to create an objective process easy to follow by staff and uh

[2:58:47] by residents. uh other Bay Area cities with similar

[2:58:53] policy. Uh most cities in the Bay Area have similar traffic calming policies.

[2:58:59] To name a few in Marin County, city of Larksburg, they adopted their policy uh

[2:59:06] in 2025 last year. Uh city of San Bruno which I worked as a consultant. uh city

[2:59:13] of Berkeley, city of Mountain View which I was city traffic engineer and city of

[2:59:19] Palo Alto. So our policy is very similar to those in many other cities.

[2:59:28] So basically the process starts with concerns that currently comes through

[2:59:33] cyclic fix by individuals um which can be addressed by installing

[2:59:39] signage striping channelizer etc. These are what we call tier one traffic

[2:59:45] calming tools which will be discussed later in the slides. Uh so if the

[2:59:52] resident is not satisfied by tier one approach then tier two and three starts

[2:59:57] which need community support and basically because this requires cost

[3:00:03] of survey and measuring the speed and volume at least for a week. So we are

[3:00:09] asking for tier two and tier three that the community submit a petition of

[3:00:14] support which is signed by majority of the household of the street block or

[3:00:20] blocks if they're uh applying for more than one block. Uh petition of supports

[3:00:26] must be signed by simple majority which is 50% plus one.

[3:00:34] Uh so the next step once we receive the petition of support uh we will do a

[3:00:41] street in volume survey. These are a little bit different than what Jimmy was

[3:00:47] uh doing the survey. Those are by LAR or laser uh which the police enforce it.

[3:00:56] This is for 24hour to counting uh speed and volume. And if the 85% of speed

[3:01:04] meets the threshold which we is in the report then the street will be

[3:01:09] considered for traffic calming. The 85 percentile is just a threshold which

[3:01:15] means obviously 15% drive above certain threshold and 85% drive below it. For

[3:01:25] example, if you look at the residential street with uh say 20 uh cars per hour,

[3:01:34] we are we are looking at three cars. If the three cars drive, which is 18 15%.

[3:01:40] And above that threshold, then the street qualifies.

[3:01:44] So residents after the survey will be informed of the street survey and result

[3:01:49] uh meeting the threshold and qualifying for traffic calming or if they did not

[3:01:54] they will be informed too. uh so our system is we are using the tier system

[3:02:01] and as I mentioned tier one is which we are doing currently when individual

[3:02:06] request uh basically it's a warning sign speed limit warning sign curve sign

[3:02:13] pedestrian ahead sign and and also some striping in channelizers that we could

[3:02:19] do as part of the uh cyclic fix or tier one option. So this doesn't require

[3:02:25] really uh submitting of petition or anything because it doesn't really

[3:02:31] impact at least physically anybody. So it's reallyformational and it's safety.

[3:02:38] Uh the tier two which we call it passive traffic calming. It does require

[3:02:43] petition of support because it has to be surveyed. It's costly. Uh the tier 2 has

[3:02:50] limited uh impact or no impact to emergency response time. Uh

[3:02:58] some of the examples of what we discussed tonight. It's reducing speed

[3:03:02] limit AB43 which could be applied to some of our other street. We have to

[3:03:07] look and see uh preliminary how many of them qualify. Just like we did for what

[3:03:15] Jimmy presented, we did a survey of C click fix. We looked at uh

[3:03:22] uh at a do they qualify kind of pre-qualification and then we selected

[3:03:28] all those roads. Uh the other one is electronic speed radar signs, bulb out,

[3:03:34] narrow median, island, chokers. As I mentioned, these measures are really not

[3:03:40] impacting um for example fire response times to that that limit.

[3:03:47] And then tier three which we can call it active transportation caling calming.

[3:03:53] Obviously this requires support uh petition of support and that may impact

[3:03:59] emergency response time. So it will not be applicable to all street. uh it

[3:04:04] includes speed humps and traffic circles and turn restrictions and other

[3:04:11] measures. [snorts]

[3:04:14] Uh the way our policy is structured, traffic engineers select the tool after

[3:04:20] the street qualifies petition signed and the survey

[3:04:26] prove that it's qualifying for traffic calming. So the traffic engineer

[3:04:31] selected tool and design and presented to traffic advisory committee for input

[3:04:36] which include police department and fire department planning and our street

[3:04:42] maintenance crew. Uh after the advisory committee inputs uh

[3:04:48] we'll be having a public presentation of the design and outreach at bicycle and

[3:04:53] pedestrian advisory committee and then we will receive feedback from public and

[3:04:58] from BPAC and then then the final design notification and installation.

[3:05:07] Uh after installation study, staff may monitor results after a year of

[3:05:12] installation. Uh may perform speed and volume survey

[3:05:16] to compare the before and after installation data and examine the

[3:05:20] effectiveness of specific tool. Uh mostly in literature. There are

[3:05:27] uh studies that compare before for different tools.

[3:05:32] It always varies with the driving population, the characteristic of a

[3:05:37] road. So it it will be good to have that in San Rafael which may be different

[3:05:43] slightly from other cities. Uh also these traffic calming tool that's in the

[3:05:49] policy. It's not inclusive of everything. this our

[3:05:55] toolbox we can change it and due to change in technology or research or

[3:06:00] studies.

[3:06:03] Uh for people who for communities or street that they do not qualify the

[3:06:09] first time for after the survey then they can submit resubmit petition of

[3:06:15] support two years after the notice we sent for them not meeting the threshold

[3:06:20] or qualification. So they cannot immediately because we will have

[3:06:25] probably other applications. So we have that two years and also in two years

[3:06:31] give time that the condition might change due to development or other uh

[3:06:37] effects. So they we can look at it again.

[3:06:42] And then there's a process for removing the city traffic engineer may remove or

[3:06:46] modify any installed traffic calming measures for public safety reason

[3:06:51] without uh any additional action and those public safety could come from our

[3:06:57] safety staff, fire, police, emergency services.

[3:07:05] Uh for the recommendation, uh staff is recommending that the council adopt the

[3:07:10] resolution approving the city of San Rafel traffic calming program policy

[3:07:17] and then I have questions and comments.

[3:07:22] » Thank you say for that. I will see if there are questions. Uh vice mayor, do

[3:07:25] you have any questions? >> I do. Um can you share a little bit more

[3:07:29] about the petition process and how that has worked in other jurisdictions?

[3:07:36] uh petition petition process is very similar um although it's not very

[3:07:42] defined in some cities for example city of larks per uh they have a petition

[3:07:50] after the survey kind of uh they call it voting but they their approval rate is

[3:07:56] 69% of the resident agreeing uh so the variation is between simple

[3:08:03] majority to even 75% uh community support.

[3:08:11] So for us uh if if the street uh for example

[3:08:17] through CLI fix and we do some minor stuff and it's not uh satisfying for

[3:08:24] residents then a a champion or somebody from uh residence uh they can

[3:08:31] volunteer. We give him a petition because the petition have to be designed

[3:08:36] for example that the people who sign this petition the residents household

[3:08:43] and they agree to the process the policy. So once if they get uh approved

[3:08:50] or or meet the criteria then the polic policy starts. So once we receive the

[3:08:57] petition and we can check also the petition is designed by us so they don't

[3:09:02] have to put the language with addresses and everything. Uh one one property

[3:09:08] needs or one household needs one signature. Uh also the policy goes into

[3:09:15] detail for example if you live on a cold that you have to take some that section

[3:09:20] of the street then you have to sign the petition because you don't have any any

[3:09:25] other option. Uh the reason for that is we have to be careful who can sign it.

[3:09:30] If if you extend the block or signature this kind of dilute the support because

[3:09:36] if you live on a street you want you see the problem the issue and you see the

[3:09:41] speeding and petition of support comes from people who live on that street. But

[3:09:46] if you live uh five block away or 10 block away, you probably take that

[3:09:52] section and probably you're one of the speeders. So you can't dilute the the

[3:09:58] petition support. So once we receive the petition and we check that it's 50% plus

[3:10:03] one and this includes multifamily units, renters and owners and then we can see

[3:10:10] if it meets at least majority support and then we can start the survey. We

[3:10:16] have to hire a

[3:10:20] somebody to do the survey for us a vendor for a week. It's not very costly,

[3:10:26] but say if we do it on a two segment or three segment, it cost a thousand per

[3:10:32] tube per per location. And then once we determine that, then we proceed with the

[3:10:37] the rest of the policy. >> So just to follow on with that, so do

[3:10:41] you define the universe of the the petition signers?

