Good evening everyone. Welcome to the regular meeting of the Sanfell City
Council. Today is Monday, July 20th, 2026. I'll request the city clerk to
call the role. >> Council member Bushy,
» present. >> Council member Hill,
» present. >> Vice Mayor Curts,
» present. >> Council member Yeden Scaladia is absent.
Mayor Kate, >> present. Thank you. So, good evening
everyone and welcome. Thank you for joining us tonight. Whether you're here
in the chambers or watching online or later commenting online, we appreciate
your engagement in our community. At the end of tonight's meeting, I will be
adjourning it in honor and memory of Esther Burn, who's a former city clerk
for the city of Sanfell. I don't know if you'll all still be here at the end of
the meeting, but I did want to note that we like to start our meeting by thanking
all of our city employees. Every day across every department, they work hard
to serve our community. I want to highlight that Sanfal Fire Department
recently received the American Heart Association missions lifeline EMS
emergency medical service gold achievement award for its commitment to
offering rapid and researchbased care to people experiencing the most severe form
of heart attacks and strokes ultimately saving lives. As a majority of the calls
that we know that are received by our fire department do involve a medical
issue. Thank you to the fire department for receiving this as it clearly
demonstrates your commitment, ongoing commitment to providing a high level of
service to all of our residents. So this evening, as many of you may
know, there's been a recent change in state law regarding public participation
at local government meetings. Beginning tonight, we'll once again accept public
comment from individuals participating by telephone. Public comment is one of
the most important parts of local government and it gives residents and
community members the opportunity to share their experiences, perspectives,
and ideas directly with the council and with the community. I also want to
acknowledge something important. The First Amendment provides broad
protections for speech, including speech that many people may find offensive or
hurtful. While there are legal limits on certain types of speech, there's
generally no lawful basis for the city to prohibit protected speech simply
because it's offensive. That said, my hope and my expectation is that everyone
who chooses to participate will help foster a respectful and welcoming
environment. We can disagree passionately on issues before the
council while still treating each other with dignity and respect. Productive
public dialogue strengthens our community and while harmful or hateful
comments discourage participation and undermine the civic engagement we all
value. So, thank you in advance for making our public comment process one
that reflects the very best of our community.
We also include a land acknowledgement as part of our opening. This statement
complements the ongoing collaboration and work we do with the tribe. We thank
the original caretakers of this land. Sanfell is traditionally home to the
Coast Miwok people, many of whom today are tribal citizens of the Federated
Indians of Great Rancheria. And we honor their continuing involvement in
stewardship practices that benefit us benefit us all. Thank you for being
here. I'll now turn it over to the city clerk to share how the public can
participate in tonight's meeting. >> Thank you, Mayor Kate. And before I
start, I'm actually going to pass it over to city attorney Robert Epstein to
report out on closed session from June 29th.
» Thank you, Madam Clerk. Mayor Kate, the council met in a special close session
on June 29th and uh we haven't met since then because we did not have a first
meeting in July and so this is the first opportunity to report out of that closed
session and my report is as follows. No reportable action was taken in the
closed session on June 29th. >> Thank you. And now turn to city clerk.
» Thank you, Mayor Kate. Tonight's meeting is being recorded and streamed live on
YouTube for members of the public wishing to provide public comment. You
can participate in person through Zoom webinar or by telephone. If you're
joining by phone, you can call 669-444
9171 and enter the webinar ID 860-619-5675
pound. When you wish to provide public comment, you can press star9 to raise
your hand. When it's your turn to speak, you will hear a prompt that's asking you
to press star six to unmute yourself. And if you're joining through Zoom, you
can use the raise hand feature when you wish to speak. The host will call on you
and prompt and prompt you to unmute as well. If you're commenting in person,
you can form a line at the podium once Kate invites public comment. You'll have
two minutes to provide comments. Displayed on the podium and the
projector is a timer to help you stay within your two-minute time frame. At
the conclusion of two minutes, your microphone will be muted so we may hear
from the next speaker. You're invited, though not required, to introduce
yourself and say what part of Centerfell you live in or if you're joining us from
outside of Centerfell. And if you experience any technical
difficulties during the meeting, you can contact me at city.clerk
cityofanfell.org. Thank you.
» Thank you. So, we have public open time for public expression at both the
beginning of the meeting and at the end of the meeting. At the beginning, we
take two to three people uh that are in the chambers and we'll check and see if
folks are online. So, I'm going to open up this portion of the public comment.
You're welcome, but not required to state your name and what part of Sanfell
you live in. And as I just stated, we welcome a diversity of viewpoints and
respectful disagreement. Help us maintain a welcoming environment by
refraining from hateful or discriminary discriminatory remarks. Go ahead.
» Testing. There we go. Good evening, council mayor. My name is Jared Mum. I
am a local electrician and um I'm here tonight to just highlight the uh the
amount of housing that Centerfell is looking at building here in the next few
years. It's exciting, right? I'm when I look around at your website, I'm seeing
thousands of units. And when we talk about that, when we show that to people,
they're they're really excited for the opportunity to have more places to live,
more uh projects to build here in the area. Housing is obviously a major issue
throughout all of California, Marine County, and also here in Centerfell. Um
if these projects go union, it'll mean opportunities for local workers, right?
Folks that live here and nearby in the area. It'll mean more opportunities for
young folks that are looking to get into an apprenticeship program and start a
future for themselves, right? Can't tell you how many people we meet from, you
know, all over the North Bay that are just looking for an opportunity. People
that have plenty of experience working for a living, right? Showing up um
putting on a pair of boots, going someplace every single day and and
working really really hard and not really having much to show for it at the
end of the day, right? We like to say that you're supposed to be working for a
living, not just working for the heck of it. Right? If these projects go union,
it's going to mean that there's opportunities for people to get into a
training program, learn a trade, learn how to feed themselves, feed their
families, hopefully own one of these homes that they're building. So, um,
again, just exciting times and, um, looking forward for the future. Thank
you.
That was awesome, huh? Uh John McIntigert and uh I am uh lucky enough
to serve the uh women and men of IBW local 551 as their business manager and
that's the electrical union in this area. We um like to say from the Golden
Gate to the Oregon State and um what what does that mean to be in the union
at all? You know, people wonder is that in San Francisco? No, no, we actually
have the unions here too. And if you're lucky enough to make it into one of the
union construction uh programs, then you're going to have health care. You're
going to have a pension. Um and the health care is going to take care of you
and your family, not just yourself. It's not going to cost you anymore if you
have one kid or six kids. The pension will be there at the end of your work
days, you know, when you're done. And not at an age that you're too old to
enjoy your pension. No, it'll be there at an age that you can still swing a
golf club and lift up your grandkids and or go see them, you know, and enjoy
yourself. But that's the whole intent, right? Work for a while and then the
last third of your life then hopefully you're doing you're living that kind of
life, a grandparent life. And I kind of looking forward to that myself. So how
does somebody get into the program? How does somebody get into the building
trades and why would they? And who are these folks? Right now we're at all of
your job fairs. We go to Centerfell High. We go to Terinda High. We show up
there. We have people on staff that that's their job to show up and speak to
any young individual that wants to be in the in the building trades. And these
are the folks that don't want to, you know, go to college. And when college is
being pushed down a lot of kids' throats these days, they're saying, "Well, what
about me? What's your option for me?" And if we don't have an answer for that,
then you're dealing with the psyche of the young folks. Then what am I supposed
to do? So when we show up there, we say, "No, no, no. You're special, too. You're
brilliant at something. We're going to find out what that something is. Are you
mechanically minded? Let's try and get you into the building trades. Let's get
you into an apprentichip that you just heard about. And let's give you the
opportunity to also to have the life that you hope for yourself that we all
hope for our kids, right? We want them to be successful. They can be and in the
building trades, we're waiting for them. So, thank you very much.
» Good evening. My name is Kevin Collins. I moved to Sanfell 5 years ago from
Santa Cruz County and there and ironically I'm a retired general
contractor and in Santa Cruz County I was involved
in zoning law issues related to land use and uh building height, parking
availability and so forth. And I've been in increasingly alarmed by the proposals
in Sanfell for 17story highrises jammed into freeway exits and clogged
situations. And I'm here to uh urge your city and the
Marin County Council of Mayors and Council members to uh confront this
situation. I looked I was doing some web research today. I found a Yimba law.
They have eight active lawsuits. One against Salelo, two San Francisco, one
against the governor for daring to limit development in the Los Angeles burn
areas. Certino, Los Angeles, Roondo Beach, and Santa Clara. There has to be
a commensurate response to this. The chaos in Sacramento is not going to sort
out this in any reasonable way. It's people are poking at circumstances like
the builder's remedy for example which completely undermines local zoning
authority as do several other laws passed and uh
everyone cannot live in California. It is difficult to move here. It took me
three attempts to move to San Francisco because it's expensive and it always has
been and it always will be because it's desirable until it isn't. Thank you.
» Thank you. And I'll take one more public comment in the chambers. Go ahead and
then we'll go online. >> Hello. Um
» pull down the microphone so we can hear you better. There you are.
My name is Patricia Ree, Patty Ree, and I've lived in Gersell Park since 2009.
I'm here today because I'm concerned about the possible loss of the B Street
Safeway uh due to the Mil Creek project, and I I realize, of course, that it is
still in its presubmission state. Um I'm not here to talk about parking or
traffic. Uh, I am here to talk about the importance of a local grocery store that
people can actually walk to and ride their bikes to without having to get in
their car all the time and drive. Um, I would ask I have two asks. One of them
is that this topic get added to the next month's agenda because I know that you
can't really speak to open comments. Uh the second question would be that I
would ask that Mr. Hill specifically since I understand that you are uh
specifically um responsible for district 2 and that
includes Gersell Park. I believe that's my understanding. I would like you to
get specifically involved with this and actually engage and represent the the
residents of Gersel Park and West End and Picnic Area which are also affected.
And that's all I have to say. >> Thank you. And I'll just clarify that
all of us including council member Micah who's not here we represent we represent
all of San Rafale each of us. So, we might be elected by district, but I just
want to clarify we always think of the city holistically.
» That's great. Thank you for that. And I would love to have a point person.
» Thank you. >> Thanks.
» Is there anyone online that would like to provide public comment on anything
not on tonight's agenda? >> Thank you. Just again, if you wish to
provide comments online, you can use the raise hand feature or you can press star
9 to raise your hand. I see one hand raised.
Hello, mayor and council members. My name is Josie Quimby and I'm an intern
from 350 Marin, but I've also been a resident of San Rafale for the past 19
years. I'm speaking today to thank the council in making our city more
sustainable, but also encouraging the city to continue working towards climate
action. As someone who is born and raised in Sanfell, I can assure you that
the environment in our local community is very valuable to us, especially the
youth. Young people in Sanfell are highly concerned about the fast
approaching climate crisis. From sea level rise to increased chances of
forest fires and extreme temperatures as a coastal community, San Rafell faces
real risk from sea level r from rising sea levels and extreme weather events.
Investing in naturebased and resilient infrastructure today saves lives,
protects habitats, and prevents costly repairs down the road. I hope you all
continue to think about our climate and the environment down the road for our
city. Thank you for your continued efforts in creating a sustainable future
for all Sanfell residents.
» I see no other hands raised, but I'll give everyone a moment to use star9 to
raise their hand or use the raise hand feature.
I see no more public comment. >> Thank you. I will close the open time
for public expression. Again, there'll be some more at the end of the meeting.
We'll go to the next item, which is city manager and council member reports. I
will return to interim city manager Paul Nasio.
» Thank you, uh, Madame Mayor, members of the council. Just a couple of items to
share. Um couple events that are uh coming up uh in the next week or so. Uh
starting with later this week, July 25th is the um amazingly popular Touch a
Truck event that is going to be happening at uh Sanfell High School at
the Third Street parking lot. That will be on July 25th uh from 10:00 a.m. to
noon. Also, um, uh, in the first week of August, again,
we won't be having our council meeting first, uh, Monday, but August 4th is
the, uh, national night out event, which is, um, again, an opportunity to help
promote our police community, uh, relationships really at a neighborhood
level. There'll be a host of neighborhoods that will be hosting uh,
special events. Um, and we'll be providing additional information to the
council. Uh and there's information on our website uh regarding that event.
Again, it's August 4th uh from 6 pm to 8:00 pm. Uh if anyone is interested in
holding an event, uh there is a registration form on the city's website.
Um and again, police um fire personnel, elected officials, and number of city
staff will be um visiting some uh those uh events throughout the evening. Um
uh we announced this periodically but um and there was an event uh two Fridays
ago at the San Rafale Theater, but city continues to be very excited about the
um ongoing uh development and growth of our public art program and specifically
um there was an event to celebrate the um uh four of the murals that have been
part of that public art um event specifically on the Sea Street uh garage
on Third Street. Um again, we had the statue at the B Street Community Center
uh murals at the city plaza uh fountain as well as on Second Street. And uh we
will soon be announcing I think the date might argue uh for uh art installation
here at city hall. And so we um like to promote uh that the really wonderful
events and the artists that are behind them. Very interesting stories. I think
the last thing I'll I'll add is a we did get a notification from um state
department of transportation aka Calrans regarding uh preventive maintenance work
that is being done on um highway 101 uh through San Rafale both the freeway
itself um some lane work as well as several onramps on and off ramps and so
um this work is going to be done starting uh this evening, Monday, July
20th, going through Saturday, July 25th. Um uh the areas that are being worked on
that are in the northbound 101 direction. Those will those areas will
be closed from uh 1000 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. So, it's overnight work and there'll be
signage, but we're urging folks to just be aware of um impacts of lane closures.
Um southbound closures will occur um same date period from u 8:00 pm I'm
sorry. Yeah 800 p.m. to 5:00 am. Um more detail on the schedule for the different
ramps, but I won't go into that at this time. But thank you.
» Thank you. I'll turn to my colleagues for their reports. Uh Vice Mayor.
» Sure. Um >> wait, you're not on.
» Oh, sorry. >> Out of practice. Uh I just want to add
on to the comment about the public art event. Uh huge shout out to San Rafale
Chamber uh downtown program and Stacy Lman who worked on it for a really
really long time for San Rafale. Um it was great. And I'd also like to
highlight the new branding and the tagline is look around. Um which I
thought was a really nice nice addition to the whole program.
Um HPSC, Homeless Policy Steering Committee, recently passed a new um
resolution as part of our older adult committee. Um and that resolution um
gives direction to the broader HPSC group to do a needs assessment
specifically for older adults around homelessness. Um and a study we're going
to be using community solutions uh group to help with that and use their
toolkit which is what was originally done for homeless. Um and so we're going
to be focusing on older adults and then do a report back by May 2027.
So more to come on that one just to follow it. Um I attended San Rafll's age
friendly um advocate program and they really are shifting their attention to
advocating for older adults. The Marin Wildfire uh Prevention Authority board
meeting was last week. I attended with Council Member Hill the Junth
celebration which now seems like eons ago but in June and I believe that's it.
Thank you. >> Thank you uh Council Member Hill.
» Thank you, Mayor. Um I am going way back because we did not give council reports
at the meeting on June 15th. This goes really far back. Uh, I attended a
meeting on June 2nd, the Measure Peace Subcommittee, also known as the New
Library and Community Center at Albert Park. The survey is still open, folks.
So, please consider uh going online and going to the survey. It's at city of
samfell.org/albertarklcc.
On Tuesday, June 9th, I attended the finance subcommittee meeting which
covered budget and master fee schedule which was uh ultimately considered at
the agenda on June 15th. On Saturday, June 13th, I attended the 47th annual
Fairfax Festival Parade. Uh got to walk in the front with the the council uh
town council of Fairfax. It was a wonderful event. And the final meeting
of the year for Marin County Council of Mayors and Council members uh was held
on June 24th um during which the incoming president Gay Paulson of
Larkpur um was at least nominated and will be voted in uh potentially at the
next meeting and vice mayor or vice president Shantel Walker of Sanelma is
being considered for vice president. That's my report. Thank you, Council
Member Bushie. >> On Julyh 17th, along with Mayor Mayor, I
attended the San Rafll sanitation board meeting that um was a was interesting in
that there are not one but two different um consolidation um steps on the agenda.
One was for the operational consolidation well underway with um the
CMSA and the other was for a broader um consolidation study to be funded jointly
by all members of the JPA that would include the Sanfell sanitation um
sanitation agency, the Ross Valley sanitation agency uh um the city of
Porto Madera which is sanit sanitary district 2. all of the members um
together to working on a major consolidation proposal and hiring a
consultant to work with LAFCO on that effort. So big news in the consolidation
front um at Sanfell Sanitation. On July 13th, I attended a meeting of Marin
Transit. Um big news there too. Um the good news first um the roll out of the
mascot study that has um that is being implemented is going well and some of
the first data points are starting to come back. Um and one is that transfers
are up 45%. Um so very excited um about the implementation of um of that phase
of mascot. Um we're some of us are secretly hoping that this will lay the
groundwork for a mascot too for even more um efficiencies and integration of
the um the transportation organizations. Also importantly at Marin Transit uh
they are fully implementing the um Clipper card only transfer. Um, that
means that people who pay cash will no longer be getting the the little paper
transfers that allows them to get on other um other transportation providers.
There's a we've set the public hearing for September 14th on this measure. The
um purpose is to um help our customers get on Clipper where the cost is lower
um and they will qualify for um transfers for $2.85 85 which gets you on
um on smart and gets you a long ways. So um September 14th, a hearing on that big
change coming um in January of of next year for transfers on um Marin Transit.
And finally, uh, last Saturday, I attended the memorial mass, um, for
Esther Burn along with her successor, um, uh, city clerk and the city
attorney, and a very sizable contingent of current and former, um, employees of,
uh, the city of San Rafale. We met her sister, Esther's four sons, and we heard
a poem read by her griefstricken husband. He read it in Irish and it was
a poem about the anguish of grief. So it was a very moving um service and um and
um reception. That's it.
» Thank you, council member. I just have three meetings to report out on. Um I
recently met along with assistant city manager Angela Robinson Pinon. We met
with the Federated Indians of Great Rancheria. You heard the land
acknowledgement at the beginning and we do connect with them periodically. So,
we went up there and had a good meeting with and discussing um various issues
that are um important to both our agency as well as theirs. As you know, I'm your
representative on SMART, the Sonoma Marin Area Rapid Rail Transit. We had
our meeting. We had some um updates to the budget. We also received the same
mascots uh that council member Bushy just referred to update. Um and in
addition, I'd like to share some of the writership numbers. So in June there
were 150,000 riders. There's now been three monthly records in a row in terms
of riderships. Fiscal year 26, which of course is now concluded, there was 1.47
million riders. We're hoping to get to 1.5, but we're happy to be well over 1
million. And that equals over 29 million passenger miles. The average weekday
ridership saw a 21 increase over the prior year. And the Marine County Fair,
as you many of you took advantage of, there was free transit on Bin Transit
and SMART and it provided nearly SMART specifically provided nearly 12,000 free
rides during the fair day. So that took a lot of cars off and when you go to the
fair, if you've had to deal with the parking, you know how fantastic it is to
have the train and to be able to walk. And then finally, TAM, the
transportation authority of Marin, uh, our last month's meeting. First, we
celebrated the completion of the Freighus roundabout. So, hopefully
you've been through it. And I know we say that Americans can't handle
roundabouts, but we can, and they're great and they're safer. So, we've
gotten great feedback from that. Uh, in addition, a reminder that Marine Transit
still is offering free summer rides for youth uh, under 18. That was a part of
the general manager's report. Um we during the meeting in addition we talked
about the marine transit allocation. Marine transit is funded through dollars
uh that flow through TAM. So we heard a presentation from Marine Transit. And
I'll end on a high note which is sharing that there is a grant that TAM has
received and is utilizing for $544,000 which is to study school access safety
action plan. So that is how do we look at a more granular level um around
pedestrian bike uh car interactions that are close to schools. So when we're
looking at improving infra infrastructure throughout the community
especially prioritizing those ones closer to schools. So we just had an
update when that report is finalized I will be sure to let the community know
so they'll be able to look at it. So as always thank you city manager. Thank you
to my colleagues for what they do um between the meetings that we have. But
before we move on to the consent agenda, we do provide the opportunity for the
community to comment on any of the reports that they just heard. So if you
have a comment on what you just heard, now is your opportunity to do so.
I don't see anyone in the room. Is there anyone online that would like to comment
on these reports? >> I see one hand raised.
» Thank you. And as always, you're welcome, but not required to state your
name and what part of Sanfell you live in. And we uh welcome a diversity of
viewpoints and help us maintain a welcoming environment.
» Go right ahead. >> Hi, Mayor Kate
is Susan Gilbert. I am a resident of downtown San Rafale. I deeply appreciate
your advocacy on behalf of SMART, which makes it easier for all of us who
appreciate public transit to be able to get from here to there safely and
conveniently. And now in my 65th year freely, so I have deep appreciation for
that. Um I have had a discussion with the police department and they have
agreed to provide more oversight for the safety of the passengers who are on the
paid platform of the um smart train. Uh there is a
group of men ranging in age from 20 to 60 years old who frequent that area uh
drinking, drugging, perhaps selling drugs, though I cannot confirm that. and
it creates a feeling of lack of safety. I've also spoken to uh the Smart Train
because it's their jurisdiction primarily and Sanfell's secondarily.
Unfortunately, SMART only has one security officer on the entire line
who's on duty at any given time. I spent two years teaching English and
working there in Japan. And you can set your watch to the Shinkansen and the
bullet train. They were always perfectly clean and quiet and you could expect
decorum and safety on the platform. I'd love to talk with you at a time in the
future about how we can achieve that for the safety and comfort of us all. Thank
you so much.
» I see no other hands raised. We'll give everyone a moment to press star 9 or use
the raise hand feature. I see another hand.
» Thank you. I'll close a public comment. >> Oh, there's one more. Sorry, there is
one more hand. And as a reminder, I will mute you at
two minutes.
» Hello, my name is Brenda Gayen and I'm a resident of of San Rafale in the Gst
Park neighborhood. I'm commenting tonight on the proposed uh redevelopment
of the Safeway in Gstl Park. While I understand that the project is in very
early stages of planning, I wanted to uh plea with the council and city staff to
seriously work with the developer to maintain the Safeway or other valuable
market for this Galile Park and surrounding downtown area. This is an
area where we have a number of lowincome people, a number of elderly people that
walk daily to and from Safeway Market. And to take away the market in favor of
simple residential development with no lower story market would be a
devastating impact to this community. We are not against housing. We think it
should definitely be in scale with the neighborhood surrounding. But we also
think that having that very very important resource for the neighborhood
is extremely important. It will also be important as the recreation uh
department is developed at the park adjacent at Albert's Park. Um lastly, we
would like to um work with the city council to ensure that there's more
parking provided for that residential development because the Gristol Park
neighborhood and many neighborhoods surrounding
um that Safeway are already at capacity with parking. daily we have trouble
parking individual cars for homeowners and renters because this is an extremely
dense neighborhood with historic homes that do not have in many cases driveways
or even garages. Um and so the residential parking actually ends up a
lot of times on the street. And so having a limited number of parking for a
very dense development that's proposed would be devastating to the neighborhood
and make life much more difficult. And just a reminder, I'm taking public
comment on the council member and city manager reports. We appreciate all
comments, but anything not on the agenda, if you could save those comments
till the end of the meeting, that would be most appropriate. Is there anyone
else that would like to comment on the reports?
» I see no other hands raised. >> Okay. Thank you. I'll close the public
comment. We'll move to the consent agenda. Are there any items that the
council would like to hold? Okay. the agenda uh consent calendar. It's items A
through R. I will open up the public comment on the consent calendar. As
you've heard us say, you're welcome, but not required to say your name and what
part of San Rafale you live in. And we welcome diversity of viewpoints and
thank you for helping us to maintain a welcoming environment by refraining from
hateful or discriminatory remarks. >> Good evening, Daniel Alm. uh through the
Western Neighborhood Association, I rise before you in regards to consent to G.
Uh I want to thank you for your continued support and the city staff and
council for us to continue our Weston neighborhood picnic. This year will be
our 23rd annual year. I really want to put a pin in. Community events are
really important to the fabric of our community and your continued support of
this helps our community feel a sense of belonging. Thank you.
Thank you.
» Hello, Mayor, city council members and staff. My name is Wayne Raburn. I live
in San Rafale Meadows. I'd like to speak on item 2 I, the establishment of 350
Midel for my housing development project subcommittee.
Regarding the formation of the subcommittee for 350 Maridale affordable
housing project, we view this step as positive in a light positive light as
providing greater opportunity public engagement. This should allow for
greater transparency about the development proposals that were
submitted in response to the city's request for the proposals. We hope that
through this subcommittee, the city will fully engage the public in the
development selection process, allowing us to be informed and comment on the
developer aspects that are in the table for cond consideration,
such as the number of units, number of stories, building heights, and the
amount of parking that each development has proposed along with the propo
planned sequel review for the project. These are all elements that the public
has the right to be engaged in and we expect expect to be able to have a say
on how this development project unfolds and progresses.
We also request that the city create a citizens advisory committee for this
project with representatives from Sanel Meadows Midale Road and surrounding
neighborhoods participating in the advisor committee. While this idea is
not on the tonight's agenda, request that the city form a city advisor
committee for the mayor 350 mayorell project in the very near future to
coincide with the city's selection of development team for this project. Thank
you.
Good evening, mayor, city council and staff. Marian Nana for San Rafale
Meadows with the plan interim shelter. Oh, this
is in regard to 2J 350 Marital interim shelter site preparation. With the plan
interim shelter at 350 Midale on the agenda, I would like to take this
opportunity to speak to the city council and staff about the increase in homeless
encampment activity that we have already begun to experience in our community.
Over the past few weeks, we have observed the emergence of a greater
number of homeless individuals and the establishment of three encampments. One
behind the public storage facility next door to 350 Midale along the freeway. Uh
two at the Chevron gas station on Midale Road and three an individual car camper
on Meridale Road adjacent to Mount Olivet Cemetery.
These are instances of homeless encampment that were not there this
winter or spring. The San Rafell Police Department is aware of these encampments
and they have been quick to respond to do what they can and we do appreciate
their quick and thoughtful response to our concerns. But their hands are tied
and all three encampments have remained in place for now at least. We welcome
the police and fire department continue action to address these issues. These
problems have begun before the interm shelter at 350 Maridel has even opened
and they're likely to only get worse. We requested that the city council adopt a
camping band throughout the area around 3 350 Midale just as has been adopted
around Mahon Creek, Anderson Drive, and City Hall. In addition, the interim
shelter at 350 Midale should not be open unless and until agreements with Calrans
and Smart are finalized that will prevent ancillary encampment from
becoming established around 350 Midil. Please move forward on these actions
immediately. Thank you. >> Anyone else?
» Good evening. My name is Gregory Andrew and I live in Saraphone Meadows. I'm
here to speak on item 2J. The authorization of a construction contract
with Gelotti Brothers in the amount of $1.1 million for the 350 Midale interim
shelter site preparation.
Thank you. Uh for the 350 Midale site preparation
is another example of the city council's all too regular practice of awarding
contracts as consent calendar items without any prior public or even city
council review. This is just one of six contracts being awarded tonight through
the consent calendar totaling a totaling a whopping $5.7 million. So, you're
certainly starting off the calendar year uh with a bang. This contract and most
of the other contracts, or at least some of the other contracts, were not
publicly bid and none of them went through any public meeting prior to
tonight's consent calendar. While it is stated that the Gelotti contract was
priced at cost, there is no way to know if perhaps another company might have
also performed the work at cost and for a lower price. It is poor public policy
and not in our best interest to prevent the public from being able to first
review and comment on how expenditures of taxpayer dollars are being spent. The
authorization of this construction work is being approved prior to sequel review
issues at 350 Midale being resolved by the Maring County Court. And so in appre
approving this contract, the city is proceeding at risk of having the city's
secret claims being overturned. The city has claimed that there is zero
possibility of any environmental impact from this project on a site that has a
tributary to Galan Galinus Creek and a secondary drainage, both of which are
waters of the United States and which provide at least some habitat or may
provide some habitat for special status species. to claim zero possibility of
any potential impacts to these habitats is a dubious claim indeed. The city
should not should withhold action on this construction contract until the SQA
issues are first fully resolved. Thank you.
» Thank you. Any other public comment on the consent calendar?
I don't see anyone in the chambers. Is there anyone online that would like to
comment on this? >> I do see a few hands raised. Just as a
reminder, you can use the star 9 to raise your hand or use the raise hand
feature and you'll be prompted to press star six to unmute yourself.
» And just a reminder, so it's on the consent calendar cuz I know we are now
adding in folks phoning in. So if you could uh just alert the council as to
which item that you're referring to on the consent calendar, that would be
helpful. Thank you.
» Hello, Mayor and Council. This is Craig Murray with North Center.
I want to thank you for having this open sessions for Zoomers and folks that call
in. I'm calling in on item 2F cooperation agreement with county Marin
for grant programs. Ren Min County's 2024.4
action plan page 34 AP50 states that Min County has two areas of low-income and
minority concentration. one the canal two unincorporated rent city and states
the county could only invest in rehabilitation and affordable housing
with federal dollars in these communities. This is a result of work
undertaken to comply with the 2010 and 2019 voluntary compliance agreements
with HUD. I request that the city council consider that the city as an
entitlement city manage its own CDBG and home funds with staff under its goals of
the housing element and the action and consolidated plan retain approximately
20% of its administration and apply these funds to all areas of Sanfell in
need many charter and county seat cities manage their own entitlements
as city continues with county management then I request that Centerfell members
of the priority setting committee PSC considers other areas that are known to
have qualifying low-inccome and minority qualifying areas such as Sandfell's
California Hill and 9491 and Midell Road in 9493.
Maryale Road supports a large population of qualifying minority and low-income
households as well as seniors and children. And it has been over 50 years
since the city has annexed area. And yet there are large sections without
sidewalks, safe crossings, and improvements that can increase
accessibility for these persons with disabilities and usability for seniors
and children. Thanks again.
Hi, Mayor Kate and city council Susan Gilbert. Again, I'm speaking to the uh
20 on the consent calendar, the resolution to purchase the fireboat. I
think this is a very important piece of safety equipment, which I'm very
enthusiastic about Sanfell acquiring. Um, I could see its usefulness
particularly considering the terrible tragedy we suffered a couple years back
during the canal fire. Um, and also of course the tragedy that happened last
week on the bay. These types of boats can be crucial in preventing injuries or
deaths. So, thank you so much for considering that resolution.
Hello, my name is Phoebe Reyes and I live in Rafll Highlands near Sun Valley.
Um I am calling to or chiming in to talk about item I believe it's 3A regarding
the um increase in transfer taxes. >> I'm I'm going to interrupt you just so
you know. We're happy to take your testimony now, but we're not on that
item. We're actually on the consent calendar item, which is the one prior.
So, if you wouldn't mind waiting and calling in during that item, that would
be really helpful. >> Could you kindly tell me about how long?
Um, uh, roughly. [laughter] >> Sorry, I'm new here. Don't show up to as
many city council meetings as I'd like to.
» Yes. Now, we normally don't have back and forth like this, but this is a new
transition. Uh, we will be hearing a presentation by staff on item 3A. Um and
that that and then the council member will u ask questions and then we'll be
open up the public comment. So it depends on how many questions and the
presentation probably in another half hour or so.
» Yeah. First I very much thank you.
» I'm seeing no other hands raised. >> Okay. Thank you. I'll close the public
comment and it again um trying to be flexible because we really do appreciate
people calling in and it's most helpful to have them calling in under the
appropriate agenda item. So, uh, thank you for all the testimony that we heard
on the consent calendar. Um, I don't know if there are any additional
questions from the council. And if there aren't any, then I would request a
motion on this item, please. >> I move the consent calendar.
» Second. >> Moved and seconded. Roll call, please.
» Council member Bushy. >> I.
» Council member Hill. >> I.
» Vice Mayor Curts. >> I.
» Mayor Kate. >> I. That motion carries 40. Thank you.
We're moving on to our first public hearing, which is the proposed November
2026 ballot measure, revenue enhancement, real property transfer tax
rate. I'll turn it over to our interim city manager.
Okay. Uh, thank you, Madame Mayor and members of the council. has noted this
um public hearing is to consider um an action recommended by staff for
the city council to adopt a resolution that would among other things uh place
on the November 2026 uh ballot um an ordinance that would
amend the city's uh existing real estate property transfer tax. Um, I'm gonna
give a brief presentation and then quickly get to uh council uh question
comments and the public comment for this item. Um again just a summary of the
staff recommendation is um the adoption of a resolution uh calling the municipal
election for the purpose of submitting to the electors a measure to modify
Sanfell municipal code section uh related to the real property transfer
tax which would um if approved if placed on the ballot by the council and
approved by the voters would increase real property transfer tax rate. Um, we
would also be adding an oversight provision consistent with um, most all
of our other voter approved tax measures. And then the technical part
about uh, requesting the county of Marin to consolidate and conduct the election.
Uh, direction of the city attorney to prepare an impartial analysis and
authorizing um, mayor and council member Bushy to
file ballot argument andor rebuttals for the measure. So the background on this
uh piece is part of a ongoing discussion that we've had in this chamber with the
council and at council subcommittees regarding sort of some strategic
planning around long-term fiscal stability and long-term fiscal
sustainability. Um we won't rehash the lengthy meeting we had at the end of
June where the council adopted the annual budget um 200 plus million dollar
all fun budget. We did some balancing measures, some belt tightening, did some
budget flexibility um to address some emerging needs. Uh
but one of the things that we've been attempting to highlight throughout our
discussions uh with the council on the city budget and fiscal um situation is
really the um large and growing list I would say of unfunded and unmet needs
that we don't currently have adequate funding uh to address. Uh the slide that
we're sharing here actually was uh included in our last budget presentation
um really to give examples within uh various categories
um within our baseline funding which is costs that we are going to incur
regardless of whether or not we have additional funding. Um some that still
remain outstanding is um kind of a shortfall in our um kind of equipment
replacement and a lot of our assets when they come up for um at the end of their
useful life uh increasing costs related to uh liabilities and claims and that
whole area which we will hopefully have some time for some more detailed
discussions in the coming uh months. um at or near the top of the list
continually um and it's highlighted by the council is our infrastructure uh
funding needs. Um we are continuing to advance you know our capital program
with um limited available funding a for maintenance and prevented maintenance.
Most of the projects that end up funded in the capital plan are as a result of
one-time funding and grants that we're able to secure. Um but there was an item
actually approved I believe on the consent calendar a few minutes ago. Our
annual uh payment maintenance program um about a million three million five a
year goes into that. We are between two and a half and $3 million a year short
of being able to fund our ongoing street pavement maintenance program at a level
required to actually maintain current conditions, let alone improve them. and
um you know arguably absent um either additional funding or rep prioritization
of funding in that area, we will continue likely to see a decline in our
um roadway conditions. Um also on that list is sidewalks, storm drain
improvements. Uh we have a park um capital plan um park maintenance plan.
We've identified about $10 million worth of um funding needs over the next 10
years, separate and distinct from the demands on our park infrastructure
related to new development, which was somewhat addressed by council's recent
actions related to the um park impact fee. But in terms of just baseline
maintenance and replacement costs for our current service levels, that's an
area unfunded need. um public safety. Uh kind of well not top of the list but
among the top of the list is um ongoing uh funding to be able to sustain if not
expand our safe team. um alternative response to some of the calls for
service related to our unhoused population or any individuals in crisis
that um um need uh a response that doesn't necessarily require um sworn law
enforcement or our fire and paramedic um staff. Uh we can have a long
conversation and we will eventually on sort of public staffing uh going forward
as we continue to see increased calls for service uh changing demographics and
um just continued uh pursuit of best practices in the area fire and EMS. Um
and then we've added some other areas on this list. Again, this was also included
in the budget document and in the staff report. There's a little more extensive
discussion of all of these. Um, I want to bring this slide back to the council,
which is another, um, I guess piece of information that
speaks, I believe, to uh, the context for the need to at least look at other
revenue sources. And this is looking at um, of the property tax that is paid by
all property owners who own property in the city of San Rafale. Um and this is
the 1% constitutional state um property tax um rate of 1%. Um city of San Rafll
near the kind of center right of this chart uh we retain uh 12.2%
of every dollar that is collected. Um, and this chart basically shows um our
allocation uh in comparison to the amount of property tax that's retained
by other uh Marin County cities and towns and also on the blue bars um how
much of that u property tax paid in each jurisdiction actually goes to Marin
County. So just to be clear for San Rafll we retain 12.2% 2% uh county marin
retains 19.2%. Um
we are um I would say well below the average if you do a straight numerical
average would be uh in excess of 16%. But this is just it's just a a fact of
um how our dollars are allocated. And without arguing good, bad or
indifferent, um being on the lower end of the scale while at the same time
being a fullervice city where we run our own police department, our own fire
department, have our own library that not all the cities on this chart um have
responsibility for. Um while on the one hand we can compare our financial
situation, our taxes to other cities and towns in Marin County, we all are
dealing with a different um deck of cards, if you will, that we've been
dealt with. So we're trying to do the best we can with the resources we have.
Um but this is one of the reasons why um the city has relied on and continues to
rely on um additional funding sources such as um you know voter approved sales
tax measures, library tax measure, the paramedic tax measure. It's to bridge
the gap between the service level and service level demands, the cost to
deliver those services and the revenues that we would be receiving kind of on
the natural uh to support those. and we can talk more about that. So this is
just lays a little bit of the context. Um this is not our first discussion um
in these chambers regarding ballot measures in general and specifically um
options for November ballot. Um we included um this discussion both in a uh
agenda item we did last February regarding long-term fiscal
sustainability and strategies. We also uh discussed it in the context of both
the proposed and the adopted budget um when it was presented as well as at the
subcommittee. And this just summarizes that um you know going into tonight's
recommendation uh staff uh had continued to look at the options potentially
available to the city. Kind of narrowed our analysis down to two uh potential I
would say viable options for the November ballot. Uh the first one being
uh what we're coming back to and recommending which is looking at
increasing the property transfer tax. Current tax rate is um $2 per thousand
uh or effective tax rate of 0.2%. Um, and an increase to a uh 1% which is
$10 per thousand or 1% uh would generate an additional $6 million per year, which
um is um not the beall and endall, but would make arguably a significant
contribution towards addressing at least some of the highest priority needs um on
our unfunded needless and significantly as a general purpose tax. Um, in order
for this to be enacted, it would require a majority vote, 50% plus one of the um
um voters that would be uh participating in that election. Uh we've also had been
looking at and continue to explore um an alternative which would be a public
safety parcel tax. Uh which would be um as proposed a or contemplated uh a tax
on a square footage of building improvements for all properties within
uh the city. Um the what we were looking at was a rate
that would generate about $3 million per year. Uh this is about half of what the
measure P uh parcel tax that was approved in November 2024
via a citizens initiative. Um um and so this has a different um
obviously effective
net tax depending on uh the size of the property and the size of the structure.