[3:10:48] And and I'll just ask, you know, if you could use

[3:10:51] Director Miller is very familiar with this stretch of street, which is the

[3:10:56] northern part of Canyon Oak, um that has no residents on it, but it's used

[3:11:02] probably by hundreds every day. So what would be the I I'm having a hard time

[3:11:07] trying to understand in that type of scenario, what would be the universe of

[3:11:12] signatures? So those are all the people who that segment which is doesn't have

[3:11:17] any resident but the following segment has people who take that street every

[3:11:23] day. So the definition of that street probably falls into residential street.

[3:11:28] So all the people who live on that segment all the way probably if they

[3:11:33] want to do it to the culdeac at the end they can submit a petition and we could

[3:11:38] stop. So the so the universe is sort of subjective

[3:11:43] » very >> in terms of defining correct

[3:11:45] » the who needs to sign the petition. >> Yeah. depending on the context. In this

[3:11:50] case, uh I [snorts] mean if you live somewhere, if you have another route to

[3:11:56] take except that route, then you probably

[3:12:01] I have to check to see exactly who has to who have to take that route every day

[3:12:07] because that's the only route they can take and then those people can vote. Uh

[3:12:12] also that stretch of a road is included in our bicycle and pedestrian uh plan

[3:12:19] update which will come later to the council. Uh it's one of the stretches

[3:12:24] that yeah

[3:12:26] » bike and improvement. >> So still working I mean I I absolutely

[3:12:31] love having an objective process. I'm stuck on the petition piece of it and

[3:12:37] how that's going to work in practicality and I'm wondering if there's other if

[3:12:40] you've can looked at other options aside from that petition process to get to

[3:12:46] that same goal. So that is that's one way of doing it and our policy is also

[3:12:51] when we do safe route to school as a capital improvement project or we also

[3:12:56] consider that also if we tackle some of the stretches that's in our local

[3:13:02] roadway safety plan which is a segment and it's a residential street. We can

[3:13:07] always implement the public works take the initiative [snorts] and we pro we

[3:13:11] will send the petition for signatures and the staff will send if it comes from

[3:13:17] community it's probably most agencies like the community also to work a little

[3:13:22] bit for it. So send go to the neighborhood and and

[3:13:27] collect signature. So otherwise, if it's a safe route to school or or local

[3:13:32] roadway safety plan that we do, then we will take the initiative. And again,

[3:13:37] sorry, I'm I'm going to keep going on this petition thing because it's not

[3:13:40] sitting right with me on this. It you're asking for a physical signature. It

[3:13:44] can't be an online email response or I just think in practicality, I'm I am

[3:13:51] really concerned that there's going to be very few. Again, I understand the

[3:13:56] goal of it, but the practicality of getting those signatures from people and

[3:14:01] if they're going doortodoor and asking and knock I I I think it's limiting in

[3:14:05] terms of our community being able to participate in that.

[3:14:10] » So far, I have seen that's the hard the part of it and also the signature

[3:14:15] collecting. Uh I mean we certainly can look at

[3:14:19] technology how can but how can we make it easier but to gather all those emails

[3:14:25] is also or maybe we can send a notice where they can send all their emails and

[3:14:32] then we gather signature through email with the address and everything. So that

[3:14:37] there's must be a way to do easier uh with technology.

[3:14:43] » Thank you. I'll I'll leave it to others to ask some questions. um at this point.

[3:14:46] Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh Council Member Hill

[3:14:49] questions. >> Thank you, Mayor Kate. Thank you, S for

[3:14:52] the presentation. Uh my question would continue with the the petition. I

[3:14:58] actually think that the policy reads well. I think the implementation with

[3:15:01] the with the uh petition um still presents as um

[3:15:09] I I want to be optimistic that it will produce it. So, I have a couple

[3:15:13] questions. So my questions are um and I think but the vice mayor used the word

[3:15:19] the universe but I'm thinking of it more in terms of a fraction of how do we

[3:15:22] establish are do you establish the denominator by saying you're just you

[3:15:26] would draw a circle that you believe is or the the in the area of influence

[3:15:30] maybe to to determine what the boundaries of it and then based on that

[3:15:34] you determine the denominator of the fraction. Is that does that sound

[3:15:38] accurate? >> That's accurate.

[3:15:40] » Okay. And maybe building on one of the I'm trying

[3:15:44] to imagine there are cen certainly scenarios in our community where there

[3:15:49] are multif family units where there are one, two, maybe three, four families

[3:15:54] that might live inside of a of a large unit and that would they would get one

[3:15:58] vote. I'm just trying to imagine is there a way to how do we

[3:16:04] allow for a more equitable approach to to those types of scenarios?

[3:16:10] uh in single family is probably easier and

[3:16:15] if they have one renter unit A and B so they both can vote on the number of unit

[3:16:20] in the policy it's per household unit per vote so or per signature sorry

[3:16:28] signature of support >> uh we if there are unit officially A and

[3:16:35] B yes that should be counted >> okay thank Yeah,

[3:16:42] » council. Um, I just had an additional question also trying to get my head

[3:16:46] around who who who the universe or the denominator,

[3:16:50] however you want to look at it, who are the people that are weighing in on the

[3:16:53] petition and I I want to be clear that I share the goal of this because it has

[3:16:57] been very haphazard and sometimes it's the folks that know how to advocate for

[3:17:01] themselves that want speeding and they come in. Sorry, they don't want

[3:17:04] speeding, but they want traffic calming and then other neighbors don't want it.

[3:17:07] So I do really appreciate um having it come from the community and I do think

[3:17:12] there is a the mechanism um we need to have some sort of mechanism but when I'm

[3:17:16] looking at again you had your example of a street but I'm thinking of Sper Point

[3:17:20] Drive where is a street that we put traffic combing in and we were very

[3:17:25] excited and then there were a group of people that didn't want to drive slower

[3:17:28] so they were not excited about it. So, I'm looking at that street and is that

[3:17:33] when you would have all the culde-sacs, everyone that's on Sper Point Drive up

[3:17:38] to Catalina like is that what you're saying when you're saying people that

[3:17:40] are required to drive there because of where they live? That would be the

[3:17:45] universe that would um need to write the petition and be a part of it.

[3:17:51] » Yeah, that that that is the most tricky part of the area that in my experience.

[3:17:58] So I have excluded people and they have really passionately why I cannot sign

[3:18:04] the petition because um if you extend it to include every possible people that

[3:18:11] there's no limit of who can sign the petition and then it usually dilutes the

[3:18:18] vote because they want to speed they want to go fast to work and

[3:18:22] » I agree. So you have to be very careful careful in in the guide I have is

[3:18:28] usually when the petition comes if it's for one block you always encourage them

[3:18:33] how about block upstream and downstream to make it say three blocks uh three to

[3:18:38] five blocks is is best because always you don't want to put say speed you

[3:18:43] don't want to put one you want to put two or three because if you put one

[3:18:47] people slow and then speed up and also the people who signed the petition so If

[3:18:53] they are taking another route, they can take and that's another scenario where

[3:18:59] the next street might qualify. So if they change their route, but people who

[3:19:05] are concerned is people who live on that street. You don't want to dilute,

[3:19:11] » right? And know that makes sense. So you stated in the beginning of your

[3:19:14] presentation, so thank you for looking at other cities and towns. You mentioned

[3:19:17] Larks, Berkeley, there were some other ones on there. I can't remember them

[3:19:21] now. Um, so what you've are presenting to the city and to the community this

[3:19:27] evening is based on what has been successful in other communities because

[3:19:32] I think because it's new to us, we're trying to imagine how it will manifest.