Um with some property owners having some significant uh tax bills as a result. Um
but also a as a special tax for this to be enacted it would require a twothirds
vote of the um electors participating in the in the November election. Um we
shared also with the council um last month um sort of uh some scenarios of
how either a uh revenue from a property transfer tax um as suggested um that
would generate $6 million, how that could be allocated. um essentially
between infrastructure improvement needs and uh public safety
needs and how we might uh potentially propose a public safety parcel tax were
we to proceed um uh with that albeit at a uh reduced overall dollar amount but
potentially a little bit more uh funding for public safety because of its
dedicated nature. So, um, from that I want to, um, move forward to since this
was presented to the council and we signaled this, um, at the time, uh, the
city did conduct a survey, a poll of, um, likely voters in the November 2026
election. I will note as I go through these slides that um Curtis Bellow from
the polling firm of FM3 is uh joining us um online this evening and is available
to answer any questions that uh may come up on either the information presented
here or anything else related to uh the survey but went through the um
methodology uh for their survey. Um, I'm not a survey expert, but this was a
effectively a split poll where everybody received certain questions and then the
poll was split to test these two alternatives um in in the sample. And um
b just going to share highlights of of those results that um um both a public
safety parcel tax and a property transfer tax received um initial
support. uh just when asked sort of cold the question would you be likely to
support um either of these measures? Um and what how these slides show is the
definitely yes and the probably yes um right around 50 51% uh for both measures
and similarly um probably no definitely no uh about a little over a third of the
respondents. Um um the definitely nos are important because those are unlikely
to sort of change their opinion over the course of um between now and November.
Um so that's um important number but also is the um level of undecided um
opinions um in the sample. So it depends on more information and how things are
going at the time etc etc. um for the public safety tax. Um we're showing the
initial uh sort of voter sentiment and then as these surveys do to help um
really dig a little deeper, the respondents are presented with likely
arguments in favor of the measure to see how their opinion might be um swayed or
how it moves. and in this case uh for the part public safety tax up to about
60% and then when presented with uh sample arguments or statements in
opposed or or critical of the measure reasons not to support the measure um
that what's important here to take away is that um while there was a majority
support beginning, middle, and end for this measure, it didn't come close to um
hitting the twothirds vote requirement that would be required uh for a special
tax. Um, when looking at the general purpose uh real estate property transfer
tax, again um again given the margin of error in these samples that Curtis can
speak to better than I can, right around the required threshold um out the gate
with um hearing arguments in support of the measure and the reason why we would
be advancing it. Uh it went up into the mid uh 50% range. to to get some um bump
there. Um but it's noteworthy that arguments that were presented uh in
opposition to the measure also had the effect of reducing some of that. So the
takeaway here is that uh between the two measures uh the public safety tax
doesn't really look like it has a path towards getting a twothirds u support
regardless of the effort that that may go into that. Um and the recommendation
that's before the council tonight for a real estate transfer tax um has a
potential path to uh passage and support, but want to be clear that it by
no means um falls under the you know slam dunk these rarely do. But um it's
based in part based on these results that we're advancing uh the
recommendation that's that's before you this evening. Uh I'll just end this part
of the presentation to by um highlighting that within the survey um
there were also a number of questions aimed at both um what are the areas that
the prospective voter and the community more broadly defined um feel are
important to support in a um tax measure and a revenue measure. And this uh the
far right column here adds the extremely important and very important um those
two numbers. Um and at the top of the list um number one, not surprisingly, is
maintaining our 911 emergency medical, police, and fire response times, which
is a key component of why we would be uh putting this before the voters,
preventing the deterioration of streets and roads. Check addressing impacts of
homelessness, including litter and illegal dumping. So some of the what's
interesting here is among the highest priority needs that we've identified,
they seem to also be the ones that resonate most strongly with at least the
respondents um from the survey. Um there's a long long list below this, but
I just wanted to highlight um those areas among others. Um so again, the
recommendation before the council this evening is essentially to um pursue
um asking the voters if they would be uh supportive of increasing the real estate
property transfer tax um as a general purpose tax um again uh with a increase
to a rate of of 1% that would generate $6 million uh dollars per year. I should
note that in the staff report and in the resolution is the actual ballot language
that is being proposed. I probably remiss that I didn't cut and copy that
into this, but we can uh highlight that for sure uh before we um get to any
council decision on this. Um, I wanted to end with just a few more um kind of
background and context pieces in terms of um not so much um why we're
contemplating bringing a property trans a tax measure to the voters um but why
specifically a property transfer tax. And we did look at other tax measures
including other general purpose taxes which include um you know the transient
occupancy hotel tax. Uh many cities have utility users tax on the books that the
city of San Rafll does not have. Uh the business license tax. I would just say
that the hotel tax and the business license tax um would not be generating
anything near this amount of revenue even with um you know bringing them to
arguably the maximum rate that would even contemplate uh bringing forward.
So, the property transfer tax we believe is um at least um
interested in a couple of respects. Number one, it's a tax that we already
have on the books. So, it's just increasing existing tax. Um, number two,
the tax rate is um, arguably, you know, depending on the cities that
we're comparing to, and I'm looking at all of the cities in California that
have property transfer tax, which by the way is by state law only the purview of
charter cities. So, general law cities do not have the ability under state law
to enact um, a property transfer tax. Um but uh
we shared before and we'll see on here our current tax rate on the low end and
uh significantly for cities that do have property transfer tax, it generally
provides a significantly I would argue significantly higher share
of overall general fund revenues than the 1.5 million that we collect out of
$110 million general fund budget. Um, and so this chart does sort of compare
existing property transfer tax. Um, and I drew the line right at the the San
Rafale. So you can see clearly the cities whose have these taxes on the
books that generate um um whose general fund is more reliant on property
transfer tax which from a finance director's perspective is also appealing
relative in the sense of diversifying our tax base as opposed to going back
for another sales tax increase or other some of the other taxes. Um also uh on a
per capita basis uh there are charts about you know gross property tax
revenues but those are very skewed by sizes of city. So to normalize that,
this is the property transfer tax revenue uh on a per capita uh basis. And
again, Sanfell there is on the green line in the middle of the chart and it
shows you of all the cities that have the property transfer tax on the books,
the vast majority of them are uh generating significantly more revenue uh
per capita. So, um um and then the last chart, which um
I'm going to attempt to explain just shows really the property transfer tax
rates that cities that have property transfer tax on the books um charge. I
will note um of interest that while I have a number of cities, I think 25 26
cities in the state with property transfer taxes, this is actually sorted
by county. So you'll have sort of your Alama County, East Bay cities um off to
the right. Um, and then when you get into Elserto and Richmond, you're in
Contraasa County, and then you get into some of the Southern California counties
until you get to San Rafll, which is next to Santa Monica that has one of the
highest rates. And then City County, well, Sacramento, City County, San
Francisco, and then Sanonteo, Santa Claras, and at the far end you have
Sonoma County, which is the Paluma and Santa Rosa's um on on that. And uh this
chart tries to uh display two things. One is uh the comparative
uh real estate transfer tax. Um and if it can if it shows on the video, the
sort of the purple are the cities that just basically have a flat property
transfer tax applied across all uh transactions at that rate. Um there are
several cities, maybe about six or eight of them that have the so-called tier
structure. So they'll have a certain um tax you'll see at the bottom. Some of
them, you know, anything up to 300,000 and then up to a million, one and a
half, 2 million, two and a half. So some of the, you know, these cities that may
go up into the three, four, five, and six% um only do that for their higher
value, but it just shows that there's a taring of them. Um and I would just note
that with our recommendation to consider um without a taring structure increasing
our rate to 1% uh the San Rafale bar would be up at that first line which is
the 1% the horizontal line and um while I didn't put the proposal on here you
could see how it then compares sort of with the other cities that um have the
existing taxes on the books. um we have not done a lot of research on to what
extent some of these cities might also be contemplating bringing forward
additional taxes on it but um thought that would be uh somewhat um
illustrative. Um so just to wrap up our staff recommendation uh this evening is
for the council to consider and um adoption of a resolution to call the
general municipal election uh to place the measure on the November 2026 ballot
increasing the real estate property transfer tax uh and then requesting that
the county consolidate and conduct the election. have the city attorney
authority to prepare impartial analysis and then uh mayor and council member
Bushy to file arguments. So with that I will conclude the presentation. Um happy
to answer any questions you have. I said Curtis Bellow is joining us remotely. Uh
if there's any questions on sort of the needs component, we have also staff
available here at the meeting to help uh answer any questions council might have.
» Thank you. Thank you for that staff report and as you mentioned we have
talked about it in the finance subcommittee as well but we haven't had
a chance to talk about it um up here on the dis. So I'll start with questions
first. Uh vice mayor do you have any questions?
» I just have a couple of questions and thank you for um we had followed up
earlier in the day with some additional questions but I want to share a couple
of those because I think the responses are really helpful for people to
understand. Um right now it's being proposed that the
it's a general it'll be a general fund um revenue stream and I was wondering
what the thought was in terms of uh not doing a percentage of infrastructure
versus public service. Um like we have with marine wildfire we have a lot of uh
percentages and earmarked and why why it's considered not to do that for this
one.
Um so I think the short answer of that question is um while as we shared in the
presentation there's definitely some thought as to how the city would most
likely um allocate the funding and um under general purpose it's important to
note that ultimately that decision is to the city council. they are by law and by
definition discretionary dollars to be spent on whatever the council deems um
appropriate. Um, you know, it is important though when we're going to the
voters seeking a tax increase to be um as transparent as we can be as to the
needs that are driving it and how this fund uh could assist once we start um
building into the actual ordinance or ballot measure uh those
carveouts or allocations then it starts to move into the special tax category.
So for instance, NWPA by its nature is a special tax and then there's allocations
and how you're using it within that. But that's the that's the main distinction.
» Yeah, I appreciate that. Thank you. Um, is there any thought in or analysis at
this point in terms of how much the tax would generate from commercial sale
versus residential? >> Um,
I will say, Vice Mayor Curts, that we have that data. Um I don't have it at my
fingertips. Um but we did look at the last I believe 8 to 10 years of um
actual real estate property transfer tax paid in terms of the number of
transactions the value of the transactions
and I want to say that there's um
residential versus commercial is somewhere in that in distinctions in
that database. >> Okay. Thank you. Um
» I will say the vast majority will be on residential
just because of the volume. >> Yeah.
Um can you share a little bit about how
this I mean it was talked about the finance committee but other groups or
areas that you've started to uh to review the possibility of of going down
this path just so it this isn't I mean we know that this is not the first time
as you had mentioned we've we've discussed this in different forums
» um publicly but have you um had an opportunity to share at this point with
others? uh a little bit uh but I would say um
other than the um the work we've done at the staff that we brought to the fine
subcommittee and the pieces that it brought to this committee I would say
that most of the engagement um with uh select members of the community has been
in response to questions or inquiries that we have received as they've been
following this uh item going through um less So, um, frankly, in terms of, um,
you know, proactive outreach, um, um, and as you know, and as the city
attorney will want me to say, um, should the council put this on the ballot, uh,
we are precluded from, um, using staff resources, um, and city resources in a
campaign advocacy, um, area, but we will absolutely be ensuring that we're um,
available to um um share information and put out information that might be
helpful to the community in deciding. >> Great. Thank you. And the last question
I have is um why was a flat 1% rate recommended instead of a graduated
structure that places more of the burden on higher value transactions?
Um yeah, that is a good question because it was something that that was looked at
and um also informed by looking at some of the other agencies that do have those
structures in place and I would say um three
kind of main reasons. Um the first one is that um because of the concentration
of the transaction really in the lower end of that that as soon as we were to
say for instance we're recommending an increase for um properties over even say
$2 million let alone three million the amount of incremental revenue um is
diluted significantly. I think um I don't have it in front of me, but I
think you know almost half of the real estate property transfer tax comes from
sales under one and a half million and if you go up to 2 million it's it's over
half if not twothirds of of the revenue. So in our situation it gets diluted uh
very quickly. Um that is not necessarily a reason not to
do it. Um, however, we also did include in our survey some questions about
whether or not doing a tiering would um um impact uh voter sentiment, at least
as um represented by the survey. And uh that did not move the needle. In fact,
when we posed questions about uh taring, it actually lowered the support. I don't
pretend to know why. Others might have opinions on it, but there wasn't really
a a compelling reason both from a financial standpoint. Um, and the last
one, which I'll shouldn't even mention, but um, given that we are limited in law
to the 75 words in the ballot question, trying to explain a tiered
tax structure takes up most of the ballot question to
begin with, and the pros and cons of of doing that didn't pan out for us.
» Great. Appreciate it. Thank you. So, Thank you, Council Member Bushy.
Questions? >> Thank you. Um my questions um revolve
around comparison of San Rafale to our neighbors. I want to start with um early
in your presentation you um showed that San Rafale retains about 12% of property
tax revenue and our neighbors in the fine city of Mil Valley though retain
twice that. Why is that?
I don't know that there's an easy answer to that question. Um
uh other than what I may have tried to explain before that, um the property the
allocation of the baseline Prop 13 property transfer tax was put in place
following the passage of Prop 13 uh back in 1979
and um which is when Prop 13 was approved by the voters in the state of
California. Um and then uh the enabling legislation was I believe AB8 which is
the legislature. And so, um, to try to make it very simple, the
legislature came up with a property tax allocation formula
that was developed to with the purpose of ensuring that any city's
uh share of property tax post Prop 13 was in proportion to their proportionate
share of property tax pre-prop 13. So on a statewide basis, so if um and so what
this suggests is for cities before that could set their own property tax rates.
So cities that had a quoteunquote high property tax rate going into Prop 13 who
would have been much more negatively impacted by a statewide 1% figure. they
keep more of the uh local property tax than a city that may would have had a
lower property tax rate at the time. So all other things equal, it's the formula
that um implemented Prop 13 >> in 1979
» in 1979. >> Okay. So this this happened a long time
ago. This was set and we cannot change it. That's the important
» we cannot change that. The other area or two that impacts this number over time
is obviously new cities, new incorporations. Um but for instance um
when uh cities will annex um areas into the city, then there's a tax sharing
agreement that uh takes place that they're negotiating with the county. And
so if we were to annex another area of unincorporated and negotiated a higher
share than 12.2 two for that annexation our average goes up. So that's another
area where that number changes over time as cities grow and annex. And the second
one you mentioned earlier in the context of utilities but um consolidations
because all the special districts that allocate. So some of these cities for
instance that are served by fire districts, the fire districts get a
portion of that property tax. You would think that they'd have a lower property
tax share but it doesn't always pan out that way. But if going forward we were
to and we're discussing some consolidations ourselves with Merinwood,
there's the potential that we would receive some of their property tax and
this number could change through that process.
» But setting aside those like literally adjustments around the edges. um
focusing on what happened in 1979 and where it leaves the city of San Rafll,
» it leaves us disadvantaged from by a factor of 100% compared to Mil Valley of
property taxes. >> And that that disadvantage is part of
the justification for turning our attention to other sources of revenue
because if I'm correct, um San Rafel is the only charter city in Marin County.
Correct. >> I believe so. So, we're the only city
that could have a real estate transfer fee.
» Yep. >> Okay. So, we're on our own.
» Can I can I underscore that because I I on that chart we just showed the you
know the average allocation of property tax for marine cities and towns is I
think was 16.2 which is 4% more than our 12.2. That would have if we had that
level it would we would be receiving about $9.6 6 million a year in
incremental property tax and I would submit that we might not be having this
conversation if we were >> we'd be even happier if we had Mil
Valley's 25%. So just putting that out there um but comparison so that what and
what's um driving this now turning our attention to the newly proposed tax um
real estate transfer tax um we have no we have no comparators in Marin County
because we're the only one that can do this. Correct. on. So that leaves us
with looking sort of across the North Bay. In your other um chart showing all
of the the different counties other than Southern California, when we look across
the North Bay, we see that they were below 1%. We would
not be we would be jumping from one of the lowest
trans um real estate transfer taxes to one of the highest in the North Bay. Is
that right? >> Uh that would be correct.
» Okay. And this is driven by our the fact that we're taking our 0.2%
tax and turning into 1% tax. It's 5x >> of the tax rate.
And how did you select that number just for
ease of mathematics? Um
well two things. It was the you know do you
propose an increase in the property transfer tax for a $2 million
incremental revenue and how does that move the needle on the need? So it's a
combination of the needs that are well in excess of it. what would
represent a meaningful uh increment. Um, hey, we could put
another couple million into streets and roads. We can put a couple million into
public safety. We could deal with some of our parks and facilities. that would
make a significant uh in and within that larger cohort of comparisons
still be within the um the range of what um
cities that have these taxes on the books are able to generate. So, in
short, to make it worth our while, we needed to make it a significant increase
to get a a a meaningful um increase in funding for our our needed priorities
because of this anomalous thing that happened back in 1979. And the other
thing I would note that is um in the staff report and implied in the ballot
question is unlike a parcel tax, unlike a sales tax, unlike a business license
tax, this is paid one time at the time of the transaction of the sale. So it's
not a tax that those who are um you know paying the tax you know are paying on a
ongoing annual basis. So there's a distinction between how a property
transfer tax functions and most other taxes that we are able to um enact.
» Great. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member Hill.
» Thank you, Mayor Kate. I have a few questions. Uh when I look at the um
draft ballot statement at the very bottom, it indicates uh with annual
audits and public spending disclosure. Can you elaborate on what that would
mean? I presume it meant that um at least it involves the voter approved tax
oversight committee including this as part of its uh um oversight, but I just
wanted to hear if there's any more or if you could elaborate a little bit on how
that would go to that committee. >> Yeah, I'll speak to that and then maybe
um ask Curtis if he has other Curtis Bellow other comments on it. Um so the
part of the uh ballot question that references the ordinance change uh so
right now I would say that the u our existing property transfer tax was
enacted prior to prop 218. So was enacted by a council not by uh uh the
voters. And so if this is placed before the voters and passes, we're essentially
adding the same language that we have on um most all of our existing voter
approved um uh tax measures. Um and yes, it would uh
also fall under the purview of oversight of the voter approved tax oversight
committee as currently constituted in their charter with a bit of a caveat
because as we um have shared prior with the finance committee and we took action
at the council um vote approved tax oversight committee, you know,
appropriately um flagged that for a general purpose tax um oversight is is a
little bit of a um tricky wicket because we don't necessarily track those. We
track the revenue separate. We know what we're collecting because it goes into
the general fund. Um they're generally not set up so that we can um you know
account for all the dollars that are being spent from a general purpose tax.
Um but that said um it is important to um include an oversight component. Um
the other part is obviously you know all of our financials are subject to our you
know regular annual independent audit. uh we do reporting to the council on all
of this and what Curtis might add if I'm missing something is that um
irrespective of the tax the tax rate and the mechanism of the tax what has is
consistently um important to note when we're doing poll and what we're doing
survey is to uh reassure the voters that these are locally controlled dollars
that the state can't come and take from us at some future date. And that we are
serious about um transparency in terms of oversight and audits and reporting
and um
whatever how we um allocate the dollars in the budget and how we do this will be
um an important piece of it. >> Thank you. My next question is um
regarding impacts. Um, so I can I think everyone in the room can do this kind of
math, which is if you sell a property and the sale price is 1 million, then
the tax rate for this particular tax would be $10,000.
Aside from the math, um, can you contemplate what the impacts
would be to real estate industry? >> Um, I'm not sure if I can speak to the
impacts on the real estate industry. um if that's the question.
» How about locally? >> Yeah. No, I guess what I would what I
would say and this question does come up and um others will have their opinion
and we'll see. But um I would just say that um it's not uncommon for the real
estate property transfer tax and we have one on the books currently um is oftent
times um um the real question is is it borne by
the buyer or the seller on the property. So an argument is that it increases the
cost if it's on largely on the buyer and may um you know kind of eat into the
equity that a seller might be um otherwise getting from it. Um and I
remind you we're talking about 1% of the sales price. So, um there are scenarios
out there where a property transfer tax like many of the other fees that are
associated like a real estate commission can be uh on both sides of the ledger
like split between the property owner I'm sorry yeah the seller and the buyer
that's um not uncommon um and then what get comes into play uh at least from
some personal experience although it's been a while is that depending on the
housing market right when you're in a buyer market then um some of these costs
through the negotiation between individual buyer and seller um can be
negotiated to be picked up by one side or the other. The other extreme is in a
quote unquote you know sellers market when properties particularly residential
properties are you know going over asking price cash only and they're
flying off the market. It's not uncommon for the property transfer tax to then be
um kind of swooped up into the transaction costs.