[3:19:35] So I want to say these are best practices, but you you have taken

[3:19:40] recommendations or existing programs that have been had the outcome and

[3:19:44] that's what you're suggesting here. >> Exactly.

[3:19:47] » Okay. and and and the studies there are traffic calming studies in uh institute

[3:19:53] of transportation engineers and these other cities that I mentioned some of

[3:19:58] them like larksburg is very brief like us even less than us a policy but some

[3:20:03] of them like city of mountain view has a thick manual so every chapter for

[3:20:08] example who can sign and >> okay we don't want to do the thick

[3:20:12] manual approach so >> this is this is a beginning and I I I

[3:20:16] think for this city This is the first one,

[3:20:19] » right? >> And and and could be studied in four or

[3:20:22] five years and when when we have experience how many we installed them.

[3:20:27] » Yeah. No, I appreciate that that we would want to revisit if it needs to be

[3:20:31] tweaked and and and I do appreciate we haven't talked about the traffic calming

[3:20:34] measures that you talked about the different tiers. 100% I agree with all

[3:20:38] of that, but I was like vice mayor a little bit stuck on who gets to sign the

[3:20:42] petition. If there's a technology aspect of it, great. But um I do think we need

[3:20:47] to do something. I just know how much staff time this takes and there's been

[3:20:51] an inconsistency in applying who gets the benefit of traffic calming and we're

[3:20:56] really working as a city to not have that inconsistency. Do you have another

[3:21:01] question? Yeah, council member Hill. Go ahead. I don't have any others.

[3:21:03] » Thank you, Mayor Kate. One more question. As I was thinking through um a

[3:21:07] scenario and I appre again I think I appreciate the order of the policy of

[3:21:12] the request submission initial review um I was thinking of a scenario I'll make

[3:21:17] up a maybe it's a counterfactual. So tonight we adopted the change speed

[3:21:22] limit on 18 roadways. Um now Fifth Avenue in Sun Valley is now recommended

[3:21:28] to be 20 miles an hour. Let's say the community gets together and they come to

[3:21:31] you and say, "We want it to be uh you get a 50 plus one." They they ask for a

[3:21:35] 10 10 mph speed limit. I'm pretty sure that wouldn't happen. But let's say they

[3:21:39] do that. Would would you be able to confer with them to say, "Hey, don't

[3:21:42] submit that petition. That's not going to pass an ENTS. There's nothing we

[3:21:46] could do to legally support that before. >> They're not excluded." So for example,

[3:21:53] Fifth Avenue if it qualify other stuff like it's a I know it's a route or D

[3:21:58] street it's a route for fire it's the only route. So considering all those

[3:22:03] they're 20 m per hour and if they want to submit for traffic cal because people

[3:22:08] drive fast. So the the thing applies to them and the criteria. C can I clarify

[3:22:16] though people aren't requesting the type of of trafficcoming measure just that

[3:22:20] they want trafficcoming measures. >> So it wouldn't go down by 10 miles an

[3:22:25] hour but if there was five speed humps on the road it might go down by 10 miles

[3:22:30] an hour just because people have to slow down by that much but we would we would

[3:22:34] do an analysis that determined what the appropriate

[3:22:38] » trafficcoming measure would be. >> That is super helpful to set that

[3:22:42] expectation. So in other words, the petition would not say we want speed

[3:22:45] bumps. It would say we need traffic calming and you would determine what the

[3:22:49] best mechanism would be. >> Exactly. Just for your information that

[3:22:53] we have um a grant to install traffic calming on Fifth Avenue. So changing the

[3:22:59] speed limit wouldn't change and we are installing near California and fifth two

[3:23:04] two radar speed signs and we're improving that corner of California in

[3:23:10] the market uh for pedestrian and bicycles. So we have that grant it it

[3:23:15] doesn't exclude because now they're 20 m per hour.

[3:23:18] » That is welcome and wonderful news for the San Sun Valley residents. Thank you.

[3:23:22] » Thank you. So not seeing any further questions at this time. I would like to

[3:23:25] open up public comment if you would like to comment. Now is your opportunity.

[3:23:30] You're welcome but not required to say your name. What part of Sanell?

[3:23:33] » Daniel Almigan. Uh through the Western Neighborhood Association board, we've

[3:23:36] always welcomed more to the toolkit. I think this is a great idea. I appreciate

[3:23:42] the tiered system. I think for us, we would want to understand the lift on

[3:23:48] doing a petition because it would sound like it would probably likely fall to a

[3:23:52] neighborhood association. And I know from our own experience on

[3:23:57] trying to do the street closure where we have to get 100% sign off. It's an act

[3:24:03] of hurting cats and it's not easy and it's not fun. Um, I'm a little bit

[3:24:07] concerned about the the petition process and how that would work.

[3:24:13] Thank you. Any other comments on this item?

[3:24:17] I don't see anyone in the chambers. Anyone online?

[3:24:20] » I do see a hand raised. A couple hand raised.

[3:24:28] » Hi there. Um, good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Dave

[3:24:32] Rhodess. I'm the co-chair of WalkBike Centerfell and a West End neighborhood

[3:24:36] resident. And uh first of all, I just want to thank the staff for bringing

[3:24:39] forward Centerfell's first traffic calming program. It's a significant step

[3:24:44] forward. Having a transparent process with clear criteria is definitely much

[3:24:48] better than handling requests on an ad hoc basis. Um but my primary concern is

[3:24:53] the neighborhood voting requirement like many of you um on the council have

[3:24:57] expressed and others uh in the in the chambers there. Um it's the traffic

[3:25:02] calming is fundamentally a public safety issue. And while neighborhood neighbors

[3:25:06] should absolutely have a strong voice in identifying the problems and shaping

[3:25:10] solutions, the decisions should ultimately be guided by engineering

[3:25:14] analysis, speed data, crash history, and the city's adopted policies, not by a

[3:25:18] referendum. The streets not only belong to the people who live on them, but

[3:25:23] they're used every day by children walking to school, people riding bikes,

[3:25:27] transit riders, visitors, and everybody traveling through our community. We

[3:25:31] don't vote on whether or not to install a stop sign or a crosswalk. We rely on

[3:25:35] objective criteria and professional judgment and traffic calming should be

[3:25:40] treated the same way. So, I adopt you tonight to adopt uh I encourage you to

[3:25:45] adopt this program tonight, but please do direct staff to revisit the

[3:25:48] neighborhood voting requirement um and so that the community input informs the

[3:25:53] decisions without becoming a barrier to warranted safety improvements. I

[3:25:57] definitely think that uh staff and neighborhood um time is a major barrier

[3:26:03] uh to making these things happen. So, let's try to do as much as we can to get

[3:26:09] as much as um out of our staff and neighborhood time to improve our

[3:26:12] streets. Um thank you all very much. Thanks for considering this u this

[3:26:17] policy.

[3:26:25] Hi, Susan Gilbert again, downtown San Rafale. I'd like to share my gratitude

[3:26:32] for the trafficcoming measures you've implemented and intend to implement here

[3:26:36] in the future. I can appreciate that the city traffic engineers have a complex

[3:26:42] complex task of balancing the needs of drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians, all

[3:26:48] of whom want to get across town as fast as humanly possible.

[3:26:53] As you know, we've had at least four pedestrian fatalities and two cyclist

[3:26:57] fatalities in the last four years here. And it's important to recognize that

[3:27:01] these deaths are multiffactorial. Mostly they have to do with distracted

[3:27:07] or impaired driving and/or speeding on the part of the driver. I'm asking

[3:27:12] drivers to have more regard for the lives of the pedestrians and cycling

[3:27:16] neighbors. While it's wonderful that you've lowered the speed limits around

[3:27:20] the downtown area, I'd like to see more enforcement of the limits by the police.