Um, and um, that's all I'm gonna say about that.
» Yeah. Well, thank you for addressing a very broad question on the real estate
industry. So I and my final questions are are not to go through every unfunded
need that you articulated but I do want to for the sake of emphasis understand
what is meant by our pavement program is we'll will we need to increase it by 2
million a year just to maintain PCI um which is our pavement uh if you
can elaborate on the initialism and then just make certain that is it do we
degrade by a half a percent a year a percent a year I just want to understand
just so that a community member can understand
how this translates into road quality. >> So, I'm going to ask our public works
director, uh, April Mi Miller to assist on this. Um, but one thing I'll say at a
very, very high level, and she can speak more to it, is, um, you know, we talked
about $2 million. I think in the staff report we actually bumped that up to
between two and a half three because I think in like 2022 or $23 we were in the
that $2 million range and let's just say that um pavement condition index you
know has you know numbers associated but they're in you know excellent condition,
good condition, fair condition and we're at the very bottom of the um fair
category and uh at our current funding level it will continue to deteriorate.
rate. The question of how much funding is needed per our most recent reports to
maintain it at the current level, let alone bring it up um is going to be
probably in excess of the $2 million. April,
» that sounds accurate. Um, yeah. So, just to weigh in a little bit more, so since
we've been we've had such a limited budget on pavement over I mean, I've
been here six years for six years on, you know, we've been using the money to
just focus on maintenance. We've been doing slurry seals. We've been, you
know, sealing cracks on roads that typically you would grind an overlay. We
just been stretching every dollar we can to try to keep these roads just alive as
long as possible. So to your question on how fast it will go down, like we're
we're trying to put as many band-aids as we can to to keep the roads going, but
it's hard to determine at what point they'll it'll just drop. I mean, we are
we have been losing like a point a year consistently for the last five years,
but it's sort of unknown since we are doing preventative maintenance on roads.
So, you can't really tell how bad the underlying condition is on the road. We
know what it is because we knew what it was before we did the pavement
maintenance, but we are stretching our dollars to the maximum right now and
it's it has been successful over the last few years.
» Got it. And not to um try to create fair uncertainty depth, but what I'm hearing
you say is that there could actually be underlying literally underlying problems
with the with the substructure and things that may not be seen that
patching may be able to alleviate for a season, but that there could be major
problems where a road could fail and have to do emergency repaving.
» Uh potentially, yes. Usually it just gets it starts to deteriorate more and
more. Um yeah, quicker. So typically like if a
road was more in the good condition, we would slurry seal it every seven to 10
years. These roads that we're slurrying are in the poor condition, we should
probably be slur if we're going to slurry them to keep them alive, we'd do
it like every three years. We don't have the money to do that. So we're still
trying to do in that 7 to 10 year mark, but yeah, the the roads are continuing
to get worse and worse in that underlying condition.
» Thank you, Director Miller. And can I can I add one more thing to that that I
think we shared in one of the CIP is that you know the the goal is to do all
the maintenance you can do to avoid the reconstruction of the road which happens
eventually at a much more significant cost. So there's you know how
aggressively can we maintain um what you're trying to avoid is having
to get into the major reconstruction which uh this funding would not
be enough to support. >> Okay. Thank you. And as I said, I would
not uh inventory all of our unfunded needs, but there is one other which is
the safe team uh $750,000 a year that we cannot that we don't have a plan for
beyond this year. Can you just confirm that what the safety does and what would
happen what could happen if we can't fund it?
Um again I will ask um police chief uh Spiller to assist with this but yes as
the council is aware uh we have been able to maintain what was initially a
pilot program through some one-time funding. Uh, credit to the department
and Chief Biller's uh, staff for identifying some grant funding that we
were able to um, uh, receive that as you noted, we have secure funding for the
current level of service through the current fiscal year, maybe a couple of
months through the current contract, and then we're going to continue to be
looking for um, how to keep this together. And um what uh the reason why
this is on this list is not only um a candidate for
stable recurring annual funding, but potentially also funding source to meet
the um demands and potentially increasing the days and hours of
operation of the safe team. Chief, >> that was perfect. I couldn't have said
anything better. Uh so as the council's aware, you know, we had a very
successful three-year pilot of the safe team. Um and at the conclusion of the
three-year pilot, we extended that contract to coincide with the fiscal
year and then did a one-year extension. So at the completion of this fiscal
year, the safe team won't be funded. There's no permanent funding solution
for the safe team. So absent this, the manager and I will be scouring
opportunities and additional grant opportunities and other philanthrop
philanthropic opportunities to uh offset the expenditure and that's based on the
current deployment of a two-person team 12 hours a day or excuse me yes 12 hours
a day every day of the calendar year. There has been question from the
community uh from community groups and even council members what are the
opportunities to expand the program. So uh that will be a part of what um we
could potentially leverage this additional revenue for.
» Thank you chief. Those are my questions. Thank you.
» Thank you. I just have one um hopefully easy question. So this is already on the
books and you mentioned in answering council member Hill's question about uh
why it is going to the voters. So that original 2% was done by the council but
not this council and I don't see anywhere in the staff report when this
was originally we we've already agreed to do this in
this community. This is not a brand new tax. It's an increas increasing one that
already exists. So, I don't recall. I don't know if Council Bushy recalls. So,
it wasn't in the last 20 years when we've been here. [laughter]
Um, but I'm curious you and and I'm um Oh, I see it. City attorney, deputy city
attorney arriving and then you mentioned 218. Why is it that the council can't
make the decision from the dis and why do we need to go to the voters? I
believe that the original ordinance was adopted in 1990 1991.
» Okay. >> Sometime around that
» by the council at that point >> by the council prop it's like a
municipal history lesson. Prop 218 came in 19
97 98. >> Okay. which said that for these specific
types of taxes, they need to go to the voters and cannot be done through
council resolution. >> It didn't specify real estate transfer
tax, but the type of um revenue generation now requires a voter
approval. >> Can I add that Prop 218 did two things?
It required that um any and all taxes require voter approval and it also
stipulated that special taxes require a twothirds vote.
» Okay. >> Yeah.
» See, yeah, we're everybody's going to try.
» We did a little bit of history um background research on this. So,
ordinance 1303 was adopted by the city council in 1978 and then subsequently in
1990, ordinance 1595 was adopted by the city council and then about a week later
there was an urgency ordinance that amended that slightly um in 1990.
» Okay. So, if they had done a 1% then we probably wouldn't be having this
conversation. So, right because there was no retro of reducing it to another
number. So that that chart that you showed, those were all cities and towns
that back before Prop 218 increased it to those numbers. Okay. Just again, it's
a lot of context and and to understand why um we have an opportunity that other
cities and towns might not have. Okay. I don't see any questions right now. We've
asked a bunch and I know that the public would like to weigh in. Um so I'm going
to go ahead and open up the public comment for this item. If you are in the
room and would like to comment, uh, we'd love to hear from you. And just a
reminder, we'd like to know what part of Sanfell, if you do live in Sanell, what
part you live in. You're not required to say your name, but we would welcome
hearing it. And we are maintaining a welcoming environment by refraining from
hateful or discriminatory remarks. Welcome.
» Hi. Good [clears throat] evening, um, mayor and members of the city council.
My name is Jen Feifer. I grew up in Sanfell, own a home in this community,
and I've spent more than 25 years in Marin real estate. Tonight, I'm speaking
speaking on behalf of all homeowners. I want to be fair. The city has real
needs. Aging streets, storm drains, and the pressure of emergency response. Um,
it's not imaginary and I respect [clears throat] the work you do to
manage it all. Um, I appreciate you reaching out to us, the community, um,
before you place re the revenue measure um, before the voters, but I'm here to
say no to this idea that you've proposed. Today, when a resident sells a
home, the city transfer tax is $2 per thousand. This measure makes it $10,
which is five times higher on a typical Sanfale home. That's about $10,000 more
taken at the closing table. and it's permanent with no sunset. I have a
listing now closing this Friday for $3.3 million and the trustees are paying
6,000 in city transfer taxes. If this were to pass, they would pay $30,000
just for the city transfer tax. That doesn't include the county. So, you want
to come to my listing appointments with me and try to explain this? Um, I'm
going to condense this, but I'll email it to you. [snorts] Um,
I think all residents should pay for 911 response times and storm drainage su
systems and flooding and addressing the impacts of the homelessness and street
and road maintenance and maintaining self safe places for kids to play. I
agree with all that, but I think everybody should pay for it. You're
proposing that one household at one very hard moment in time should pay the
senior who is finally right sizing or downsizing or moving to assisted living
where they're going to have to pay pay tens of thousands of dollars
» before um >> sorry you got muted at the two minutes
so no so so thank you for your comments and yes I will email you. Thanks so
much.
Good evening. Can pull that down. >> Good evening. Hi, my name is Sandra Del
Regno and I live in Rafll Meadows in San Rafll. And I am against this tax for a
couple of reasons. Number one, because to sell a house, it will in it will have
to increase the value because you know, you want to get so
much money for your house. You've spent money, you fixed your house up, you're
going to add it to the cost. This over the last couple of years, everyone's
talking about the high cost of housing. This will just increase the cost of
housing. And what no one's addressing is all the
new construction. There's 1,900 units going into Northgate. There's highrises
going into San Rafale. All of those units are going to bring revenue into
the coffers of San Rafale. That's significant money you're going to
get get. You're not addressing all the extra money that you're going to be
getting from all the new construction and all the new housing. I'm against
this specific tax. Thank you.
» Anyone else like to comment on this item in the chambers?
» Hi. Uh my name is Noah Bugby. I'm a rising senior at Archie Williams. I was
not planning on speaking, but something I've heard a lot through my time living
in San Rafel is that we have an increasingly
aging population, most of whom are the people that own the homes. And basic
economics says that this will deincentivize selling your home or jag
up the price, making it harder for the younger residents that we desperately
need to come in. So, I'm just curious if the effects of that have been studied
when we need a younger population. Thank you. Any
other comments in the chambers?
Okay, I don't see anyone in the room. Is there anyone online that would like to
provide comments? >> There are some hands raised. Just as a
reminder, you can raise your hand using star9 if you're calling in or you can
use the raise hand feature on Zoom. And uh I will be muting you at two minutes.
I do see a few hands raised.
Hi, my name is Phoebe Reyes. I live in San Rafale in the Sun Valley
neighborhood. I'm going to keep it brief, but uh I um also work as a
realtor and I highlight everything that Jen was saying. Jen Feifer, who was the
first to speak at the podium. Um it is incredibly difficult to buy a house in
Marin County. And I hear everything that you're saying in terms of, oh, yes, all
these fees are negotiable, but with the years of experience I've had selling
houses, I can promise you that these costs are going to be uh the sellers
will bear these transfer tax costs 99% of the time. Um, it is already so
expensive for sellers to even consider selling the house. Yes, they're going to
make some money, but I have a client who's selling right now, and the only
reason he's selling in San Rafale is because he has to pay for $18,000 worth
of um care for, you know, he's got $8,000 for his wife for memory care plus
the thousands of dollars he has to go into for assisted living. And so when
you look at these transfer taxes, San Rafale is the only
city in Marin County that offers these. And I could see how you think it's a
benefit in, you know, certain financial aspects. I I appreciate everything that
you put together, but really you you the city council is approving so many new
housing units. It's ridiculous. And then to add the cost of like to add this
extra transfer tax is I think you can raise taxes or
see these costs borne o over people who are not just the sellers. You know,
everyone's going to benefit from these who live in San Rafale. And you know,
from the from the community perspective, getting buyers into San Rafale, they
want Southern Marin. So, we need to have incentives to benefit San Rafale. And
that I don't think the transfer taxes is the right answer. I think if we allow
more businesses in downtown, make it easier for things to open, we have lots
of vacancies downtown, let's make it easier for small businesses. I do not
agree with this transfer tax increase. Uh especially not at
Hi. Good evening, Mayor Kate. Good evening. And city
council chief spiller, city general manager. Um, I very much appreciate the
aspect of this resolution that would pay for the maintenance for the safe team.
Uh, I deeply appreciate the Sanfell Police Department and the work that I
that they do in the downtown neighborhood in which I live and the
safe team which provides a different type of support in particular for those
who have mental health issues that can compromise the safety of those who live
in the neighborhood. Um, [clears throat] also I was a little surprised by the
survey results which said that uh many of the respondents didn't think that
safety and patrolling was an issue. But then again um the the main issues happen
in downtown San Rafale and only 2 to 3,000 of us live here. The other 57,000
do live in the outskirts. So that probably makes sense. So I just wanted
to say thank you very much for those of you who
are in support of this resolution. I feel deeply grateful for both um the
safe team, the Sanfell PD for the hard work they're doing and I appreciate the
city council and the mayor's work as well.
Hi, this is Victoria Dwit and uh I'm opposed to this increase in tax. Um, it
might be worth noting that the UCLA Center for Regional Policy Studies has
cited unintended consequences resulting from high property transfer tax,
including reduced turnover of higher price
properties, which reduces property tax. It impedes building new housing or
improving struggling commercial property where property tax revenue could be
increased. It can slow revitalization efforts and it reduces housing
affordability. Another note is that there's my understanding it's a state
law that cities and counties can charge $110
per thousand for property transfer tax which is what every other city and the
county does in Marin. It's only because Sanrell is a charter city that they can
adopt an additional amount on top of the $110.
So the 1%, it's not just 1%, it's the 1% plus 110 cents per thousand. Um,
I think the increase is excessive and ill- advised and I suggest the city do a
more thorough assessment of other sources of revenue. Even it means if it
means that you get it from several sources rather than just going for the
big bang of, oh, let's just hit the property transfer tax. We get $6
million. Let's go for that. Um, I suggest doing an overall assessment of
all revenue. Thank you.
Good evening. My name is Grace Scarity. I live in Terinda and I am very much
opposed to this text. I also um sent an email a little bit late uh today, but
you'll see it in the record. Um I think the city needs to do a lot more um
statistical analysis and research um regarding what other cities are
doing. Um as uh Victoria Dwit just mentioned uh we
have an already excessive uh charge in San Rafale. Um, and all the alternatives
just seem to be uh increased taxes, increased taxes. What about savings? And
what about joining with other cities? I mean, why do we have to have all our own
services and everything? Um, it's it's just mind-boggling to me. Um the J had a
very good opinion article recently about that and u the consolidation of services
and how much uh savings that would lead. But then of course um cities uh lose
city employees lose very well- paid jobs and uh everyone else loses power and
they're fifing them. So, uh I urge you to look at other savings opportunities
uh or even other uh incremental opportunities that are
not always about taxing and taxing the residents. And you may want to think
about increasing taxes on all these housing developments that are going up
and having them take care of the roads much more. Thank you.
» Hi. Hi there. My name is Chris Backer and I'm a resident in downtown San
Rafale. Um, Council Member Eli Hill is my member and I also am a realtor, been
practicing here for 13 years. And I just wanted to comment that um, a couple of
things that I've noticed when when the commentary relates to these this money
going to the general fund and not having an active way of tracking where the
money goes. That's concerning to me on multiple levels because we often look at
Sanfal being a place that already has a tax on the books. And when we've talked
to the city in various in uh instances about maybe talking about a transfer
tax, the response is not really you haven't been able to track the money a
lot. So now they're coming back, you're coming back for a 5x on that number and
the tracking isn't really there is pretty concerning even with citizen
oversight. I also want to echo some of the other comments about maybe we should
all bear this together because if you're just relying on a couple of transfers of
real property, it's just we're not really in it together. And I I really
applaud all the council here for asking really great questions and being
intelligent on this. So, I don't really want to belabor that point cuz I think
you are looking at this very holistically and just going at a small
group of people just doesn't seem like a very intelligent way to try to fund, you
know, the services. And then lastly, you was brought up earlier about the elderly
population. A lot of people who are selling, I'm working with someone right
now. I have to sit there and talk to them about what the current rate is and
how much money that is. Um, and then I explain to them that there's a city
resale report and they say, "What's that?" And I say, "Well, you pay the
city $363 to come in and look at what you've done to your house." And then
that adds up to more permit fees. And now I have to talk to them about quad
quintupling their transfer tax. It starts to add up and that's why people
actually aren't moving when those are the population we need to get out of
their homes. Thank you for your consideration.
I see no more hands raised, but I'll give everyone just a moment. Okay.
» Okay. I do see another hand. >> Oh, okay.
» I see two names on here. If there are two people in the same space and you
both want to provide comment, please let us know so I don't mute you.
You can press star six to unmute.
» Brian, >> sorry I was muted. Can you hear me now?
» Yes. >> Hi, uh, Brian Walsh, West End. I agree
with all the comments made and I would appreciate it if you do put this to a
vote so you can hear what the rest of the community has to say on this and I
oppose it. Thank you very much.
» I see no other hand raised. This is the last call.
» I see no hand raised. >> Okay. Thank you. We'll close the public
comment on this item. uh we received some great input but I heard two
questions that I think are worth commenting or uh providing information
on. One is uh and it kind of goes to the industry conversation but the effect on
any new homeowners um and then the second one was housing units are coming
online and there was in inference or implication that there'll be lots of
money coming with that those units as well. So maybe you could speak to that.
» Okay. Um so I'll try to address the questions related to that second uh
question which is um
sense that we're not taking into account all the new housing and the revenue
that's going to come from that. Um, so this actually gets to that conversation
we were talking about, which is how much revenue does the city actually receive
from um any new development? Now, granted, there's property tax and if
there's commercial industrial, there's sales tax multipliers. But in general,
um, for most cities in California and for our quote unquote low property tax
cities in that 12% range, um, generally speaking, the cost to provide the, um,
services that the new uh, development brings in terms of population and folks
to the city. um generally does not actually cover the incremental costs. So
I would just say simply that for the most part when we're looking at new
development and we're looking at impact fees so that they're paying their fair
share, we're looking at potentially establishing uh financing districts so
that new developments generate additional revenue. Um, it's not to
cover the deficiencies and the gaps that we have in our current
budget math to deal with the uh costs and the service demands of our existing
population. We're challenged to just try to help make sure that new development
doesn't make that problem worse by covering their cost. And happy to have
we'll probably have more conversations about it. The exception to that is, you
know, retail, um, at least back in the day. But retail generally generates more
revenue than the cost. Um, but for, um, housing, unless you're looking at three,
four, five million um, housing units, that revenue isn't
going to cover the cost of services, affordable housing, significant uh,
funding gaps. And so I would just submit that looking to development and revenue
from new development to help address some of these core areas of underfunding
is not um realistic or even even possible.
Um >> I don't know if you want to take a stab
at the effect on new homeowners, but I I I will say that we did receive a letter
from the Marin um Association of Realators that also made a similar
assertion. So, I definitely think industry um philosophy or approach uh
does say that there can be a negative impact. So, I'll just leave it at that
» and I I wouldn't dispute that and there are folks that understand that better. I
would just say that there are lots of costs associated with the purchase and
the sale of the property just like there's a lot of costs on developers and
so you know I'm not surprised by you know developers that are saying our fees
are making projects infeasible and that any tax on the real estate makes the you
know transaction more challenging but um there's a lot that goes into that. Um, I
would say, and I'm going to probably get in trouble for saying this, but I'm
going to say that because folks who live here love living here, and there are
folks that are, you know, would love to be able to relocate to San Rafale. Um,
part of the reason, um, why our property values are where they're at and what the
market demands for properties is because of the quality of life and the level of
service that we can provide in this community. And so there is a at least a
connection between our ability to maintain that um actually supports
ongoing um value in ownership in the community.
» Thank you for that. Um any additional questions? Do you have a question, Vice
Mayor? >> No, but I also heard the question around
other options for revenue generation.
Um yes, I heard that too. Um so a comment that I would make on that is um
kind of yes and yes, which is um by no stretch would uh any semblance of
revenue that would be generated by this um solve the city's financial problems.