[3:27:25] Some of the cars going west on third and east on second reach speeds of up to 50

[3:27:31] miles an hour. in our residential neighborhood, which is a 25 mile per

[3:27:37] hour zone. Please consider your pedestrian neighbors, some of whom are

[3:27:42] old, may have poor mobility or poor eyesight, and need more time to ambulate

[3:27:46] through a crosswalk. I'd also like to ask police for more

[3:27:51] enforcement of scooters and ebikes who are on the sidewalks, make making it

[3:27:56] precarious for us pedestrians. Finally, I'd like to mention 25 years

[3:28:02] ago, I was responsible for circulating a petition in my Oakland neighborhood to

[3:28:07] get a speed bump to prevent drug dealers from traversing our block. I succeeded

[3:28:14] in getting the 160 signatures and it's still there today. Thank you.

[3:28:23] » I see no other hands raised, but I'll give everyone a moment.

[3:28:26] » Okay. I see no more public comment.

[3:28:30] » Okay, thank you. I will close the public comment and bring it back. Um, any other

[3:28:35] questions by the council? >> Yeah, go ahead. Vice Mayor, I have a

[3:28:41] question in terms of amending the resolution. It's the seventh whereas

[3:28:47] um that establishes a request in petition process if that can be because

[3:28:53] I support everything within the resolution aside from that petition. I

[3:28:57] don't feel like we've really defined that the right. I think we need to think

[3:29:03] about that a little bit more of what that would look like. And I don't know

[3:29:06] if if we're really saying there has to be community engagement or there has to

[3:29:10] be input or there has to be um some consensus of a defined area.

[3:29:19] But a petition to me means actually getting those signatures.

[3:29:24] And unless we're going to give flexibility on what that petition is,

[3:29:29] I'd like to redefine what that that ph that whereas.

[3:29:34] » Well, let's let's uh maybe ask city manager or director Miller to see if

[3:29:38] there's flexibility in this wording because to change a resolution, you

[3:29:40] would have to make um a motion that would change that and that may or may

[3:29:44] not be supported. But maybe there's another way. What I hear is having

[3:29:47] flexibility given the input that you've heard from the council tonight as well

[3:29:52] as the community. I Yes, thank you. Um I just want to clarify I think there's a

[3:29:57] piece was missed from say's presentation and the first step is for residents to

[3:30:03] submit on cclick fix and so the location is evaluated. There could be striping

[3:30:09] there could be signage that's added. This policies in place for people who

[3:30:13] are just want more and they're really passionate about wanting more. Maybe

[3:30:17] it's just one person but maybe it is the entire neighborhood. And I think that's

[3:30:21] the petition we're trying to get is the people who want who disagree with our

[3:30:25] initial analysis on what what we think would be done without the data and and

[3:30:31] that's where the petition comes in. So just to clarify that piece, I wasn't

[3:30:35] sure if everybody caught that from the comments from the public. No, I I still

[3:30:39] think that puts the um there's there's a an advantage for

[3:30:46] somebody to be able to collect that versus I don't think it's balanced

[3:30:52] » across the community to be able to do that.

[3:30:54] » Okay. >> Talking to May I add?

[3:30:57] » Yes. talking to our legal team, city attorney office. We are working on the

[3:31:03] design of petition because we want to put some language that they can review.

[3:31:07] For example, if I receive a clic for a stretch of a road, we can include that

[3:31:14] in the petition, the map of the area that they need to sign the petition. So

[3:31:20] that but we haven't really finalized the design of petition. We thought we will

[3:31:26] leave it to staff to design it and with city attorney review. So that also might

[3:31:31] help your concern. >> Right. And that's what I was asking if

[3:31:34] we is there flexibility in terms of this whereas

[3:31:41] to um evaluate that of petition process um and really

[3:31:49] I'm not sure I'm conveying my >> No, I think we Yeah, we got it. We hear

[3:31:52] that you have a concern about that and I I I think really is there flexibility to

[3:31:58] um have staff incorporate the feedback that they've heard

[3:32:03] and then maybe that may or may not be sufficient enough. Um

[3:32:10] so yeah, we haven't designed the petition

[3:32:13] yet. So we would definitely take the feedback we've received today and from

[3:32:17] some of the letters that we've received when we're designing the petition. I

[3:32:20] don't think that changes the whereas, but we could always ask.

[3:32:24] » Okay. >> No, that's fine. And if that's has the

[3:32:27] flexibility and maybe it goes back to BPAC or it goes back to some others to

[3:32:31] be able to review and evaluate that that petition process, that'd be great.

[3:32:38] » Okay. Additional comments? Yeah, Council Member Hill.

[3:32:41] » Thank you, Mayor Kate. Just to affirm this doesn't replace this is in addition

[3:32:45] to the city conducting it's already the existing process which is that there is

[3:32:50] a continued examination of data there is cclick fix this is just one more

[3:32:56] mechanism on top of the existing process is that right

[3:32:59] » and and in addition to that this policy will help us when we implement in our

[3:33:06] projects because we want feedback from community if we do a safe route to

[3:33:11] school and we imple implement traffic calming which we can according to the

[3:33:15] policy then we can also use this process to get petition of support from the

[3:33:22] residents. So we have that outreach or if we do something on a street where is

[3:33:27] part of the local roadway safety plan uh high collision segment and it's on a

[3:33:34] residential street we can use the same process it will be initiated by

[3:33:41] » Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other comments? Council

[3:33:44] Bushy >> quick um comments. Um I think this is a

[3:33:47] very solid version one. Um it's an improvement over what we have sets out

[3:33:52] some standards. Um and to the extent that the roll out brings things that are

[3:33:58] unanticipated, this policy can be can be revised. Um I think the policy is

[3:34:04] brought forward um is an improvement and we should adopt it and we look forward

[3:34:08] to your feedback um and the community's feedback on how it can be improved.

[3:34:13] » Thank you. And I'll just uh close by saying it was in the staff report, but

[3:34:17] it wasn't in your presentation that this is a direct response to one of the goals

[3:34:21] and objectives in our three-year strategic plan. So, this body has

[3:34:25] already stated that we want to launch and evaluate pilot projects for traffic

[3:34:29] calming measures to improve neighborhood safety. We do the policy up here and you

[3:34:34] guys come back with the operations and the how-to. And this is uh what we have

[3:34:39] before us this evening. and we look forward to seeing how it manifests with

[3:34:43] the input that you've heard and any um modifications that might be needed after

[3:34:48] it has been um underway. But we appreciate having an action item to a

[3:34:53] goals and objectives. Um >> Mayor Kate,

[3:34:56] » please we we were just discussing a potential change you might wish to

[3:35:00] consider uh that I was discussing with the city manager because of the concern

[3:35:06] expressed about the request and petition process.

[3:35:10] Again, the the wherehouses aren't really operational, but we could substitute the

[3:35:14] word contemplates for establishes on uh the uh about the eighth whereas

[3:35:22] whereas the policy establishes a requested petition process, we could say

[3:35:25] whereas the policy contemplates

[3:35:29] just a suggestion in line with vice mayor's concern stated

[3:35:35] » if the city attorney's office believes that's necessary in order to have the

[3:35:38] flexibility that we want to have inherent as the program gets designed,

[3:35:43] then I think we'd be welcome. I I worry about words smithing, having the five of

[3:35:47] us words smmith, but so that's if if you believe that change needs to happen to

[3:35:51] have this type of flexibility. >> It doesn't it does not need to happen.

[3:35:54] » Okay. >> So, it's just a suggestion to try to

[3:35:58] ameliate the concern, but I don't believe it's required.

[3:36:01] » Okay. >> Are you ready for a motion? Yes, I will

[3:36:05] go ahead and >> I move that we adopt the resolution

[3:36:07] approving the city of San Rafale's traffic calming program policy.

[3:36:12] » Second. >> Moved and seconded. Roll call, please.

[3:36:15] » Council member Bushy. >> Hi.

[3:36:16] » Council member Hill. >> Hi.

[3:36:17] » Vice Mayor Curts. >> Hi.

[3:36:19] » Mayor Kate. >> I. That motion carries 40. Thank you for

[3:36:23] taking our input. Thank you, S, for all your work.

[3:36:27] » Our last in our regular agenda is a nomination of eligible census tracks for

[3:36:32] opportunity zone 2. Z. I see Greg Miner has joined us. Welcome.

[3:36:40] » Good evening. Greg Miner with the Community Economic Development

[3:36:45] Department. I'm going to try to pull up a PowerPoint here.

[3:36:53] All right. Um, I'm going to walk us through the staff report, which is going

[3:36:57] to provide an overview of what an opportunity zone is, the opportunity

[3:37:02] zone or OZ 2.0 0 process uh that Congress recently established as well as

[3:37:08] California's uh portion of that process and how the

[3:37:12] city of Sanville uh fits in. And I'm joined uh by Alexis Captain in our our

[3:37:20] housing manager. Um so what's an opportunity zone? Uh

[3:37:24] it's a federal tax incentive program. >> We can't see.

[3:37:27] » Oh, I'm sorry.

[3:37:32] I forgot to share. >> It's uh

[3:37:36] » we were listening to what you were saying. I we didn't know that we get

[3:37:38] slides too. So great. Thank you. [laughter]

[3:37:40] » I had similar problems back in preschool, but uh I'm working on it. Um

[3:37:47] so opportunity zones were a federal tax program created under the first Trump

[3:37:52] administration. Uh it allows for investors to repurpose capital gains uh

[3:37:58] into um qualified opportunity funds which are an investment vehicle that are

[3:38:04] used to support economically distressed areas. And depending on how long the

[3:38:09] investment is in place, it minimizes or eliminates the tax burden. Um, and this

[3:38:14] slide lists a couple of eligible investments such as real estate

[3:38:18] construction, uh, rehabilitation of vacant or underutilized properties, um,

[3:38:23] infrastructure or energy related projects or investments in operating

[3:38:27] businesses. Um, so the first opportunity zone 1.0,

[3:38:32] the initial program established in 2017 was scheduled to sunset um, I think at

[3:38:38] the end of 2028. However, Congress made the pro program

[3:38:43] permanent uh last year as part of that one big beautiful bill and it also

[3:38:47] established this opportunity zone 2.0 0 process where uh IRS in the spring

[3:38:53] released the eligible census tracks nationwide and then governors across the

[3:38:58] country have until the end of September to nominate up to 25% of their eligible

[3:39:02] census tracks and then uh the Treasury uh later this year will certify

[3:39:09] those nominations and then the new opportunity zone map will be in effect

[3:39:14] for the next decade. So it's a once a decade process moving forward.

[3:39:20] U and then within that uh California has created its own process that's being

[3:39:24] overseen by GOBiz or the governor's office of business and economic

[3:39:27] development. Uh so back in uh middle of June they opened up an

[3:39:33] application process for local jurisdictions to re make recommendations

[3:39:37] of which census tracks uh the governor should nominate. Um there's not a it's

[3:39:43] not required that a a local jurisdictions's elected body adopt a

[3:39:47] resolution. Um, however, it's something that we can add during the public

[3:39:50] comment period to show um support or direction. And then uh again at the end

[3:39:57] then there'll be a public comment period uh August 1st and uh a deadline for the

[3:40:02] governor at the end of September. Um the state has indicated that uh and

[3:40:10] and just for context in terms of the number of census tracks in California um

[3:40:15] there's over 2600 eligible census tracks. So the governor can only

[3:40:19] nominate a little over 600.

[3:40:24] Um in terms of um how the state will go about selecting that 600 or so census

[3:40:29] tracks, they've identified a number of priorities.

[3:40:34] Um, some of those are outside of our control, just demographic factors such

[3:40:39] as poverty, medium family income, uh, renter occupancy, occupancy, uh, and

[3:40:45] unemployment. But other factors are statewide and regional economic

[3:40:49] development, uh, objectives such as those outlined on the slide here,

[3:40:53] alignment with, uh, the state jobs first regional plans and programs, alignment

[3:40:58] with, uh, affordable housing objectives and regional housing needs allocation.

[3:41:03] the presence of business ready sites and any active or planned public investment.

[3:41:09] Um so when it comes to San Rafll uh in the the initial opportunity zone or OZ

[3:41:16] 1.0 the census tracks the two small census tracks 1122.04

[3:41:22] and 003 were the designated tracks. In this second uh round, the IRS has

[3:41:31] identified five potential census tracks, including much larger census tracks such

[3:41:35] as um 1122.02, O2, which includes um the remainder of East Sanfell and all of our

[3:41:44] our ARO dealerships, which are prime tax generating um uh uses for the city, as

[3:41:52] well as uh areas west of 580 and a portion of the downtown.

[3:41:58] Um these areas align with many of the the state priorities that uh I

[3:42:04] referenced a moment ago. Um there's currently various forms of public

[3:42:08] investment in these different areas. Just an as an example, MTC is funding

[3:42:13] the East Sanfell specific plan that is underway at the moment um that will help

[3:42:17] shape um opportunities and um development pathways going forward.

[3:42:22] There are multiple housing sites as well as busy ready site, business ready sites

[3:42:27] and there's ongoing workforce um training programs as well in these

[3:42:30] areas. Um, one issue that the economic

[3:42:35] development and housing subcommittee um raised during discussion of this item

[3:42:40] was the potential for displacement of tenants as a result of um opportunities

[3:42:45] zone related investments. Um, back in 2021 and 2024, the city took measures um

[3:42:53] to adopt anti-displacement strategies specific to those um opportunity 1.0

[3:42:58] census tracks. Um however there isn't a lot of data in terms of the actual

[3:43:03] impact of um OZ 1.0 investments and partly that's a reflection on the lack

[3:43:08] of data reporting requirements during OZ 1.0. OZ 2.0 will have more reporting

[3:43:14] requirements. So we'll have a better sense of um the impact um of opportunity

[3:43:21] zone uh investments. Um regardless of opportunity zones, uh the city council

[3:43:27] through the housing element and the three-year strategic plan has adopted

[3:43:30] goals directing staff to explore anti-displacement strategies as our our

[3:43:35] housing manager knows well. Um and staff is already um exploring

[3:43:39] anti-displacement strategies for presentation to the city council

[3:43:43] starting with the economic development housing subcommittee um this fall that

[3:43:47] so that will include an analysis of the opportunity zones but more more examine

[3:43:53] anti-displacement strategies citywide. Um so in terms of staff's recommendation

[3:44:00] uh since there is no limit on how many census tracks we could recommend um

[3:44:05] we're recommending uh all five census tracks for the

[3:44:09] state's consideration um with the pri uh prioritization.

[3:44:14] Um the number one census track that we recommend is the the largest census

[3:44:19] track the 1122.02 O2 um as well and followed with the downtown census tract

[3:44:27] as these two census track provide the strongest opportunity for investment

[3:44:31] that aligns with the city's economic development uh housing resilience and

[3:44:35] revenue um objectives. Um the next two census tracks staff

[3:44:41] recommends uh for the state's consideration would

[3:44:45] be 1122.04 and 1122.03 03 the remaining uh census

[3:44:51] tracks in East Sanfell or the existing 1.0 census tracks is that would provide

[3:44:56] for a kind of a comprehensive um economic development tool for East

[3:45:02] Sanfell and help support the policies developed in the East Sanfell specific

[3:45:06] plan. And the last census track uh recommended would be the furthest west

[3:45:11] 1121 um as there are opportunities for

[3:45:15] industrial and commercial land modernization there as well.

[3:45:19] Um, so that's staff's recommendation. Um, and we're here to answer any

[3:45:23] questions. >> Thank you, Greg. Uh, questions, vice

[3:45:27] mayor. Any questions on this item? >> So, we can recommend all five and the

[3:45:33] state can come back and select one. >> Right. Okay.

[3:45:37] » Correct. >> Yeah. Um, for all these census tracks,

[3:45:41] are they all within the city or does it cross into the county as at all?

[3:45:50] Um, my wise colleague to my right has confirmed that they're they're all

[3:45:54] within the city of Sarville. >> Okay, great. All right, that's Yeah, no,

[3:45:58] it makes sense. >> Great. Thank you. Uh, questions. Council

[3:46:01] member Bushy. >> Um, I want to ask some questions about

[3:46:05] the uh anti-displacement. Um, because I was here when we did those

[3:46:10] and it was an emergency. um we thought there was going to be widespread

[3:46:13] displacement because of the very lucrative incentives created by the

[3:46:19] opportunity zones. So if I understand your presentation

[3:46:23] correctly, there hasn't been a lot of use of those anti-displacement

[3:46:30] uh programs and requirements.