Uh, I will say that we're not looking at this to deal with our short-term budget
structural um that operating deficits because that we have to address. This is
really where are there areas that we need to be putting more dollars in. Um,
so it's going to be a combination of revenue measures and I would submit um
that uh a property transfer tax increase would be one of the potential uh revenue
areas. We've been discussing and looking at others including um maybe trying to
get back a little bit more of the um hotel assessment that is being levied on
visitors into the city so that the city could retain some of that. But um I'm
glad you reminded me what's what's really important is that not only is one
revenue measure not the beall endall solution because we have to look at all
of them, but I would submit that just revenue enhancements isn't the answer.
It can't be because we're never going to be out of trying to um keep up with the
costs and the demands for services by just natural revenue growth are always
going back to the voters. It's a combination of um being strategic about
the appropriate revenues to generate. It's about what services and what
service levels we can and can't afford. And there's some tradeoffs there. And in
some jurisdictions, knock on wood, there's actually a discussion about what
services we can and can't provide. Um, and so, um, managing costs,
ensuring that the money we have is spent on the most important things, and then
trying to maximize and diversify the revenue that we do bring to that
conversation is just one part of the long-term sustainable financial picture
for any city. Any additional questions from the council?
So, um, I'll open up to comment and just to have you clarify that the action
before the city council is to whether or not to put it before the voters so they
can weigh in on this issue. So, that's the action.
» That is correct. >> Okay. I just want to clarify to place
the question before the electorate at the November 26 election. And just
wanted to clarify because I know in all of this and we might have started to
lose that sight thinking that we are actually taking the action to increase
it or not but it would be before the voters if it were to pass this evening
to put on the ballot. Um I will start with vice mayor your comments.
» Great. Thank you. So um I have been doing my notes and listening and and we
did get quite a few letters so I appreciate that. Um so a bit of a
rhetorical question is how quickly can we spend $6 million? and having gone
through the budget process and for a number of years. That's $6 million goes
by very very quickly. Um local control is meaningful only when it's ex
exercised transparently and with public consent and that is exactly what we're
trying you know we are doing here is to with this process to bring it forward.
Um I definitely support bringing it forward to the public for the ballot. Um
the measure is expected to generate approximately six million in new annual
revenue and that really only represents a very very small percentage of our
entire budget um and of our general fund. So the it's you know the way we're
looking at it right now we have so many critical services um between public
service a police fire streets parks and other daily operations. We want to keep
those going as strong as possible and we need to keep those going for our
community. Um it's definitely not a slush fund. Uh it's it's about really
keeping um that on as well as we know we have looming infrastructure needs.
I do want to mention that we have we do I want to make sure that everyone
understands we have our San Rafll property tax transfer and we also have a
county transfer tax. But the county transfer tax funds does not directly
come to San Rafale as in within our spending being able to manage directly.
So those go for county services as well as support of the entire community. So
that this is an opportunity for us within our toolbox of of a opportunity
to raise additional revenue. Um consider it sort of our bake sale. Um but much
more important than that because it is something that we do need the support of
the voters to support us on that. Um the staff report, thank you, really framed
the need and it's been an ongoing discussion over many many years
basically of of their rising service demands and infrastructure needs and
costs that are actually outpacing traditional revenue growth. revenue
growth these days is not the, you know, mortar, the stores, the retail, what
we're seeing. It's it's really changed. Um, and so I think that using this tool
at this time and putting it to the voters is super important. Um,
and that's a local authority that we have and it's a gift that we have uh to
to address these local needs. We're asking the voters, not the council
alone, to decide whether this is the right approach. Being a charter city
gives us the ability to consider this option. It does not eliminate
accountability. There was a question around accountability
um and and that is built into the proposed measure um to ha to ensure that
that accountability is there. It still requires voter approval, public
disclosure, annual audits, and independent oversight. Every city has to
evaluate the revenue tools legally available. Um, and San Rafll's charter
gives us this option and [music] it's our responsibility to determine whether
it is fair, necessary, and accountable and then let the voters decide. And I
hope that we're able to move that forward and and look to the voters to
get their um support. >> Thank you.
» Thank you, Council Member Bushie. >> Well, raising taxes is never popular.
um it's not something we like to do. Um however, as we discussed at Great Lakes,
the unique and complicated history of what has happened with property taxes
u distinguished from this real estate transfer tax.
um have put us in a position where much of the funds that the check that each of
us write uh twice a year, very little of it stays in San Rafale instead goes to
the county, putting us at a disadvantage um and requiring that the city of San
Rafale find other ways to fund necessary services that everyone depends on. this
prop this real estate transfer tax is one is uniquely available to San Rafll
um amongst the cities although as um the vice mayor points out the county has one
as well that actually is more than um than ours um and we we will become
closely aligned um with with the county but it will give us a another avenue
venue to um bring some equalization. That's probably a bad word to use when
I'm talking about taxes, but to another source of revenue um for our needed
services um in the context of the relatively low amount of actual property
taxes that stay in San Rafale. So, for that reason, um, and for the many many,
um, hearings and public meetings that we've been through on all of the topics
in the the list of the things that our constituents want. This is one way that
we can um increase the funding available for those um, needed projects um, and
services. And so, therefore, I support bringing this measure to the voters.
Thank you, Council Member Hill. >> Thank you, Mayor Kate. Uh, building on
my colleagues uh existing comments, I would underscore a couple of things.
First, just that every letter that uh constituents wrote in about the impacts
and people's opposition to this, this does create impact to people's
livelihoods and and and does have an impact on how people buy and sell. And
that said, wait against our unfunded needs. um as well as what I would
characterize as sufficient analysis by staff looking at other municipalities
noting that the city of San Rafale is a charter city and can uniquely take um be
able to integrate this tax is something that other municipalities have examined
as well. Most recently Salo these these this is why municipalities contemplate
converting from uh general law over to a a charter city. the property tax
allocation is as has already been elaborated upon prop 13 uh I will just
say from this dis could use for some reform beyond just this moment prop 13
has a lot of impacts on the state of California uh I know it's difficult for
anybody in the assembly or senate to consider it but from this das I hope
that folks will contemplate that this is one of the impacts of prop 13 uh I do
support that this would go to the voter for consideration based on the survey uh
and the likely revenue that it would uh generate. I also would like to to the
degree possible and I appreciated your testimony uh city manager that the voter
approved tax oversight committee can't readily and very easily say well this
exact dollar went to this exact allocation to the degree possible. I
hope that there's a way that we can at least start to create the ability for
that committee to uh assess that. Thank you.
» Thank you. Great comments. um appreciate staff for all the work that you've done
and Curtis, I know you're listening online for doing the voter polling. I
appreciated seeing that slide that shows what are the key issues and the key
services that our community wants and they've pretty much been similar over
the last decade of what we want and more. And uh the reality is we have the
world that we want to live in and the world that we do live in. And the
pragmatic reality is uh we have many unfunded needs. We tal heard talked
about pavement. We talked about the safe team. So I no one disputes that the need
is there and we even heard that from the comments uh from the public and thank
you for the letters as well as folks that called and participated today. And
so what is the tool? What is the mechanism to look at revenue
enhancements? If you've been coming to our meetings, you know that for all the
the financial discussions we've been having, we've been looking at revenue
enhancements which include tax measures. And I can assure you, we are continuing
to go after all the grants that are out there for the safe team or for uh
matching grants for infrastructure improvements. None of that's going to
stop. That's all a given. And in order to have the type of community we want
with the type of love and care that we wanted to see, um I I want to put that
tradeoff before our voters because it is a trade-off. The impact of this fee,
Council Member Hill said that very well. There is an impact and we understand it.
And the trade-off is the benefit that it brings the community. I want to see what
the voters have to say uh about that and I hope that they support it. Uh but
again, that will be a conversation that we'll have in the community. So, um
thank you all. I will now uh entertain a motion on this item, please.
I'll make the motion.
Uh recommended action. adopt the resolution calling for a general
municipal election on November 3rd, 2026 for the purpose of submitting to the
qualified electors of the city a measure to modify chapter 3.2 322 of the San
Rafale municipal code to increase the real property transfer tax rate and add
an oversight provision. authorizing and requesting that the county of Marin
consolidate and conduct the election, directing the city attorney to prepare
an impartial analysis and authorizing Mayor Kate and Council Member Bushy to
file a valid argument and rebuttal for the measure.
» Thank you. Is there a second? >> Second.
» Moved and seconded. Roll call, please. >> Council member Bushy,
» I. >> Council member Hill,
» I. >> Vice Mayor Curts,
» I. Mayor Kate, >> I. That motion carries 40. Thank you.
The next item on our agenda this evening, switching gears literally, is a
change in speed limit on 18 Sanfell Roadway segments.
I will turn this over to staff.
Good evening, city council members, um, uh, Mayor Kate and city staff and
members of the public. Uh my name is Kelly and I'm a traffic engineering
technician with the city of centerfell department of public works. I'm joined
today with our consultant for this project, Jimmy. He is a
uh transportation engineer and planner with parametrics. Um we're here tonight
to present on the change in speed limit on 18fell roadway segments. Um so to
provide a little bit of context on where how we've gotten here. Um, so one of the
objectives in the city's work plan is to implement new traffic safety laws. And
as a part of this effort, we've been we're continuing to implement uh
assembly California assembly bill 43 or AB43 for short. Um, which gives cities
the ability to reduce speed limits on roadways as they meet the criteria set
forth in AB43. Um, so we have presented previously
about a year and a half ago on this effort. Um and as a part of that effort,
we call it phase one now. Um we reduce the speed limit in downtown San Rafll on
certain roadways such as Fourth, Fifth, Mission, and the North South Crossroads
between those. Um so those all saw a reduction in speed limit from 25 mph to
20 m hour. And this was to create a more continuous 20 mph uh downtown Sanfel.
And as we were going through this phase one effort, we saw a lot of community
input and feedback on interest in expanding this reduction in speed limits
to roadways outside of downtown Sanfell. Um so through city or city staff
evaluation and then consideration of community input, we have put together a
list of phase 2 locations that would all see a 5 mile per hour reduction in their
existing speed limits. So, I'm going to pass it over to Jimmy who will provide a
little more information on the AB43 criteria and then also the phase 2
locations. Thank you.
» Good evening, uh, council members, Mayor Kate, thank you. It's an honor to
present again on speed limits in San Rafll. I know we've heard this
presentation before. I do want to do just a little bit of review of speed
limits and how they come to be. We'll talk about, as Kelly mentions, what
we're now calling phase one and phase two of this project and what some of the
next steps are coming forward.
Uh, if we'll remember some of what we talked about a year and a half ago, most
people are surprised to find out that speed limits aren't necessarily set by
cities. We can't prescribe what we think is the best speed for a vehicle to
travel and then set a speed limit. The California Vehicle Code describes two
situations of how speed limits can come to be. On the left, you'll see primma
fascia speed limits, which means at face at uh bespoke speed limits are are
presumed as 25 miles an hour on most residential local streets. So, you'll
see a picture on the left here of San Rafale. On all other roadways, speed
limits are set by an engineering and traffic survey. This is a study of
speeds and other roadway characteristics that must be performed by a traffic
engineer. And the way the speed limits are determined is based on the 85th
percentile speed. And another way that we think of 85th percentile is the speed
at which 15% of vehicles travel at or above. So in essence, as per the
California Vehicle Code, speed limits have always been set by the fastest
portion of drivers traveling the roadway.
This leads us to AB43. As of 2024, all provisions of AB43 went into effect and
for the first time in California. Now, jurisdictions have to do two
additional things. They can take they have to take into account the presence
of vulnerable roadway users that is children, seniors, persons with
disabilities, the unhoused when establishing speed limits and the
proximity of those users to these roadways.
Uh and importantly, AB43 now permits jurisdictions to reduce speed limits by
an additional 5 miles an hour in certain areas if these roadways meet a number of
characteristics. Uh so cities still cannot set their own speed limits, but
what AB43 provides is in some situations an additional 5 miles an hour reduction
from what would have otherwise been the recommended speed limit.
Also in 2024, Sanfell adopted its local road safety plan. One of the
recommendations from the LRSP was to consider lowering speed limits in
compliance with AB43. The LRSP
sets forth what we now call the high collision network. And as you'll see,
this network in San Rafale, where the most crashes occur, uh is centered on
downtown. And the primary collision factor of the
greatest number of crashes in San Rafale is due to high speed.
One other reason why we always take speed limits seriously and the speed at
which uh vehicles are traveling on the roadway is because this this span
between 20 and 40 miles an hour really greatly depend greatly drives the
outcome of people that are involved in collisions. This graph shows out of
pedestrians that are hit with a vehicle traveling 20 miles an hour, there's a
10% chance that that results in a fatality. But if that vehicle is
traveling at 40 miles an hour, the chance of fatality increases greatly to
80%. And so we take great care in thinking about the traveled speeds
within this band.
As you may remember, uh, we established a 20 mph zone largely throughout
downtown about a year and a half ago, adopted by council in February 2025.
This came in conjunction with another requirement in the California Vehicle
Code to update an ENTS and update speed limit validation every seven years.
And now, as a result of uh broadly supportive feedback, we are evaluating
and presenting the results of this further evaluation of roadways on other
roadways uh other areas outside of downtown.
A quick overview on the top band here is the timeline that phase one uh was
enacted in the ordinance for downtown speed limits in the spring of 2025. in
phase two is coming alongside just afterwards
after uh the adoption of an ordinance and installation of signage. There's a
required 30-day warning period where citations are not given yet and then
after that warning period citations can be valid. The full implementation of
both phase one and two signage striping education and evaluation phases is yet
to come in the coming months.
Previously, I presented a slide showing some other Bay Area uh newsworthy
moments, installation of reduced speed limits from neighboring jurisdictions.
And now, proudly, we have a picture here of San Rafale here on Mission Avenue
just adjacent to where we are tonight, but other 20 mph signs have gone up in
downtown. And then to remind ourselves of what we
have taken into account both in phase one and in phase two of this evaluation,
we've looked at the proximity of roadways to businesses. We've looked at
previously adopted speed limits over the years, not just the current established
speed limit. For each roadway evaluated, we've done a crash history analysis.
We've looked also at the presence of vulnerable roadway users in proximity to
these roadways. And we've also taken into account
future infrastructure projects, existing infrastructure projects, as well as
cclick fix, other public input, and then done this in consultation with city
staff and the police department. So here on this map, we're here to
display the draft results of phase two. Of course, roadways outside of downtown.
We've identified 18 roadway segments that are eligible for an additional five
mile an hour reduction from their current established speed limit. And
again, I want to emphasize this isn't us going out and just choosing roadways and
saying that we can set speed limits. There is a very fixed set of criteria
that roadways have to meet and match existing measured travel speeds in order
for them to be eligible for this additional 5 mph reduction. But you'll
see that they are scattered on all sides of downtown. Less roadways meet the
criteria for qualification north of downtown. But each one of these
recommended speed limits does represent a 5 mph reduction from the existing
speed limit. A full list of the speed limits are included here on this slide
and the extents from those roadway segments upon which we're recommending
them for adoption. And then finally, we'd also like to mention we have the
city has hosted a public website since October of 2024. It does have an online
input form. This phase two of public engagement has been presented to the
bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee as well as the police advisory
and accountability committee. These draft results have been adjusted and
updated to reflect input from both of those bodies.
So to talk about next steps, this um presentation is being brought tonight.
Roadways can be reduced by 5 m an hour as per AB43 with the adoption of an
ordinance or resolution. So that is also bring being brought to council.
And then going forward, the city looks to undertake, in addition to installing
signage and striping and a 30-day warning period prior to issuing
citations, uh, steps to inform and educate the public on speed limit
reductions, as well as putting a plan in place for evaluating effectiveness of
reducing speed limits themselves.
With that, we'll conclude and open it up for questions.
Thank you, Kelly. Thank you, Jimmy. I'm sure we have some questions. I'll start
with the vice mayor. Go ahead. >> Thank you. Just one quick question as
around I remember years ago when I was on the school board, there was a
situation where I believe it was on Point San Pedro, we actually the between
the school district and the city increased the speed limit. Um, and I
remember there was a lot of conversation that it just did not seem like a
reasonable or rational approach. And I was wondering if you could describe when
that would happen and and if you anticipate there would ever be a
situation these days that we would actually increase the speed limit.
» Yeah, happy to address that question and thank you for bringing this up. There is
a phenomenon that is known in traffic engineering circles called speed creep.
And it's actually quite rational of a conclusion when speed limits are set
based on the fastest trunch of traveling motorists. And when speed limits are
required to be updated every seven years, when you raise the speed limits,
people then have leeway to travel faster. the next cycle comes around and
you measure speeds again and people are traveling faster and so hence the
recommended speed limit has to be increased and that phenomena of speed
creep has been recognized and was also addressed in AB43.
One of the provisions also allows in situations where you would recommend
raising the speed limit to retain the existing speed limit. And so in the
future, this difficult conversation would have another, uh, another avenue,
pun intended, to for resolution. >> Great. Thank you. Thank you, uh, Council
Member Hill. Questions? >> Thank you, Mayor Kate.
» Yes. Thank you, Jimmy, for coming back to us. This is about a year and a half
ago that we had you before us, and, uh, I appreciate you being here again, uh,
to bring in phase two. uh since we're talking about AB 43 U and you did a
great job I think explaining how we got here but I can't tell you the number of
times I go in front of the community and they're like why can't you just lower
the speed limit so I appreciate your explanation of it. My question um is on
the number of times that we have periodically we have to do this uh ENTS
uh study just to hold these um these speeds. So it sounds like because we did
phase one and phase two staggered, would we conduct two ENTS studies in about
seven years or would we do it all at one shot maybe um so we don't have to keep
redoing them over and over again staggered?
» Yeah, that's a great question. It is easiest for cities to perform an ENTS
for all roadways within their jurisdiction all at the same time and
with the same cadence. Not every city does it that way. Um, but one of the
other advantages of AB43 is the seven-year requirement for recycling
your ENTS's now has a provision where that can be lengthened to 14 years and
and so um kind of arresting the very quick cadence was another rationale of
AB43. If a speed limit is rational, then it can stand for a longer period of
time, as long as there are no other uh triggers for re-evaluating speed
limits, new developments or different land uses that have changed the roadway
characteristics. If it all remains the same, uh that validity can be extended
longer than in the past. >> Thank you, Jimmy. Uh my other question
is on enforcement. This is a question I get from the community a lot. Um, I
would appreciate and maybe it's not it's probably not for you, Jimmy. It's
probably for Oh, thank you, Chief. I see Chief Spiller, uh, coming down from the
gallery. Uh, my question as you as you come down, Chief, is um, as we
contemplate not just this, but just generally, could you share where we are
with our traffic pool and and how, uh, traffic enforcement might be rolled out
and how it operates generally? >> Absolutely. So, we um our traffic uh
officers, our designated traffic officers are assigned to respond to
community complaints as well as uh documented areas of injury collisions.
That that's the primary driver of the designated traffic officers. All of the
police officers that work a beat or have patrol responsibilities are also able
and responsible for traffic enforcement in their geographic area. So, um, you
know, when we respond to community complaints, the traffic sergeant just
assigns those complaints to the traffic team and that team, those resources eb
and flow depending on our staffing reality. Um, and then as you all know,
our work plan is very uh specifically directed toward changing driving
behavior and um um increasing traffic safety through enforcement engineering
with partnering with engineering and uh education to the community. So, it's a
multi-pronged approach. Uh but enforcement happens both at the beat
officer level, the traffic directed traffic officer level um throughout all
of the shifts 247 365. >> That's super helpful. Thank you very
much.
» Council member Bushy, any questions? >> No questions.
» Okay. Um I just had one and actually the chief already answered the question that
I had because enforcement is really critical. So thank you council member
Hill for asking that. Um Jimmy, you'd said in your presentation about the last
phase or in that uh project timeline is around effectiveness and that you would
be looking at what are the metrics to show that whether these are effective or
not. Ult we're doing this because we need to reduce our KSI which is um the
acronym for people that are fatalities are seriously injured in our community.