[3:46:38] So, um, as Greg mentioned, we don't have great

[3:46:43] local data because of the lack of reporting requirements. But what we do

[3:46:48] know is nationally a little under three4ers of tracks, OZ

[3:46:54] designated tracks, saw activity and about a quarter didn't. Um we have not

[3:47:02] we are not aware of a lot of activity in our opportunity zone. Um I think what

[3:47:07] we're thinking about for 1.0 versus 2.0 is that we do have some other economic

[3:47:12] development strategies coming down the line for instance the Southeast Sanfell

[3:47:17] specific plan and other plans that could catalyze investment together with the

[3:47:24] opportunity zone. One of the things that a lot of the um research and commentary

[3:47:29] on the opportunity zones are saying is that often the tracks that had more

[3:47:35] activity had multiple had an opportunity zone designation and some other um

[3:47:42] tools. And so um that is why even though we're not aware of um a proliferation of

[3:47:52] activity in the OZ 1.0 0 in the canal census tract. Um we didn't want to

[3:47:58] assume that there would necessarily be no activity in 2.0 if if there were

[3:48:02] another designation with different other local tools in place,

[3:48:06] » right? That doesn't make any sense. So years ago in 2017, it was an emergency.

[3:48:13] Something was going bad things were going to happen to tenants. We had to

[3:48:16] act right away. We adopted um extremely strenuous tenant protections. I'm now

[3:48:22] hearing you tell tell me that as far as you know there haven't they haven't been

[3:48:26] used um and they haven't created [clears throat] any um and and there and

[3:48:31] there wasn't a real need for them. So and that was just in the two small ones.

[3:48:37] So now we're zooming out to many more a much a much bigger area and you're

[3:48:42] coming forward and making no recommendations for those for the for

[3:48:48] the new areas. So my question goes back to what are we going to do about the

[3:48:52] ones? Are we going to leave the So are we going to have two with these these

[3:48:56] strenuous requirements and the other's not? What's the logic behind that?

[3:49:02] » Sorry, let me just clarify. I apologize. I didn't understand the question. So um

[3:49:06] the two emergency policies, one of them will expire December 31st, 2026. So the

[3:49:13] 2024 emergency ordinance, no matter what happens with the opportunity zone 2.0 0

[3:49:18] designation whether all of them get uh designated none of them it will deci it

[3:49:24] will expire December 31st the 2021 policy which is the one that increased

[3:49:30] relocation assistance payment amounts >> that is tied specifically to the canal

[3:49:36] opportunity zone designation that currently exists. So if those two were

[3:49:42] to get redesated that would survive into 2.0 No, unless

[3:49:47] the council took action. But if if those >> only for those

[3:49:52] » Exactly. >> Okay.

[3:49:54] So, logically, if they're necessary for those two, are they necessary for the

[3:50:00] others? And if it sounds to me like they haven't been used in those two. So,

[3:50:08] why so so what what are we doing here? So, it's not that that um those policies

[3:50:17] haven't been used. I think it's that we're saying there hasn't been

[3:50:23] a a proliferation of qualified opportunity fund activity in the in the

[3:50:28] in the current zone that we're aware of. Those policies have been utilized in

[3:50:33] circum certain circumstances. But I think part of what we're saying is it

[3:50:38] makes sense to look at this in a city-wide approach rather than only look

[3:50:43] at it in isolation with a couple of census tracks to your point.

[3:50:49] » So your proposal then is to look at it across the city

[3:50:54] and what are you going to do about those two?

[3:50:57] » So council member if I may, Micah Hinkle, community and economic

[3:51:00] development director. Uh some of these items were covered in the um uh

[3:51:04] subcommittee meeting we had on this. I'll try to bring up to speed on the

[3:51:07] general thoughts and approach. Um we did adopt um tenant protection components

[3:51:13] tied to the opportunity zone which is those two little census tracks. But the

[3:51:17] initial data in the analysis when looking from a citywide perspective of

[3:51:21] our issues on protections really need to be citywide. They can't just be tied to

[3:51:25] a singular opportunity zone provision or the changes in that. So really the staff

[3:51:30] recommendation is really to separate tenant protections and opportunity zone

[3:51:34] designations. Opportunity zone designations were how we approached the

[3:51:38] particular problem at the time to say here's a potential solution that defined

[3:51:42] a geographic area. But as we dug more into the issue about displacement or

[3:51:48] concerns about displacement within the city of Sanfell, it really is it's in

[3:51:51] multiple components of the city that's not specifically an OZ an opportunity

[3:51:56] zone location. So we really are looking at them as two different uh approaches.

[3:52:01] One is um uh tenant protection approaches um through for through the

[3:52:06] entire citywide and we're prepared and we've been researching uh

[3:52:09] recommendations to bring back to the uh subcommittee along and ultimately to the

[3:52:13] council per the work program. There is a secondary piece to this and really is

[3:52:18] related to the state's movement on opportunity zone 2.0. Um we do see this

[3:52:24] opportunity zone 2.0 you know as a economic development tool uh and really

[3:52:28] what it is it's it's tax benefits from the federal government. So it is an

[3:52:32] important investment tool and we want to utilize it as such and that's its

[3:52:36] original intent. Um so we are focused on the eligible track zones that we have.

[3:52:41] Um we have actually engaged um the uh multiple community members. We've done a

[3:52:45] couple workshop sessions on this and actually received general support of

[3:52:49] like yeah one questions I think we received I think we got received letters

[3:52:52] on this was okay what's the prioritization which one is it downtown

[3:52:56] or is it east Sanfell uh a lot of approach was make sure it's east Sanfell

[3:52:59] first with downtown and the other zones um in that order of preference but

[3:53:04] ultimately this will become a state uh tool that the we may get zero uh in

[3:53:10] terms of the eligibility tracks I'm hoping that we'll get something but who

[3:53:13] knows um But that's really the approach we're taking. Really trying to isolate

[3:53:17] the two type of questions being opposed here. Um but opportunity zones is just a

[3:53:22] a toolbox into the economic development tools whereas the tenant protections I

[3:53:27] think is actually something that needs to be taken on by the city as a whole

[3:53:29] and it expands beyond the two little census tracks uh located in the canal.

[3:53:34] » Agree with you 100%. Um economic development sounds great. Let's do all

[3:53:38] of that. but we put them together years ago and we either need to decide that

[3:53:44] they belong together or they don't. Maybe that's an issue that you take up

[3:53:49] in the broader um looking at the across the city and saying in this particular

[3:53:56] area we have them based on this rationale that is now outdated.

[3:54:03] Um, I believe that's the the approach on this and really just bringing forward

[3:54:06] recommendations on where where the tenant protection should lie across the

[3:54:10] entire city and actually define potentially a different geographic

[3:54:14] basis. You there are other other opportunities for us to do that. That's

[3:54:17] not an OZ map um >> anymore.

[3:54:20] » That's correct. And that's really the concern of this. We needed to come to

[3:54:23] terms with this no matter what because they were going to expire at the end of

[3:54:26] the year. Um so we we've already been working on okay where is our approach

[3:54:30] for tenant protections. Uh but then the opportunity zones period time period uh

[3:54:36] ramped up really kind of we need to take action if we want to preserve the

[3:54:39] ability even to obtain the economic development tools that we presented by

[3:54:42] OZ 2.0. >> Right. So capture the benefits of OZ um

[3:54:46] 2.0 and resolve the tenant protection issues somewhere else but separate them.

[3:54:53] » That's correct. >> Actually cleave them apart because that

[3:54:57] was that was how it was done before. All right. Uh, thank you.

[3:55:02] » Certainly. >> Thank you, Council Member Hill.