So, I'm wondering or hoping that that metric would actually look at those that
data. Um, and I didn't hear you say that, but we we know that that data is
what drives I know we look at it at TAM and we're the county marine ser like
number one in terms of those numbers and that's not a good thing to be number one
in because it shows that we have high incident. So, could you speak to how you
would be looking at utilizing that data with this information? I I I don't know
what that looks like, but I think that is our ultimate goal here.
» Yeah, certainly the uh LRSP does a great job of describing, let's
say, a prior condition to speed limit reductions. And one of the uh nice
things about having so many roadway segments where speed limits are
recommended for reduction is that you'll have a suite of streets where nothing
was changed except for speed limits. And you can do a before and after of crash
results. Uh you can also do a before and after of measured speeds because the
next time we come around and do an ENTS, we would take the same speed survey with
the same methodology. And you can do that for roads that receive no treatment
but speed reduction. You could also compare that to the effectiveness of
roads that reduce their speed limits in addition to other infrastructure
improvements or traffic calming measures. And so, um, I don't mean to
lay out exactly what that evaluation should include or how it will be
conducted or when, but there there will be plenty of data to be able to utilize.
» I see Director Miller coming down because the other part about that is
when we could actually start to when will this have been in place long enough
to start to look at some behavior change.
» Yeah. something not directly involved with AB43, but uh we actually just
applied for a grant for safe streets for all with the transportation authority of
Marin in order to update the local road safety plan. So as if we get that grant,
we would actually do more studies to analyze the collision history in the
next couple years. So we would have an updated data point, okay, from the local
road safety plan. have to be strategic on how we want to do it as a city like
because if if we're doing with local road safety plan with TAM then maybe we
wait a few more years to do it on our own with our updated ENTS.
» Okay. No, that's helpful because we want the data. We're going to get data and we
want to make sure that um well that we're looking at and analyzing it see
what the effect is in the real world. Okay. I don't see any other questions at
this point. So, I will open up public comment on this item. If you're in the
chambers and would like to comment, now is your opportunity. And you're welcome,
but not required to say your name and what part of Summerfell you live in.
» Good evening again. Daniel Alm speaking through Western Neighborhood Association
board. Uh we are excited that the Miracle Mile and Weston Avenue and
Greenfield Avenue have been identified. These are key areas within our
neighborhood that our community members have desperately wanted slower speeds
on. uh pivoting and speaking through myself as a committee member on the pack
adviser and comm I would like to share my own comments that it is a
disappointment for me to that second and third street uh meet all of the
qualifications for this all but for speed creep and the average speed and
the based on the data second and third street desperately need slowing and it's
unfortunate that because of our mean average speed. We cannot get a reduction
on those two streets.
» Thank you. Other comments in the chambers?
» Uh hello Kate um Mayor Mayor Kate and city council members. My name is David
Seltzer and I live on Lincoln Avenue. I just wanted to voice my strong support
for the proposed reduced speed limits here in parts of San Rafll. As a side
note, I a few weeks back I actually had a stroke. So, I'm not currently able to
drive until I get some follow-up evaluations. So, this injury is making
me especially think about children or ch or people with disabilities that can't
drive and their safety getting around the city. So, if I stumble with my
words, I'm still recovering. Hence why I'm reading this rather than speaking
off the cuff. Uh, so I live on Lincoln Avenue and I've long felt the speed
limit on the north end of the street is too fast for such a dense residential
area. We have so many families and children living in this neighborhood. So
this change in speed limit better represents this reality and paired with
those new improved pedestrian signals. I think this is um a great improvement for
pedestrian safety. Um, as we've just seen in the presentation, we have tons
of uh data that shows that the severity of injuries and likelihood of death of
pedestrians or cyclists is directly related to car speed. Also, most of that
data was uh accumulated before the increased popularity of trucks and SUVs,
which are more dangerous to pedestrians um and the increase of destructive
driving. So reducing speed limits to offset the increased danger from drivers
is so important to improve pedestrian and cyclist safety. Um additional note I
see an item about uh improved uh um oh dear uh
uh traffic calming me measures. So I'm looking forward to that as well. Uh
thank you for your time and thank you for all your continued attention to
pedestrian and bicycle safety. >> Thank you David. We wish you a speedy
recovery.
Anyone else in the chambers? I don't see anyone approaching the das.
So, is there anyone online that would like to comment on this item?
» I do see a hand raised. Couple hand raises.
» U good evening uh Mayor Kate and council
members. My name is Kevin Hagerty. I'm a board member of the point San Pedro road
coalition. The coalition supports the consistent speed limits on Point San
Pedro Road. Specifically, we support the proposed
reduced speed uh limits on the section of Point San Pedro Road between Marina
Boulevard and Porttoello Drive. We hope that this action will result in the city
considering in the future speed reductions of the rest of Point San
Pedro Road. Finally, the coalition appreciates and
supports improvements the city have made to safety on Point San Peter Road.
Thank you.
» Thank you. Any other on
» Hi, Brian Walsh from the West End. Um, thank you very much for meeting with all
of us tonight. Thank you, Jimmy, for his brilliant presentation. I actually took
photos of your slides. Thank you so much. And Eli, for your questions about
enforcement, which historically has been a problem
getting the police to come out when we call them about speeding or red light
runners. So, I would suggest that the board speak to Sergeant Graham and the
traffic uh committee, the traffic enforcement team to monitor these 18
streets with the new speed limits and after the 30-day warning start issuing
violations. And secondly, if um April Miller could see us, her staff uh
readjust the radar boards. These are the signs that display in real time the
speed limit. They they need to be changed for the new threshold. Um that's
it. Thanks so much. I think this is a wonderful idea for our community.
» I'm seeing no other hands raised, but I'll give everyone a moment.
» I see no further public comment. >> Thank you. I will close the public
comment. We got great input, but we also got a question also comment around
second and third and maybe you could just speak to that um why a segment
might not u meet the qualifications or that specific segment. Actually,
» as the commenter had noted and as we had presented to the pack, the traveled
speeds as measured in the traffic survey as part of the ENTS were too high to
qualify for a reduction from the existing 25 mph speed limit to 20 mph.
» So, people are already speeding too much that we can't reduce the speed limit.
Yes, that is the logical conclusion of how the CBC is currently set up to
establish speed limits. Correct. >> Yeah. I didn't want to phrase it that
way, but it is a way that we all think about it.
» Yeah. >> Okay. So, we will continue to look at
infrastructure or other ways that we can continue to reduce speeding in those
areas uh if we can't have the tool of the speed limits. Okay. Any additional
questions? I don't see any. So, >> Oh, yeah. Go ahead, Council Member Hill.
» Thank you so much. What what related to second and third, what discretion does
the city of San Rafll and our traffic engineering um folk have over the timing
of lights to land exactly at the speed limit? Uh do we have discretion to
assert this this the posted speed limit through the timing of the lights?
Fakri, city traffic engineer. Um, so we have a consultant currently which has
been updating the signal timing coordination and the speed limit is part
of it. So the progression is the posted speed limit as you also know that
there's a lot of concern with second and third. It's the main
arterial. So that moving people is also a concern. But within that speed limit
so when the coordination happens that's what so I've already informed them on
also on fourth street we change it because it was 25 mph so now progression
is based on 20 m hour so if you speed theoretically it won't help you you hit
a red light but if you continue with 20 m per hour then you hit the green
» thank you say
Thank you. I don't see any other questions, so I'll thank you. Say, we'll
come back for comments. Uh, Vice Mayor, go ahead.
» Thank you. I mean, rarely do we have and this is great news and we know that
there'll be more uh interest in wanting to do more streets. Uh, appreciate the
objectivity around the process even though we don't necessarily agree with
the process all the time. Um, and it's great to see this coming forward. So,
thank you and I'm looking forward to the next round of updates.
» Thank you, Council Member Hill. >> Thank you, Mayor Kate. Thank you, uh,
thank you, team, uh, Jimmy and Kelly and say, uh, for presenting and answering
all of our our questions. Uh, it's clear, well, it's clear to me when I
joined the council in 2021, one of the things that really vexed me was the fact
that we did not have discretion over our own speed limits. There was a lot of
speeding going on on in our community during the pandemic and I don't and I
don't think that's unique to this community. So I appreciate that we've
built upon the passage of AB43 went into effect in 2022 and it's taken us this
long to be able to do it. Of note in this the staff report for this was
almost 400 pages long and it was that long because the ENTS is very thorough.
So I appreciate not only Jimmy U and parametrics came in but that staff in
the city has I think appropriately invested in our community safety to
ensure that we can arrive at this moment.
I would also as a opportunity in this comment look forward to uh a point when
AB 645 which allows for six pilot cities to automated to do have automated speed
enforcement in their communities. Not the least of which is the city and
county of San Francisco has seen, I think, initial signs that that is
working very well there. I hope that that can come to our community so that
um motorists uh will uh obey our our laws and not have to wait for an officer
or to uh hopefully learn not to do so uh but obey the speed limits. These speed
these speed limits are there for the safety of our community. Thank you.
» Thank you, Council Member Bushy. I just want to contrast this to what it
was like on Point San Pedro Road 10, 15, 20 years ago. It was the the chamber was
full. It was massive controversy. Um that changing the speed limit could be
done, must be done, couldn't be done. It we we went in circles. Um people
complained and then we did the study and then we had to raise it because that um
then and we had to sell that that um it created so much controversy um and took
so much time um from this body and from our staff. In contrast, um we now have
new laws, um a rigorous analysis, all 400 pages, um of it, and I think
community outreach as well, um and a um a um joining of the enforcement and the
public works um approach to this, the visual friction um and some of the
safety improvements that have been done particularly on on on Point San Pedro
Road to get give it more of sort of an urban feel and not, you know, a road
along the ocean that you can, um, speed on like they do in the car commercials.
Um, so, um, it's great to have this low contourocy approach to adjusting speed
limit. So, um, I'm delighted to be here, um, to see this on this this day. So,
thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you, Kelly. Thank you,
Jimmy. Thank you say and all of DPW for bringing this forward to the council. We
have committed as a body and as a community to vision zero which is an
approach of how do we using all the tools across the board that are
available to the city uh take action to reduce fatalities and serious injury in
our community to bicyclists and pedestrians. We have already made that
commitment. This is 100% following that commitment and that policy that this
body has already approved. So, uh, thank you for taking the philosophy and
putting it into action. Um, it's fantastic and as was mentioned by the
vice mayor, I think there'll be more streets that we'll be wanting to add as
we start to see how much safer it makes for everybody to utilize our streets.
So, so thank you. I would entertain a motion on this item, please.
» I'd like to make the motion. I move to introduce the ordinance. Wave
further reading and refer to it by title only.
» Second. >> Moved and seconded. Roll call, please.
» Council member Bushy. >> I.
» Council member Hill. >> I.
» Vice Mayor Curts. >> I.
» Mayor Kate. >> I. That M motion carries 40. The city
clerk could read the title of the ordinance, please. An ordinance of the
city council of the city of Centerfell regarding speed limit changes on 18
Centerfell roadway segments outside of downtown pursuant to sections 22357 and
22358 of the California vehicle code. Thank you. Thank you all. And in a
related traffic venue, our next agenda item is the city of Sanfal traffic
calming program policy.
Welcome saying.
Good evening mayor and council members and member of public. Uh my name is Sed
Fakri a city traffic engineer. I started working for the city uh on February in
February 2025. So tonight agenda is 4A traffic calming
program policy which is really how to manage speed and volume on residential
streets.
So the goal and intent of this policy is to address excessive speed and volume on
residential streets and to create objective standards, definitions and
thresholds for excessive speed and volume
uh and also to create an objective process easy to follow by staff and uh
by residents. uh other Bay Area cities with similar
policy. Uh most cities in the Bay Area have similar traffic calming policies.
To name a few in Marin County, city of Larksburg, they adopted their policy uh
in 2025 last year. Uh city of San Bruno which I worked as a consultant. uh city
of Berkeley, city of Mountain View which I was city traffic engineer and city of
Palo Alto. So our policy is very similar to those in many other cities.
So basically the process starts with concerns that currently comes through
cyclic fix by individuals um which can be addressed by installing
signage striping channelizer etc. These are what we call tier one traffic
calming tools which will be discussed later in the slides. Uh so if the
resident is not satisfied by tier one approach then tier two and three starts
which need community support and basically because this requires cost
of survey and measuring the speed and volume at least for a week. So we are
asking for tier two and tier three that the community submit a petition of
support which is signed by majority of the household of the street block or
blocks if they're uh applying for more than one block. Uh petition of supports
must be signed by simple majority which is 50% plus one.
Uh so the next step once we receive the petition of support uh we will do a
street in volume survey. These are a little bit different than what Jimmy was
uh doing the survey. Those are by LAR or laser uh which the police enforce it.
This is for 24hour to counting uh speed and volume. And if the 85% of speed
meets the threshold which we is in the report then the street will be
considered for traffic calming. The 85 percentile is just a threshold which
means obviously 15% drive above certain threshold and 85% drive below it. For
example, if you look at the residential street with uh say 20 uh cars per hour,
we are we are looking at three cars. If the three cars drive, which is 18 15%.
And above that threshold, then the street qualifies.
So residents after the survey will be informed of the street survey and result
uh meeting the threshold and qualifying for traffic calming or if they did not
they will be informed too. uh so our system is we are using the tier system
and as I mentioned tier one is which we are doing currently when individual
request uh basically it's a warning sign speed limit warning sign curve sign
pedestrian ahead sign and and also some striping in channelizers that we could
do as part of the uh cyclic fix or tier one option. So this doesn't require
really uh submitting of petition or anything because it doesn't really
impact at least physically anybody. So it's reallyformational and it's safety.
Uh the tier two which we call it passive traffic calming. It does require
petition of support because it has to be surveyed. It's costly. Uh the tier 2 has
limited uh impact or no impact to emergency response time. Uh
some of the examples of what we discussed tonight. It's reducing speed
limit AB43 which could be applied to some of our other street. We have to
look and see uh preliminary how many of them qualify. Just like we did for what
Jimmy presented, we did a survey of C click fix. We looked at uh
uh at a do they qualify kind of pre-qualification and then we selected
all those roads. Uh the other one is electronic speed radar signs, bulb out,
narrow median, island, chokers. As I mentioned, these measures are really not
impacting um for example fire response times to that that limit.
And then tier three which we can call it active transportation caling calming.
Obviously this requires support uh petition of support and that may impact
emergency response time. So it will not be applicable to all street. uh it
includes speed humps and traffic circles and turn restrictions and other
measures. [snorts]
Uh the way our policy is structured, traffic engineers select the tool after
the street qualifies petition signed and the survey
prove that it's qualifying for traffic calming. So the traffic engineer
selected tool and design and presented to traffic advisory committee for input
which include police department and fire department planning and our street
maintenance crew. Uh after the advisory committee inputs uh
we'll be having a public presentation of the design and outreach at bicycle and
pedestrian advisory committee and then we will receive feedback from public and
from BPAC and then then the final design notification and installation.
Uh after installation study, staff may monitor results after a year of
installation. Uh may perform speed and volume survey
to compare the before and after installation data and examine the
effectiveness of specific tool. Uh mostly in literature. There are
uh studies that compare before for different tools.
It always varies with the driving population, the characteristic of a
road. So it it will be good to have that in San Rafael which may be different
slightly from other cities. Uh also these traffic calming tool that's in the
policy. It's not inclusive of everything. this our
toolbox we can change it and due to change in technology or research or
studies.
Uh for people who for communities or street that they do not qualify the
first time for after the survey then they can submit resubmit petition of
support two years after the notice we sent for them not meeting the threshold
or qualification. So they cannot immediately because we will have
probably other applications. So we have that two years and also in two years
give time that the condition might change due to development or other uh
effects. So they we can look at it again.
And then there's a process for removing the city traffic engineer may remove or
modify any installed traffic calming measures for public safety reason
without uh any additional action and those public safety could come from our
safety staff, fire, police, emergency services.
Uh for the recommendation, uh staff is recommending that the council adopt the
resolution approving the city of San Rafel traffic calming program policy
and then I have questions and comments.
» Thank you say for that. I will see if there are questions. Uh vice mayor, do
you have any questions? >> I do. Um can you share a little bit more
about the petition process and how that has worked in other jurisdictions?
uh petition petition process is very similar um although it's not very
defined in some cities for example city of larks per uh they have a petition
after the survey kind of uh they call it voting but they their approval rate is
69% of the resident agreeing uh so the variation is between simple
majority to even 75% uh community support.
So for us uh if if the street uh for example
through CLI fix and we do some minor stuff and it's not uh satisfying for
residents then a a champion or somebody from uh residence uh they can
volunteer. We give him a petition because the petition have to be designed
for example that the people who sign this petition the residents household
and they agree to the process the policy. So once if they get uh approved
or or meet the criteria then the polic policy starts. So once we receive the
petition and we can check also the petition is designed by us so they don't
have to put the language with addresses and everything. Uh one one property
needs or one household needs one signature. Uh also the policy goes into
detail for example if you live on a cold that you have to take some that section
of the street then you have to sign the petition because you don't have any any
other option. Uh the reason for that is we have to be careful who can sign it.
If if you extend the block or signature this kind of dilute the support because
if you live on a street you want you see the problem the issue and you see the
speeding and petition of support comes from people who live on that street. But
if you live uh five block away or 10 block away, you probably take that
section and probably you're one of the speeders. So you can't dilute the the
petition support. So once we receive the petition and we check that it's 50% plus
one and this includes multifamily units, renters and owners and then we can see
if it meets at least majority support and then we can start the survey. We
have to hire a
somebody to do the survey for us a vendor for a week. It's not very costly,
but say if we do it on a two segment or three segment, it cost a thousand per
tube per per location. And then once we determine that, then we proceed with the
the rest of the policy. >> So just to follow on with that, so do
you define the universe of the the petition signers?
And and I'll just ask, you know, if you could use
Director Miller is very familiar with this stretch of street, which is the
northern part of Canyon Oak, um that has no residents on it, but it's used
probably by hundreds every day. So what would be the I I'm having a hard time
trying to understand in that type of scenario, what would be the universe of
signatures? So those are all the people who that segment which is doesn't have
any resident but the following segment has people who take that street every
day. So the definition of that street probably falls into residential street.
So all the people who live on that segment all the way probably if they
want to do it to the culdeac at the end they can submit a petition and we could
stop. So the so the universe is sort of subjective
» very >> in terms of defining correct
» the who needs to sign the petition. >> Yeah. depending on the context. In this
case, uh I [snorts] mean if you live somewhere, if you have another route to
take except that route, then you probably
I have to check to see exactly who has to who have to take that route every day
because that's the only route they can take and then those people can vote. Uh
also that stretch of a road is included in our bicycle and pedestrian uh plan
update which will come later to the council. Uh it's one of the stretches
that yeah
» bike and improvement. >> So still working I mean I I absolutely
love having an objective process. I'm stuck on the petition piece of it and
how that's going to work in practicality and I'm wondering if there's other if
you've can looked at other options aside from that petition process to get to
that same goal. So that is that's one way of doing it and our policy is also
when we do safe route to school as a capital improvement project or we also
consider that also if we tackle some of the stretches that's in our local
roadway safety plan which is a segment and it's a residential street. We can
always implement the public works take the initiative [snorts] and we pro we
will send the petition for signatures and the staff will send if it comes from
community it's probably most agencies like the community also to work a little
bit for it. So send go to the neighborhood and and
collect signature. So otherwise, if it's a safe route to school or or local
roadway safety plan that we do, then we will take the initiative. And again,
sorry, I'm I'm going to keep going on this petition thing because it's not
sitting right with me on this. It you're asking for a physical signature. It
can't be an online email response or I just think in practicality, I'm I am
really concerned that there's going to be very few. Again, I understand the
goal of it, but the practicality of getting those signatures from people and
if they're going doortodoor and asking and knock I I I think it's limiting in
terms of our community being able to participate in that.