[3:55:06] » Thank you, Mayor Kate. Thank you, Greg and Alexis, for being here to present

[3:55:11] this item. This is very important to our community. My question uh is because we

[3:55:17] can't tell investors, invest in this. They're going to come in and they're

[3:55:22] going to invest in what they want to. However, what I'd love to hear is does

[3:55:25] staff have any opinions on tools that we have that would might encourage or steer

[3:55:32] towards projects that would lead to more

[3:55:36] community benefit or toward and or towards um our general plan.

[3:55:43] » Sure. I mean, one one opportunity that comes to mind is the East Sanfell

[3:55:47] specific plan. That's a process where the community and the council ultimately

[3:55:51] can, you know, incentivize certain activity

[3:55:57] um through our our planning regulations. So, that seems like an opportunity on

[3:56:00] the horizon. And I don't know, Alexis, did you want to add anything? Um, one

[3:56:04] one thing I I just I omitted earlier in the presentation to to mention that

[3:56:09] staff's recommendation is consistent with the recommendation of the the

[3:56:13] Chamber of Commerce and East Sanfell Working Group and Canal Alliance. and

[3:56:17] they included a letter in our packet. >> And um my other my other question around

[3:56:24] displacement because I I know that in the in the packet in the presentation

[3:56:29] too that um staff will come back to subcommittee first and then the council

[3:56:34] to contemplate what those proposals might be to for for mitigation. I I

[3:56:39] think that might go I I would suggest it might answer a lot of what council

[3:56:44] member Bush's concerns are, which is how do we disentangle

[3:56:48] citywide policy from OZ specific policy for displacement. Are there any other

[3:56:52] risks other than displacement that you would contemplate or is that the main

[3:56:55] one?

[3:57:00] » Um not that comes to mind. And I don't know if director Henle if you want to if

[3:57:04] you have any thoughts but it ultimately I think what we've discussed at the

[3:57:07] subcommittee level and director Henkle mentioned is it's just an additional

[3:57:10] economic development tool. So if an investor is considering investing in Oak

[3:57:15] in Sarafll rather uh this is this is something that might encourage them to

[3:57:20] invest here rather than not. So it's it's an additional tool. Um, you know,

[3:57:26] kind of to to add on to that, I agree and I don't think there's a lot of risk

[3:57:30] outside of the displacement concerns that were really been called out for it.

[3:57:33] It is a federal tax um benefit that's actually applied by Congress. Um, I

[3:57:39] think for us when we look at these items, it's overall investment actions.

[3:57:43] It's almost like a checkbox for investors, right? You know, are you in

[3:57:46] the flood zone? Maybe, yes, no. Um, are you uh in opportunity zone? Yes. So they

[3:57:53] go through the box of items and then also the reality of for investors to

[3:57:57] take advantage of the tax benefits applied by opportunity zones, you got to

[3:58:02] pretty you have to have like groups understand qualified investments and

[3:58:05] there's a big fund pool that ties into it. But they do exist and they actually

[3:58:09] been successful in some areas for bringing that capital uh to play. The

[3:58:14] one area that that and I I mentioned this in the um subcommittee. One area

[3:58:18] that I was surprised with is is the ability that downtown was not originally

[3:58:22] on any of the initial projected maps or locations. I actually think that's a

[3:58:27] great benefit for us because we already have adopted plans and information. This

[3:58:31] is an area we've targeted for many years for investment where this brings another

[3:58:35] checkbox to say why makes sense for investment. if that brings in that

[3:58:40] housing and that um officer development pieces we're looking for the benefits

[3:58:44] also too opportunity zones also um they look always layered for for like tools

[3:58:49] for investments being qual and a qualified opportunity zone may also

[3:58:54] bring some of the infrastructure dollars and pieces we're after um based on the

[3:58:58] projects that are being presented. So whatever we can do to add to the ability

[3:59:02] for investment to pull full benefit, I think it's it's a value to us. But I do

[3:59:08] do agree the biggest concern of the biggest setbacks opportunity zones and

[3:59:12] uh has been always been the displacement concerns. That's why I think we're

[3:59:15] trying to address this the displacement concerns more on a citywide pieces where

[3:59:19] it's not just the protections are added only if you're in the opportunity zones

[3:59:22] because those same concerns are throughout our community.

[3:59:26] » One concern that I have that I imagine and I can't prove it but I'd

[3:59:31] love if staff could uh indulge walking into this risk area that I think about

[3:59:36] which is that you know uh the happy path is that we get investments that are

[3:59:42] completely aligned with community benefit completely aligned with the

[3:59:45] general plan. However, um I can also imagine that what might be

[3:59:51] more important to an investor is that it they get a return

[3:59:56] and that may not be consistent with community benefit and general plan. So,

[4:00:02] I guess um it doesn't have to be an answer that says here's what we're going

[4:00:06] to do. I'm hoping that maybe if if staff can contemplate as part of the

[4:00:10] displacement um you know the next time we we revisit this at the subcommittee

[4:00:15] level what are ways that we can help you know how do we create more encouragement

[4:00:20] I I appreciate you know the the specific plan is obviously one way if there's any

[4:00:25] other lessons that are learned even if it's not data driven I I I heard uh

[4:00:29] opportunities in 1.0 did not have data and reporting requirements uh in a way

[4:00:34] that might inform even if it's anecdotal, what did other communities do

[4:00:37] to try to um make it less extractive and and more aligned with community benefit?

[4:00:44] » I think that one thing that really helps in the process, particularly for the

[4:00:48] community engagement portions for both the downtown and for uh Southeast

[4:00:52] Sanfell, um is the community engagement about what we're looking for. Uh I think

[4:00:58] that's the most critical piece because a lot of times that is the question for

[4:01:01] investors. What's the overall vision of this community? Where is it going to go?

[4:01:05] What do I need to be successful here? And I think those plans and that

[4:01:09] investment of our of our time and effort really will pay off in that um total

[4:01:14] investment package. Uh particularly what's needed to be successful. So and

[4:01:18] and that's when we look at kind of the displacement policies or concerns

[4:01:21] related to that. we're getting that level of investment and looks in Sanfell

[4:01:26] altogether and all parts of Sanfell. So I think that's why we really do need to

[4:01:30] look at really what's happening to our community in respects of displacement

[4:01:33] outside of opportunity zones. Uh and I that's really where where we landed as

[4:01:38] staff and really kind of p pursuing that that approach.

[4:01:41] » Thank you. >> Thank you. I don't have any additional

[4:01:45] questions. So I'm going to open up public comment on this item. If you'd

[4:01:49] like to comment, now is your opportunity to do so.

[4:01:54] I don't see anyone in the room. Anyone online like to comment?

[4:01:58] » I see no hands raised, but I'll give everyone a second.

[4:02:01] » Okay, >> I see no public comment.

[4:02:04] » Okay, I'll close the public comment and bring it back. We've had in addition to

[4:02:08] those questions, there was some commentary in there as well. Um, but I

[4:02:11] will offer the opportunity for additional comments. Vice Mayor.

[4:02:15] » Um I'm supportive of moving forward with recommendation of the prior and the

[4:02:20] priorization of the five additional um or actually three additional plus the

[4:02:26] two um census tracks. I think we have to keep an eye on the what happens to the

[4:02:34] opportunity zones. It will be interesting to see if having them in

[4:02:38] more commercial areas will generate something. I don't feel that we saw what

[4:02:44] we were hoping to see with the opportunity zone. So, um, but I think

[4:02:49] we'll need to watch it carefully and I hope the state supports the work that

[4:02:53] we're trying to do because if it works the way it's supposed to work for the

[4:02:57] better of the community, that would be great. If it leads to more, you know,

[4:03:04] gentrification, displacement, other things that the the negative aspects

[4:03:07] that come along with an opportunity zone potentially, then we need to, you know,

[4:03:12] address that as they come forward. But right now, we're not seeing that. Um,

[4:03:17] and it would be to it we would we would be remiss not moving forward at least to

[4:03:23] see if we can get some support from the state to be able to work with these with

[4:03:27] these levels and these census tracks. Thank you.

[4:03:30] » Thank you, Council Member Bushy. >> I support the staff recommendation and

[4:03:34] be happy to move the motion um at the appropriate time.