» So far, I have seen that's the hard the part of it and also the signature
collecting. Uh I mean we certainly can look at
technology how can but how can we make it easier but to gather all those emails
is also or maybe we can send a notice where they can send all their emails and
then we gather signature through email with the address and everything. So that
there's must be a way to do easier uh with technology.
» Thank you. I'll I'll leave it to others to ask some questions. um at this point.
Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh Council Member Hill
questions. >> Thank you, Mayor Kate. Thank you, S for
the presentation. Uh my question would continue with the the petition. I
actually think that the policy reads well. I think the implementation with
the with the uh petition um still presents as um
I I want to be optimistic that it will produce it. So, I have a couple
questions. So my questions are um and I think but the vice mayor used the word
the universe but I'm thinking of it more in terms of a fraction of how do we
establish are do you establish the denominator by saying you're just you
would draw a circle that you believe is or the the in the area of influence
maybe to to determine what the boundaries of it and then based on that
you determine the denominator of the fraction. Is that does that sound
accurate? >> That's accurate.
» Okay. And maybe building on one of the I'm trying
to imagine there are cen certainly scenarios in our community where there
are multif family units where there are one, two, maybe three, four families
that might live inside of a of a large unit and that would they would get one
vote. I'm just trying to imagine is there a way to how do we
allow for a more equitable approach to to those types of scenarios?
uh in single family is probably easier and
if they have one renter unit A and B so they both can vote on the number of unit
in the policy it's per household unit per vote so or per signature sorry
signature of support >> uh we if there are unit officially A and
B yes that should be counted >> okay thank Yeah,
» council. Um, I just had an additional question also trying to get my head
around who who who the universe or the denominator,
however you want to look at it, who are the people that are weighing in on the
petition and I I want to be clear that I share the goal of this because it has
been very haphazard and sometimes it's the folks that know how to advocate for
themselves that want speeding and they come in. Sorry, they don't want
speeding, but they want traffic calming and then other neighbors don't want it.
So I do really appreciate um having it come from the community and I do think
there is a the mechanism um we need to have some sort of mechanism but when I'm
looking at again you had your example of a street but I'm thinking of Sper Point
Drive where is a street that we put traffic combing in and we were very
excited and then there were a group of people that didn't want to drive slower
so they were not excited about it. So, I'm looking at that street and is that
when you would have all the culde-sacs, everyone that's on Sper Point Drive up
to Catalina like is that what you're saying when you're saying people that
are required to drive there because of where they live? That would be the
universe that would um need to write the petition and be a part of it.
» Yeah, that that that is the most tricky part of the area that in my experience.
So I have excluded people and they have really passionately why I cannot sign
the petition because um if you extend it to include every possible people that
there's no limit of who can sign the petition and then it usually dilutes the
vote because they want to speed they want to go fast to work and
» I agree. So you have to be very careful careful in in the guide I have is
usually when the petition comes if it's for one block you always encourage them
how about block upstream and downstream to make it say three blocks uh three to
five blocks is is best because always you don't want to put say speed you
don't want to put one you want to put two or three because if you put one
people slow and then speed up and also the people who signed the petition so If
they are taking another route, they can take and that's another scenario where
the next street might qualify. So if they change their route, but people who
are concerned is people who live on that street. You don't want to dilute,
» right? And know that makes sense. So you stated in the beginning of your
presentation, so thank you for looking at other cities and towns. You mentioned
Larks, Berkeley, there were some other ones on there. I can't remember them
now. Um, so what you've are presenting to the city and to the community this
evening is based on what has been successful in other communities because
I think because it's new to us, we're trying to imagine how it will manifest.
So I want to say these are best practices, but you you have taken
recommendations or existing programs that have been had the outcome and
that's what you're suggesting here. >> Exactly.
» Okay. and and and the studies there are traffic calming studies in uh institute
of transportation engineers and these other cities that I mentioned some of
them like larksburg is very brief like us even less than us a policy but some
of them like city of mountain view has a thick manual so every chapter for
example who can sign and >> okay we don't want to do the thick
manual approach so >> this is this is a beginning and I I I
think for this city This is the first one,
» right? >> And and and could be studied in four or
five years and when when we have experience how many we installed them.
» Yeah. No, I appreciate that that we would want to revisit if it needs to be
tweaked and and and I do appreciate we haven't talked about the traffic calming
measures that you talked about the different tiers. 100% I agree with all
of that, but I was like vice mayor a little bit stuck on who gets to sign the
petition. If there's a technology aspect of it, great. But um I do think we need
to do something. I just know how much staff time this takes and there's been
an inconsistency in applying who gets the benefit of traffic calming and we're
really working as a city to not have that inconsistency. Do you have another
question? Yeah, council member Hill. Go ahead. I don't have any others.
» Thank you, Mayor Kate. One more question. As I was thinking through um a
scenario and I appre again I think I appreciate the order of the policy of
the request submission initial review um I was thinking of a scenario I'll make
up a maybe it's a counterfactual. So tonight we adopted the change speed
limit on 18 roadways. Um now Fifth Avenue in Sun Valley is now recommended
to be 20 miles an hour. Let's say the community gets together and they come to
you and say, "We want it to be uh you get a 50 plus one." They they ask for a
10 10 mph speed limit. I'm pretty sure that wouldn't happen. But let's say they
do that. Would would you be able to confer with them to say, "Hey, don't
submit that petition. That's not going to pass an ENTS. There's nothing we
could do to legally support that before. >> They're not excluded." So for example,
Fifth Avenue if it qualify other stuff like it's a I know it's a route or D
street it's a route for fire it's the only route. So considering all those
they're 20 m per hour and if they want to submit for traffic cal because people
drive fast. So the the thing applies to them and the criteria. C can I clarify
though people aren't requesting the type of of trafficcoming measure just that
they want trafficcoming measures. >> So it wouldn't go down by 10 miles an
hour but if there was five speed humps on the road it might go down by 10 miles
an hour just because people have to slow down by that much but we would we would
do an analysis that determined what the appropriate
» trafficcoming measure would be. >> That is super helpful to set that
expectation. So in other words, the petition would not say we want speed
bumps. It would say we need traffic calming and you would determine what the
best mechanism would be. >> Exactly. Just for your information that
we have um a grant to install traffic calming on Fifth Avenue. So changing the
speed limit wouldn't change and we are installing near California and fifth two
two radar speed signs and we're improving that corner of California in
the market uh for pedestrian and bicycles. So we have that grant it it
doesn't exclude because now they're 20 m per hour.
» That is welcome and wonderful news for the San Sun Valley residents. Thank you.
» Thank you. So not seeing any further questions at this time. I would like to
open up public comment if you would like to comment. Now is your opportunity.
You're welcome but not required to say your name. What part of Sanell?
» Daniel Almigan. Uh through the Western Neighborhood Association board, we've
always welcomed more to the toolkit. I think this is a great idea. I appreciate
the tiered system. I think for us, we would want to understand the lift on
doing a petition because it would sound like it would probably likely fall to a
neighborhood association. And I know from our own experience on
trying to do the street closure where we have to get 100% sign off. It's an act
of hurting cats and it's not easy and it's not fun. Um, I'm a little bit
concerned about the the petition process and how that would work.
Thank you. Any other comments on this item?
I don't see anyone in the chambers. Anyone online?
» I do see a hand raised. A couple hand raised.
» Hi there. Um, good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Dave
Rhodess. I'm the co-chair of WalkBike Centerfell and a West End neighborhood
resident. And uh first of all, I just want to thank the staff for bringing
forward Centerfell's first traffic calming program. It's a significant step
forward. Having a transparent process with clear criteria is definitely much
better than handling requests on an ad hoc basis. Um but my primary concern is
the neighborhood voting requirement like many of you um on the council have
expressed and others uh in the in the chambers there. Um it's the traffic
calming is fundamentally a public safety issue. And while neighborhood neighbors
should absolutely have a strong voice in identifying the problems and shaping
solutions, the decisions should ultimately be guided by engineering
analysis, speed data, crash history, and the city's adopted policies, not by a
referendum. The streets not only belong to the people who live on them, but
they're used every day by children walking to school, people riding bikes,
transit riders, visitors, and everybody traveling through our community. We
don't vote on whether or not to install a stop sign or a crosswalk. We rely on
objective criteria and professional judgment and traffic calming should be
treated the same way. So, I adopt you tonight to adopt uh I encourage you to
adopt this program tonight, but please do direct staff to revisit the
neighborhood voting requirement um and so that the community input informs the
decisions without becoming a barrier to warranted safety improvements. I
definitely think that uh staff and neighborhood um time is a major barrier
uh to making these things happen. So, let's try to do as much as we can to get
as much as um out of our staff and neighborhood time to improve our
streets. Um thank you all very much. Thanks for considering this u this
policy.
Hi, Susan Gilbert again, downtown San Rafale. I'd like to share my gratitude
for the trafficcoming measures you've implemented and intend to implement here
in the future. I can appreciate that the city traffic engineers have a complex
complex task of balancing the needs of drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians, all
of whom want to get across town as fast as humanly possible.
As you know, we've had at least four pedestrian fatalities and two cyclist
fatalities in the last four years here. And it's important to recognize that
these deaths are multiffactorial. Mostly they have to do with distracted
or impaired driving and/or speeding on the part of the driver. I'm asking
drivers to have more regard for the lives of the pedestrians and cycling
neighbors. While it's wonderful that you've lowered the speed limits around
the downtown area, I'd like to see more enforcement of the limits by the police.
Some of the cars going west on third and east on second reach speeds of up to 50
miles an hour. in our residential neighborhood, which is a 25 mile per
hour zone. Please consider your pedestrian neighbors, some of whom are
old, may have poor mobility or poor eyesight, and need more time to ambulate
through a crosswalk. I'd also like to ask police for more
enforcement of scooters and ebikes who are on the sidewalks, make making it
precarious for us pedestrians. Finally, I'd like to mention 25 years
ago, I was responsible for circulating a petition in my Oakland neighborhood to
get a speed bump to prevent drug dealers from traversing our block. I succeeded
in getting the 160 signatures and it's still there today. Thank you.
» I see no other hands raised, but I'll give everyone a moment.
» Okay. I see no more public comment.
» Okay, thank you. I will close the public comment and bring it back. Um, any other
questions by the council? >> Yeah, go ahead. Vice Mayor, I have a
question in terms of amending the resolution. It's the seventh whereas
um that establishes a request in petition process if that can be because
I support everything within the resolution aside from that petition. I
don't feel like we've really defined that the right. I think we need to think
about that a little bit more of what that would look like. And I don't know
if if we're really saying there has to be community engagement or there has to
be input or there has to be um some consensus of a defined area.
But a petition to me means actually getting those signatures.
And unless we're going to give flexibility on what that petition is,
I'd like to redefine what that that ph that whereas.
» Well, let's let's uh maybe ask city manager or director Miller to see if
there's flexibility in this wording because to change a resolution, you
would have to make um a motion that would change that and that may or may
not be supported. But maybe there's another way. What I hear is having
flexibility given the input that you've heard from the council tonight as well
as the community. I Yes, thank you. Um I just want to clarify I think there's a
piece was missed from say's presentation and the first step is for residents to
submit on cclick fix and so the location is evaluated. There could be striping
there could be signage that's added. This policies in place for people who
are just want more and they're really passionate about wanting more. Maybe
it's just one person but maybe it is the entire neighborhood. And I think that's
the petition we're trying to get is the people who want who disagree with our
initial analysis on what what we think would be done without the data and and
that's where the petition comes in. So just to clarify that piece, I wasn't
sure if everybody caught that from the comments from the public. No, I I still
think that puts the um there's there's a an advantage for
somebody to be able to collect that versus I don't think it's balanced
» across the community to be able to do that.
» Okay. >> Talking to May I add?
» Yes. talking to our legal team, city attorney office. We are working on the
design of petition because we want to put some language that they can review.
For example, if I receive a clic for a stretch of a road, we can include that
in the petition, the map of the area that they need to sign the petition. So
that but we haven't really finalized the design of petition. We thought we will
leave it to staff to design it and with city attorney review. So that also might
help your concern. >> Right. And that's what I was asking if
we is there flexibility in terms of this whereas
to um evaluate that of petition process um and really
I'm not sure I'm conveying my >> No, I think we Yeah, we got it. We hear
that you have a concern about that and I I I think really is there flexibility to
um have staff incorporate the feedback that they've heard
and then maybe that may or may not be sufficient enough. Um
so yeah, we haven't designed the petition
yet. So we would definitely take the feedback we've received today and from
some of the letters that we've received when we're designing the petition. I
don't think that changes the whereas, but we could always ask.
» Okay. >> No, that's fine. And if that's has the
flexibility and maybe it goes back to BPAC or it goes back to some others to
be able to review and evaluate that that petition process, that'd be great.
» Okay. Additional comments? Yeah, Council Member Hill.
» Thank you, Mayor Kate. Just to affirm this doesn't replace this is in addition
to the city conducting it's already the existing process which is that there is
a continued examination of data there is cclick fix this is just one more
mechanism on top of the existing process is that right
» and and in addition to that this policy will help us when we implement in our
projects because we want feedback from community if we do a safe route to
school and we imple implement traffic calming which we can according to the
policy then we can also use this process to get petition of support from the
residents. So we have that outreach or if we do something on a street where is
part of the local roadway safety plan uh high collision segment and it's on a
residential street we can use the same process it will be initiated by
» Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other comments? Council
Bushy >> quick um comments. Um I think this is a
very solid version one. Um it's an improvement over what we have sets out
some standards. Um and to the extent that the roll out brings things that are
unanticipated, this policy can be can be revised. Um I think the policy is
brought forward um is an improvement and we should adopt it and we look forward
to your feedback um and the community's feedback on how it can be improved.
» Thank you. And I'll just uh close by saying it was in the staff report, but
it wasn't in your presentation that this is a direct response to one of the goals
and objectives in our three-year strategic plan. So, this body has
already stated that we want to launch and evaluate pilot projects for traffic
calming measures to improve neighborhood safety. We do the policy up here and you
guys come back with the operations and the how-to. And this is uh what we have
before us this evening. and we look forward to seeing how it manifests with
the input that you've heard and any um modifications that might be needed after
it has been um underway. But we appreciate having an action item to a
goals and objectives. Um >> Mayor Kate,
» please we we were just discussing a potential change you might wish to
consider uh that I was discussing with the city manager because of the concern
expressed about the request and petition process.
Again, the the wherehouses aren't really operational, but we could substitute the
word contemplates for establishes on uh the uh about the eighth whereas
whereas the policy establishes a requested petition process, we could say
whereas the policy contemplates
just a suggestion in line with vice mayor's concern stated
» if the city attorney's office believes that's necessary in order to have the
flexibility that we want to have inherent as the program gets designed,
then I think we'd be welcome. I I worry about words smithing, having the five of
us words smmith, but so that's if if you believe that change needs to happen to
have this type of flexibility. >> It doesn't it does not need to happen.
» Okay. >> So, it's just a suggestion to try to
ameliate the concern, but I don't believe it's required.
» Okay. >> Are you ready for a motion? Yes, I will
go ahead and >> I move that we adopt the resolution
approving the city of San Rafale's traffic calming program policy.
» Second. >> Moved and seconded. Roll call, please.
» Council member Bushy. >> Hi.
» Council member Hill. >> Hi.
» Vice Mayor Curts. >> Hi.
» Mayor Kate. >> I. That motion carries 40. Thank you for
taking our input. Thank you, S, for all your work.
» Our last in our regular agenda is a nomination of eligible census tracks for
opportunity zone 2. Z. I see Greg Miner has joined us. Welcome.
» Good evening. Greg Miner with the Community Economic Development
Department. I'm going to try to pull up a PowerPoint here.
All right. Um, I'm going to walk us through the staff report, which is going
to provide an overview of what an opportunity zone is, the opportunity
zone or OZ 2.0 0 process uh that Congress recently established as well as
California's uh portion of that process and how the
city of Sanville uh fits in. And I'm joined uh by Alexis Captain in our our
housing manager. Um so what's an opportunity zone? Uh
it's a federal tax incentive program. >> We can't see.
» Oh, I'm sorry.
I forgot to share. >> It's uh
» we were listening to what you were saying. I we didn't know that we get
slides too. So great. Thank you. [laughter]
» I had similar problems back in preschool, but uh I'm working on it. Um
so opportunity zones were a federal tax program created under the first Trump
administration. Uh it allows for investors to repurpose capital gains uh
into um qualified opportunity funds which are an investment vehicle that are
used to support economically distressed areas. And depending on how long the
investment is in place, it minimizes or eliminates the tax burden. Um, and this
slide lists a couple of eligible investments such as real estate
construction, uh, rehabilitation of vacant or underutilized properties, um,
infrastructure or energy related projects or investments in operating
businesses. Um, so the first opportunity zone 1.0,
the initial program established in 2017 was scheduled to sunset um, I think at
the end of 2028. However, Congress made the pro program
permanent uh last year as part of that one big beautiful bill and it also
established this opportunity zone 2.0 0 process where uh IRS in the spring
released the eligible census tracks nationwide and then governors across the
country have until the end of September to nominate up to 25% of their eligible
census tracks and then uh the Treasury uh later this year will certify
those nominations and then the new opportunity zone map will be in effect
for the next decade. So it's a once a decade process moving forward.
U and then within that uh California has created its own process that's being
overseen by GOBiz or the governor's office of business and economic
development. Uh so back in uh middle of June they opened up an
application process for local jurisdictions to re make recommendations
of which census tracks uh the governor should nominate. Um there's not a it's
not required that a a local jurisdictions's elected body adopt a
resolution. Um, however, it's something that we can add during the public
comment period to show um support or direction. And then uh again at the end
then there'll be a public comment period uh August 1st and uh a deadline for the
governor at the end of September. Um the state has indicated that uh and
and just for context in terms of the number of census tracks in California um
there's over 2600 eligible census tracks. So the governor can only
nominate a little over 600.
Um in terms of um how the state will go about selecting that 600 or so census
tracks, they've identified a number of priorities.
Um, some of those are outside of our control, just demographic factors such
as poverty, medium family income, uh, renter occupancy, occupancy, uh, and
unemployment. But other factors are statewide and regional economic
development, uh, objectives such as those outlined on the slide here,
alignment with, uh, the state jobs first regional plans and programs, alignment
with, uh, affordable housing objectives and regional housing needs allocation.
the presence of business ready sites and any active or planned public investment.
Um so when it comes to San Rafll uh in the the initial opportunity zone or OZ
1.0 the census tracks the two small census tracks 1122.04
and 003 were the designated tracks. In this second uh round, the IRS has
identified five potential census tracks, including much larger census tracks such
as um 1122.02, O2, which includes um the remainder of East Sanfell and all of our
our ARO dealerships, which are prime tax generating um uh uses for the city, as
well as uh areas west of 580 and a portion of the downtown.
Um these areas align with many of the the state priorities that uh I
referenced a moment ago. Um there's currently various forms of public
investment in these different areas. Just an as an example, MTC is funding
the East Sanfell specific plan that is underway at the moment um that will help
shape um opportunities and um development pathways going forward.