[4:03:37] » Thank you, Council Member Hill. >> I will echo my council members comments

[4:03:42] and not belabor the point. I support this um adopting the nomination of these

[4:03:48] five census tracks. I look forward to uh the next engagement with staff on

[4:03:53] recommendations for displacement and ways that we can guide investment if

[4:03:57] what using whatever tools we have. Thank you.

[4:03:59] » Yeah. And thank you, Alexis and Greg, for all the work. I I know there's a lot

[4:04:03] of work that went into bringing this to the city and even having us consider it.

[4:04:07] Um we hope that we get selected as we already talked about as the vice mayor

[4:04:11] mentioned the um there's a lot of opportunity zones that can be elected or

[4:04:17] suggested and it's really up to the governor's office. So, I'm glad we're

[4:04:19] taking this step. Um Council Member Bushy, you said you would make the

[4:04:23] motion on this item. You are. Uh, I move that we adopt the RA resolution in

[4:04:27] support of an application to the California Governor's Office of Business

[4:04:30] and Economic Development, Go Biz, recommending the nomination of census

[4:04:35] tracks 0604111

[4:04:38] 01 0604111

[4:04:43] 060411

[4:04:47] 1 22 02 0604111223

[4:04:53] and 060411122042

[4:04:58] the opportunity zone 2.0 program. >> Well read. Is there a second?

[4:05:03] » Second. >> Moved and seconded. Roll call, please.

[4:05:06] » Council member Bushy. >> I.

[4:05:07] » Council member Hill. >> I.

[4:05:08] » Vice Mayor Kurtz. >> I. Mayor Kate.

[4:05:10] » Hi. That motion carries 40 Z. Thank you so much. Um, as I mentioned at the

[4:05:14] beginning of the meeting, we also have open time for public expression at the

[4:05:18] end of the meeting. If someone hasn't already had the opportunity to say

[4:05:21] something during the meeting, now is your opportunity. Is there anything that

[4:05:24] was not on tonight's agenda? I'll see if there's anyone in the chambers who would

[4:05:29] like to comment. Now is your opportunity and you're welcome, but not required to

[4:05:32] say your name and what part of Sam or fail you're in. Welcome.

[4:05:37] » Good evening, Mayor Kate, Vice Mayor Kurts, and members of the council. My

[4:05:42] name is Saj Dakar. I'm a 14-year-old rising nth grader living in Fairfield,

[4:05:45] Slano County. I'm a member of the Fairfield Youth Commission and am the

[4:05:48] founder of the National Association of Youth Commissions. This nonprofit

[4:05:52] organization works to establish youth commissions in cities where they're not

[4:05:55] already present, push for legislation beneficial to youth, increase youth

[4:05:59] youth access to government, and provide a space for youth commissions around the

[4:06:02] nation to collaborate. I'm speaking to you this evening on a proposal that I've

[4:06:06] seen work firsthand, and it's one of the best things that a city could do for its

[4:06:09] young people. I'm asking you to create a youth commission in San Rell. For some

[4:06:13] context, a youth commission is a group of young people, typically aged 14 to

[4:06:17] 25, who work to advise the city council and mayor on topics relating to the

[4:06:20] youth. This can range from a small issue that affects a few young people to

[4:06:24] citywide youth issues. Youth commissions are created with the purpose of bridging

[4:06:27] the gap between the youth of a city and a city's government. Right now, Sanfell

[4:06:32] does allow for youth to have a seat on specific existing committees and

[4:06:36] commissions. But what San Rafell needs is a standalone body that can tackle

[4:06:40] youth issues independently of other commissions. A youth commission would be

[4:06:43] different from just another program in that this isn't the city giving to the

[4:06:46] youth. It's also the youth giving to the city. All the city needs to do is give

[4:06:50] them the chance. This would not even be difficult to

[4:06:53] implement. All that is needed is a resolution that would establish the

[4:06:56] commission. There would also be minimal cost to the city since there would be no

[4:06:59] need to hire new individuals. The only adults involved with the commission

[4:07:02] would be an adult adviser and optionally one city council member acting as a

[4:07:07] liaison. There'd be very little administrative costs since the only real

[4:07:10] cost would be holding a meeting. Furthermore, through the National

[4:07:13] Association of Youth Commissions, I would be happy to offer the city with

[4:07:16] free research on how things like costs, appointments, and scope of work would

[4:07:19] play out. I'm requesting the city council to direct staff to report back

[4:07:23] on potential routes the city could take in starting a commission. I would be

[4:07:26] happy to serve as a resource for the city during this time. Uh, I have here

[4:07:30] some QR codes that redirect to the National Association of Youth

[4:07:32] Commission's contact page. If any member of the council is interested, please

[4:07:36] contact me and I'll be happy to help out in this process. Thank

[4:07:40] » Thank you. So, if you can be sure to give your information to the city clerk,

[4:07:44] that would be fantastic. Thank you so much and thank you for the

[4:07:48] work that you've been doing. Any other public comment in the room?

[4:07:54] I don't see anyone else in the room. Anyone online? I see no hands raised.

[4:07:58] It'll give everyone a moment. >> No public comment.

[4:08:02] » Okay. I'm going to close the second public expression time. And we have on

[4:08:06] our agenda this evening the Sanfell Successor Agency. We have a consent

[4:08:11] calendar. Are there any items to be held from the consent calendar? I'm looking

[4:08:15] up. I see no head shaking notes. So, I'm going to open the public comment on the

[4:08:19] consent agenda. This is for the Sanfal Successor Agency. Anyone in the room

[4:08:24] like to comment on the consent calendar for the Sarafel Successor Agency? I

[4:08:29] don't see anyone in the room. Is there anyone online?

[4:08:31] » I see no hands raised, but I'll give everyone a moment.

[4:08:36] » I see no public comment. >> I'll close the public comment. I request

[4:08:39] a motion on this item, please. >> I move the consent calendar.

[4:08:43] » Second. >> Moved and seconded. Roll call, please.

[4:08:46] » Member Bushy. >> I.

[4:08:47] » Member Hill. >> I.

[4:08:49] » Vice Chair Curts. >> I.

[4:08:50] » Chairperson Kate. >> I. That motion carries 40 Z. As I

[4:08:54] mentioned at the top of the meeting, we are journeying tonight in honor of

[4:08:58] Esther Burn. She faithfully served the city of Somerfell for many years as our

[4:09:03] city clerk. Esther dedicated her career to ensuring our local government

[4:09:07] operated with integrity, transparency, and professionalism. She served under

[4:09:12] two mayors, four city managers, and multiple city councils, providing the

[4:09:17] steady institutional knowledge and commitment that helped our city navigate

[4:09:22] change while always keeping the public at the center of her work. Esther began

[4:09:27] her service to Sanfell in August 2000 as deputy city clerk under the then city

[4:09:32] clerk Jean Lancini. She was first elected city clerk in 2007 and was

[4:09:38] subsequently reelected twice without any opposition. A reflection of the

[4:09:43] confidence that our community placed in her and the respect she earned from

[4:09:46] colleagues and residents alike. Those of us who had the privilege of

[4:09:50] working with Esther remembered her remember her not only for her

[4:09:54] exceptional confidence but also for her kindness. She treated everyone with

[4:09:58] warmth, patience, and respect, whether they were first time in city hall and

[4:10:03] didn't know how to navigate something or a longtime community leader. She had an

[4:10:08] incredible ability to make people feel heard and welcomed. And she also ensured

[4:10:14] at that same time that the public's business was conducted openly and with

[4:10:18] care. Esther leaves behind a lasting legacy of public service and a standard

[4:10:23] of excellence that continues to inspire all of us and I know inspires our city

[4:10:29] clerk today. So on behalf of the Sanfal city council, we extend our heartfelt

[4:10:34] condolences to Esther's family and her friends and all who had the pleasure of

[4:10:38] knowing and working with her. Sarafhel is a better place because she spent time

[4:10:42] with us. This meeting is now adjourned in memory of Esther.

City Council – July 20, 2026

Agenda

Transcript