There are multiple housing sites as well as busy ready site, business ready sites
and there's ongoing workforce um training programs as well in these
areas. Um, one issue that the economic
development and housing subcommittee um raised during discussion of this item
was the potential for displacement of tenants as a result of um opportunities
zone related investments. Um, back in 2021 and 2024, the city took measures um
to adopt anti-displacement strategies specific to those um opportunity 1.0
census tracks. Um however there isn't a lot of data in terms of the actual
impact of um OZ 1.0 investments and partly that's a reflection on the lack
of data reporting requirements during OZ 1.0. OZ 2.0 will have more reporting
requirements. So we'll have a better sense of um the impact um of opportunity
zone uh investments. Um regardless of opportunity zones, uh the city council
through the housing element and the three-year strategic plan has adopted
goals directing staff to explore anti-displacement strategies as our our
housing manager knows well. Um and staff is already um exploring
anti-displacement strategies for presentation to the city council
starting with the economic development housing subcommittee um this fall that
so that will include an analysis of the opportunity zones but more more examine
anti-displacement strategies citywide. Um so in terms of staff's recommendation
uh since there is no limit on how many census tracks we could recommend um
we're recommending uh all five census tracks for the
state's consideration um with the pri uh prioritization.
Um the number one census track that we recommend is the the largest census
track the 1122.02 O2 um as well and followed with the downtown census tract
as these two census track provide the strongest opportunity for investment
that aligns with the city's economic development uh housing resilience and
revenue um objectives. Um the next two census tracks staff
recommends uh for the state's consideration would
be 1122.04 and 1122.03 03 the remaining uh census
tracks in East Sanfell or the existing 1.0 census tracks is that would provide
for a kind of a comprehensive um economic development tool for East
Sanfell and help support the policies developed in the East Sanfell specific
plan. And the last census track uh recommended would be the furthest west
1121 um as there are opportunities for
industrial and commercial land modernization there as well.
Um, so that's staff's recommendation. Um, and we're here to answer any
questions. >> Thank you, Greg. Uh, questions, vice
mayor. Any questions on this item? >> So, we can recommend all five and the
state can come back and select one. >> Right. Okay.
» Correct. >> Yeah. Um, for all these census tracks,
are they all within the city or does it cross into the county as at all?
Um, my wise colleague to my right has confirmed that they're they're all
within the city of Sarville. >> Okay, great. All right, that's Yeah, no,
it makes sense. >> Great. Thank you. Uh, questions. Council
member Bushy. >> Um, I want to ask some questions about
the uh anti-displacement. Um, because I was here when we did those
and it was an emergency. um we thought there was going to be widespread
displacement because of the very lucrative incentives created by the
opportunity zones. So if I understand your presentation
correctly, there hasn't been a lot of use of those anti-displacement
uh programs and requirements.
So, um, as Greg mentioned, we don't have great
local data because of the lack of reporting requirements. But what we do
know is nationally a little under three4ers of tracks, OZ
designated tracks, saw activity and about a quarter didn't. Um we have not
we are not aware of a lot of activity in our opportunity zone. Um I think what
we're thinking about for 1.0 versus 2.0 is that we do have some other economic
development strategies coming down the line for instance the Southeast Sanfell
specific plan and other plans that could catalyze investment together with the
opportunity zone. One of the things that a lot of the um research and commentary
on the opportunity zones are saying is that often the tracks that had more
activity had multiple had an opportunity zone designation and some other um
tools. And so um that is why even though we're not aware of um a proliferation of
activity in the OZ 1.0 0 in the canal census tract. Um we didn't want to
assume that there would necessarily be no activity in 2.0 if if there were
another designation with different other local tools in place,
» right? That doesn't make any sense. So years ago in 2017, it was an emergency.
Something was going bad things were going to happen to tenants. We had to
act right away. We adopted um extremely strenuous tenant protections. I'm now
hearing you tell tell me that as far as you know there haven't they haven't been
used um and they haven't created [clears throat] any um and and there and
there wasn't a real need for them. So and that was just in the two small ones.
So now we're zooming out to many more a much a much bigger area and you're
coming forward and making no recommendations for those for the for
the new areas. So my question goes back to what are we going to do about the
ones? Are we going to leave the So are we going to have two with these these
strenuous requirements and the other's not? What's the logic behind that?
» Sorry, let me just clarify. I apologize. I didn't understand the question. So um
the two emergency policies, one of them will expire December 31st, 2026. So the
2024 emergency ordinance, no matter what happens with the opportunity zone 2.0 0
designation whether all of them get uh designated none of them it will deci it
will expire December 31st the 2021 policy which is the one that increased
relocation assistance payment amounts >> that is tied specifically to the canal
opportunity zone designation that currently exists. So if those two were
to get redesated that would survive into 2.0 No, unless
the council took action. But if if those >> only for those
» Exactly. >> Okay.
So, logically, if they're necessary for those two, are they necessary for the
others? And if it sounds to me like they haven't been used in those two. So,
why so so what what are we doing here? So, it's not that that um those policies
haven't been used. I think it's that we're saying there hasn't been
a a proliferation of qualified opportunity fund activity in the in the
in the current zone that we're aware of. Those policies have been utilized in
circum certain circumstances. But I think part of what we're saying is it
makes sense to look at this in a city-wide approach rather than only look
at it in isolation with a couple of census tracks to your point.
» So your proposal then is to look at it across the city
and what are you going to do about those two?
» So council member if I may, Micah Hinkle, community and economic
development director. Uh some of these items were covered in the um uh
subcommittee meeting we had on this. I'll try to bring up to speed on the
general thoughts and approach. Um we did adopt um tenant protection components
tied to the opportunity zone which is those two little census tracks. But the
initial data in the analysis when looking from a citywide perspective of
our issues on protections really need to be citywide. They can't just be tied to
a singular opportunity zone provision or the changes in that. So really the staff
recommendation is really to separate tenant protections and opportunity zone
designations. Opportunity zone designations were how we approached the
particular problem at the time to say here's a potential solution that defined
a geographic area. But as we dug more into the issue about displacement or
concerns about displacement within the city of Sanfell, it really is it's in
multiple components of the city that's not specifically an OZ an opportunity
zone location. So we really are looking at them as two different uh approaches.
One is um uh tenant protection approaches um through for through the
entire citywide and we're prepared and we've been researching uh
recommendations to bring back to the uh subcommittee along and ultimately to the
council per the work program. There is a secondary piece to this and really is
related to the state's movement on opportunity zone 2.0. Um we do see this
opportunity zone 2.0 you know as a economic development tool uh and really
what it is it's it's tax benefits from the federal government. So it is an
important investment tool and we want to utilize it as such and that's its
original intent. Um so we are focused on the eligible track zones that we have.
Um we have actually engaged um the uh multiple community members. We've done a
couple workshop sessions on this and actually received general support of
like yeah one questions I think we received I think we got received letters
on this was okay what's the prioritization which one is it downtown
or is it east Sanfell uh a lot of approach was make sure it's east Sanfell
first with downtown and the other zones um in that order of preference but
ultimately this will become a state uh tool that the we may get zero uh in
terms of the eligibility tracks I'm hoping that we'll get something but who
knows um But that's really the approach we're taking. Really trying to isolate
the two type of questions being opposed here. Um but opportunity zones is just a
a toolbox into the economic development tools whereas the tenant protections I
think is actually something that needs to be taken on by the city as a whole
and it expands beyond the two little census tracks uh located in the canal.
» Agree with you 100%. Um economic development sounds great. Let's do all
of that. but we put them together years ago and we either need to decide that
they belong together or they don't. Maybe that's an issue that you take up
in the broader um looking at the across the city and saying in this particular
area we have them based on this rationale that is now outdated.
Um, I believe that's the the approach on this and really just bringing forward
recommendations on where where the tenant protection should lie across the
entire city and actually define potentially a different geographic
basis. You there are other other opportunities for us to do that. That's
not an OZ map um >> anymore.
» That's correct. And that's really the concern of this. We needed to come to
terms with this no matter what because they were going to expire at the end of
the year. Um so we we've already been working on okay where is our approach
for tenant protections. Uh but then the opportunity zones period time period uh
ramped up really kind of we need to take action if we want to preserve the
ability even to obtain the economic development tools that we presented by
OZ 2.0. >> Right. So capture the benefits of OZ um
2.0 and resolve the tenant protection issues somewhere else but separate them.
» That's correct. >> Actually cleave them apart because that
was that was how it was done before. All right. Uh, thank you.
» Certainly. >> Thank you, Council Member Hill.
» Thank you, Mayor Kate. Thank you, Greg and Alexis, for being here to present
this item. This is very important to our community. My question uh is because we
can't tell investors, invest in this. They're going to come in and they're
going to invest in what they want to. However, what I'd love to hear is does
staff have any opinions on tools that we have that would might encourage or steer
towards projects that would lead to more
community benefit or toward and or towards um our general plan.
» Sure. I mean, one one opportunity that comes to mind is the East Sanfell
specific plan. That's a process where the community and the council ultimately
can, you know, incentivize certain activity
um through our our planning regulations. So, that seems like an opportunity on
the horizon. And I don't know, Alexis, did you want to add anything? Um, one
one thing I I just I omitted earlier in the presentation to to mention that
staff's recommendation is consistent with the recommendation of the the
Chamber of Commerce and East Sanfell Working Group and Canal Alliance. and
they included a letter in our packet. >> And um my other my other question around
displacement because I I know that in the in the packet in the presentation
too that um staff will come back to subcommittee first and then the council
to contemplate what those proposals might be to for for mitigation. I I
think that might go I I would suggest it might answer a lot of what council
member Bush's concerns are, which is how do we disentangle
citywide policy from OZ specific policy for displacement. Are there any other
risks other than displacement that you would contemplate or is that the main
one?
» Um not that comes to mind. And I don't know if director Henle if you want to if
you have any thoughts but it ultimately I think what we've discussed at the
subcommittee level and director Henkle mentioned is it's just an additional
economic development tool. So if an investor is considering investing in Oak
in Sarafll rather uh this is this is something that might encourage them to
invest here rather than not. So it's it's an additional tool. Um, you know,
kind of to to add on to that, I agree and I don't think there's a lot of risk
outside of the displacement concerns that were really been called out for it.
It is a federal tax um benefit that's actually applied by Congress. Um, I
think for us when we look at these items, it's overall investment actions.
It's almost like a checkbox for investors, right? You know, are you in
the flood zone? Maybe, yes, no. Um, are you uh in opportunity zone? Yes. So they
go through the box of items and then also the reality of for investors to
take advantage of the tax benefits applied by opportunity zones, you got to
pretty you have to have like groups understand qualified investments and
there's a big fund pool that ties into it. But they do exist and they actually
been successful in some areas for bringing that capital uh to play. The
one area that that and I I mentioned this in the um subcommittee. One area
that I was surprised with is is the ability that downtown was not originally
on any of the initial projected maps or locations. I actually think that's a
great benefit for us because we already have adopted plans and information. This
is an area we've targeted for many years for investment where this brings another
checkbox to say why makes sense for investment. if that brings in that
housing and that um officer development pieces we're looking for the benefits
also too opportunity zones also um they look always layered for for like tools
for investments being qual and a qualified opportunity zone may also
bring some of the infrastructure dollars and pieces we're after um based on the
projects that are being presented. So whatever we can do to add to the ability
for investment to pull full benefit, I think it's it's a value to us. But I do
do agree the biggest concern of the biggest setbacks opportunity zones and
uh has been always been the displacement concerns. That's why I think we're
trying to address this the displacement concerns more on a citywide pieces where
it's not just the protections are added only if you're in the opportunity zones
because those same concerns are throughout our community.
» One concern that I have that I imagine and I can't prove it but I'd
love if staff could uh indulge walking into this risk area that I think about
which is that you know uh the happy path is that we get investments that are
completely aligned with community benefit completely aligned with the
general plan. However, um I can also imagine that what might be
more important to an investor is that it they get a return
and that may not be consistent with community benefit and general plan. So,
I guess um it doesn't have to be an answer that says here's what we're going
to do. I'm hoping that maybe if if staff can contemplate as part of the
displacement um you know the next time we we revisit this at the subcommittee
level what are ways that we can help you know how do we create more encouragement
I I appreciate you know the the specific plan is obviously one way if there's any
other lessons that are learned even if it's not data driven I I I heard uh
opportunities in 1.0 did not have data and reporting requirements uh in a way
that might inform even if it's anecdotal, what did other communities do
to try to um make it less extractive and and more aligned with community benefit?
» I think that one thing that really helps in the process, particularly for the
community engagement portions for both the downtown and for uh Southeast
Sanfell, um is the community engagement about what we're looking for. Uh I think
that's the most critical piece because a lot of times that is the question for
investors. What's the overall vision of this community? Where is it going to go?
What do I need to be successful here? And I think those plans and that
investment of our of our time and effort really will pay off in that um total
investment package. Uh particularly what's needed to be successful. So and
and that's when we look at kind of the displacement policies or concerns
related to that. we're getting that level of investment and looks in Sanfell
altogether and all parts of Sanfell. So I think that's why we really do need to
look at really what's happening to our community in respects of displacement
outside of opportunity zones. Uh and I that's really where where we landed as
staff and really kind of p pursuing that that approach.
» Thank you. >> Thank you. I don't have any additional
questions. So I'm going to open up public comment on this item. If you'd
like to comment, now is your opportunity to do so.
I don't see anyone in the room. Anyone online like to comment?
» I see no hands raised, but I'll give everyone a second.
» Okay, >> I see no public comment.
» Okay, I'll close the public comment and bring it back. We've had in addition to
those questions, there was some commentary in there as well. Um, but I
will offer the opportunity for additional comments. Vice Mayor.
» Um I'm supportive of moving forward with recommendation of the prior and the
priorization of the five additional um or actually three additional plus the
two um census tracks. I think we have to keep an eye on the what happens to the
opportunity zones. It will be interesting to see if having them in
more commercial areas will generate something. I don't feel that we saw what
we were hoping to see with the opportunity zone. So, um, but I think
we'll need to watch it carefully and I hope the state supports the work that
we're trying to do because if it works the way it's supposed to work for the
better of the community, that would be great. If it leads to more, you know,
gentrification, displacement, other things that the the negative aspects
that come along with an opportunity zone potentially, then we need to, you know,
address that as they come forward. But right now, we're not seeing that. Um,
and it would be to it we would we would be remiss not moving forward at least to
see if we can get some support from the state to be able to work with these with
these levels and these census tracks. Thank you.
» Thank you, Council Member Bushy. >> I support the staff recommendation and
be happy to move the motion um at the appropriate time.
» Thank you, Council Member Hill. >> I will echo my council members comments
and not belabor the point. I support this um adopting the nomination of these
five census tracks. I look forward to uh the next engagement with staff on
recommendations for displacement and ways that we can guide investment if
what using whatever tools we have. Thank you.
» Yeah. And thank you, Alexis and Greg, for all the work. I I know there's a lot
of work that went into bringing this to the city and even having us consider it.
Um we hope that we get selected as we already talked about as the vice mayor
mentioned the um there's a lot of opportunity zones that can be elected or
suggested and it's really up to the governor's office. So, I'm glad we're
taking this step. Um Council Member Bushy, you said you would make the
motion on this item. You are. Uh, I move that we adopt the RA resolution in
support of an application to the California Governor's Office of Business
and Economic Development, Go Biz, recommending the nomination of census
tracks 0604111
01 0604111
060411
1 22 02 0604111223
and 060411122042
the opportunity zone 2.0 program. >> Well read. Is there a second?
» Second. >> Moved and seconded. Roll call, please.
» Council member Bushy. >> I.
» Council member Hill. >> I.
» Vice Mayor Kurtz. >> I. Mayor Kate.
» Hi. That motion carries 40 Z. Thank you so much. Um, as I mentioned at the
beginning of the meeting, we also have open time for public expression at the
end of the meeting. If someone hasn't already had the opportunity to say
something during the meeting, now is your opportunity. Is there anything that
was not on tonight's agenda? I'll see if there's anyone in the chambers who would
like to comment. Now is your opportunity and you're welcome, but not required to
say your name and what part of Sam or fail you're in. Welcome.
» Good evening, Mayor Kate, Vice Mayor Kurts, and members of the council. My
name is Saj Dakar. I'm a 14-year-old rising nth grader living in Fairfield,
Slano County. I'm a member of the Fairfield Youth Commission and am the
founder of the National Association of Youth Commissions. This nonprofit
organization works to establish youth commissions in cities where they're not
already present, push for legislation beneficial to youth, increase youth
youth access to government, and provide a space for youth commissions around the
nation to collaborate. I'm speaking to you this evening on a proposal that I've
seen work firsthand, and it's one of the best things that a city could do for its
young people. I'm asking you to create a youth commission in San Rell. For some
context, a youth commission is a group of young people, typically aged 14 to
25, who work to advise the city council and mayor on topics relating to the
youth. This can range from a small issue that affects a few young people to
citywide youth issues. Youth commissions are created with the purpose of bridging
the gap between the youth of a city and a city's government. Right now, Sanfell
does allow for youth to have a seat on specific existing committees and
commissions. But what San Rafell needs is a standalone body that can tackle
youth issues independently of other commissions. A youth commission would be
different from just another program in that this isn't the city giving to the
youth. It's also the youth giving to the city. All the city needs to do is give
them the chance. This would not even be difficult to
implement. All that is needed is a resolution that would establish the
commission. There would also be minimal cost to the city since there would be no
need to hire new individuals. The only adults involved with the commission
would be an adult adviser and optionally one city council member acting as a
liaison. There'd be very little administrative costs since the only real
cost would be holding a meeting. Furthermore, through the National
Association of Youth Commissions, I would be happy to offer the city with
free research on how things like costs, appointments, and scope of work would
play out. I'm requesting the city council to direct staff to report back
on potential routes the city could take in starting a commission. I would be
happy to serve as a resource for the city during this time. Uh, I have here
some QR codes that redirect to the National Association of Youth
Commission's contact page. If any member of the council is interested, please
contact me and I'll be happy to help out in this process. Thank
» Thank you. So, if you can be sure to give your information to the city clerk,
that would be fantastic. Thank you so much and thank you for the
work that you've been doing. Any other public comment in the room?
I don't see anyone else in the room. Anyone online? I see no hands raised.
It'll give everyone a moment. >> No public comment.
» Okay. I'm going to close the second public expression time. And we have on
our agenda this evening the Sanfell Successor Agency. We have a consent
calendar. Are there any items to be held from the consent calendar? I'm looking
up. I see no head shaking notes. So, I'm going to open the public comment on the
consent agenda. This is for the Sanfal Successor Agency. Anyone in the room
like to comment on the consent calendar for the Sarafel Successor Agency? I
don't see anyone in the room. Is there anyone online?
» I see no hands raised, but I'll give everyone a moment.
» I see no public comment. >> I'll close the public comment. I request
a motion on this item, please. >> I move the consent calendar.
» Second. >> Moved and seconded. Roll call, please.
» Member Bushy. >> I.
» Member Hill. >> I.
» Vice Chair Curts. >> I.
» Chairperson Kate. >> I. That motion carries 40 Z. As I
mentioned at the top of the meeting, we are journeying tonight in honor of
Esther Burn. She faithfully served the city of Somerfell for many years as our
city clerk. Esther dedicated her career to ensuring our local government
operated with integrity, transparency, and professionalism. She served under
two mayors, four city managers, and multiple city councils, providing the
steady institutional knowledge and commitment that helped our city navigate
change while always keeping the public at the center of her work. Esther began
her service to Sanfell in August 2000 as deputy city clerk under the then city
clerk Jean Lancini. She was first elected city clerk in 2007 and was
subsequently reelected twice without any opposition. A reflection of the
confidence that our community placed in her and the respect she earned from
colleagues and residents alike. Those of us who had the privilege of
working with Esther remembered her remember her not only for her
exceptional confidence but also for her kindness. She treated everyone with
warmth, patience, and respect, whether they were first time in city hall and
didn't know how to navigate something or a longtime community leader. She had an
incredible ability to make people feel heard and welcomed. And she also ensured
at that same time that the public's business was conducted openly and with
care. Esther leaves behind a lasting legacy of public service and a standard
of excellence that continues to inspire all of us and I know inspires our city
clerk today. So on behalf of the Sanfal city council, we extend our heartfelt
condolences to Esther's family and her friends and all who had the pleasure of
knowing and working with her. Sarafhel is a better place because she spent time
with us. This meeting is now adjourned in memory of Esther.