| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:11.88 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. Madam Mayor, I'll go ahead and go and Admit all the participants. |
| 00:00:20.20 | Janelle Kellman | Okay? Thank you. |
| 00:00:29.68 | Heidi Scoble | Madam Mayor, all the participants are in. Good afternoon, Mayor Hoffman and City Council members. This meeting has been held Pursuant to Section 3 of Executive Order N-2920, issued by Governor Newsom on March 17, 2020, an executive order in 0821 issued by Governor Newsom on June 11, 2021. All members are joining this meeting telephonically through Zoom and it's broadcast live on City's website. |
| 00:00:59.97 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Good afternoon and welcome to a special city council meeting of the South Dakota City Council. Mr. Clerk, would you please call Call the roll. |
| 00:01:11.90 | Heidi Scoble | Councilmember Sobieski. |
| 00:01:13.32 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:01:14.60 | Heidi Scoble | Councilmember Blastey. Council member Cleveland Knowles. |
| 00:01:19.48 | Janelle Kellman | Here. |
| 00:01:22.01 | Heidi Scoble | Vice Mayor Kelman. |
| 00:01:23.43 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you. |
| 00:01:23.44 | Jill Hoffman | THE FAMILY. |
| 00:01:24.47 | Heidi Scoble | Mayor Hoffman. |
| 00:01:25.77 | Jill Hoffman | here. All members are present. At this point then I will note that our agenda for this special meeting is a public hearing item and it's appeal of a planning commission decision approving a tentative minor subdivision map and condominium conversion permit to convert an existing duplex at 195 through 197 Hivissa Road, into two one-family condominium units for individual use sale and use. May I have a motion to approve that agenda, that one agenda item for this? |
| 00:02:00.52 | Janelle Kellman | We're just... |
| 00:02:01.50 | Jill Hoffman | Second. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, could you please call the roll? |
| 00:02:08.62 | Heidi Scoble | Councilmember Sobieski. Yes. |
| 00:02:10.47 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 00:02:11.27 | Heidi Scoble | Council member Blomstein? |
| 00:02:12.92 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 00:02:13.02 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:02:13.16 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 00:02:13.95 | Heidi Scoble | Council member Clever Knowles. |
| 00:02:15.59 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 00:02:15.62 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 00:02:16.62 | Heidi Scoble | Vice Mayor Kelman. Thank you. |
| 00:02:18.03 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 00:02:19.35 | Heidi Scoble | Mayor Hoffman. |
| 00:02:20.68 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. Thank you very much. The motion passes unanimously. Um, All right, at this point, I would ask that members of the council provide any ex-party communications they had about this matter. I have not had any ex-party communications with any of the parties on this case. Thank you. |
| 00:02:44.11 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you, Mayor. Neither have I, although I did walk... |
| 00:02:44.12 | Jill Hoffman | I don't know. |
| 00:02:47.63 | Janelle Kellman | to the site and the high Vista road. |
| 00:02:50.86 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:02:50.87 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you. |
| 00:02:51.14 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 00:02:51.89 | Janelle Kellman | to report. |
| 00:02:54.25 | Jill Hoffman | You know what else? Nope. |
| 00:02:55.09 | Ian Sobieski | Oh. |
| 00:02:55.18 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:02:55.28 | Ian Sobieski | I'm not sure. I took a painting class from one of the parties and at our studio. And so I also visited the road incidentally. but only didn't even notice was that issue until after that. to that so There you go. |
| 00:03:11.19 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, very good. Councillor Blastie, anything to read? |
| 00:03:14.03 | Melissa Blaustein | Anything to read? have walked up to the site and have been up the road many times and taken one of the painting classes before. This was an issue as well, but have not had any communication specifically about the project on high-best. |
| 00:03:26.60 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, very good. I'll note that I also... have visited the site this afternoon to take a look at it. Okay. And so then at this point, I'll ask for the staff to provide their presentation. |
| 00:03:42.36 | Jeffrey Chase | All right, thank you. Thank you. Let me. share my screen. |
| 00:04:00.52 | Jeffrey Chase | All right, thank you. All right, good afternoon, everyone. This afternoon's presentation is for an appeal of a planning commission decision approving a tentative minor subdivision map in a condominium THE FAMILY. I'm not sure if I'm not sure if conversion permit. for the property, also known as 195 to seven high vista. The project site is located on the south side of Edwards Avenue. This is an aerial of the project site. And it, it, It is a 16,343 square foot parcel. located on High Vista Road south of Edwards Avenue. It contains a two story duplex with attached parking carports providing access from High Vista Road. The parcel also contains a $15,000 what private roadway easement to provide access via High Vista Road to the subject parcel and other properties off of high vista. PASS THE SUBJECT PROCESS. So, I think that's a good question. Okay? And the request, as mentioned before, is an appeal of the Planning Commission decision to approve the tentative parcel I'm not sure. tentative minor subdivision map in the common dominion conversion permit. for this science. Just to give a brief I'm going to go to the PRODUCT. overview of the project history. On April 5, 2019, the Community Development Department received an application for a tentative minor subdivision map and condomision condominium conversion permit. The project number that the department has on file is 2019-00080. on June 2nd. I'm going to go ahead and get this year. the Planning Commission reviewed the application and ultimately the application five years ago. to zero. And uh, on June 14th. of this year. THE PLANNING department received an appeal. from neighboring residents of the project's decision I'M GOING TO BE ABLE TO and This appeal is focused on the issues raised during the Planning Commission meeting regarding maintenance of the shared roadway. |
| 00:06:33.30 | Jeffrey Chase | to go over the grounds for appeal. Yeah, there are four grounds that the the appellant has submitted. The first is that the applicants have failed to demonstrate that they will perform maintenance responsibilities as required. by the condominium conversion ordinance. and staff. Robust this statement. I'm not sure. as outlined in the staff report, Staff asserts that the project was ultimately approved with the addition of condition number six, with respect to the applicant's maintenance responsibilities as required by the condominium conversion ordinance. It is important to understand that this condition is only intended to clarify the maintenance obligations between the property owners at 195 to 197 High Vista Road. for that portion of the roadway that abuts their property The CC&Rs will clarify maintenance responsibilities between those two property owners. The condition is not intended to require that the property owners participate in the overall maintenance of the full access easement And staff does not recommend that the council include such a requirement. THE FAMILY. Please see the response to appeal ground three. in a later slide. for ground number two. THE FAMILY. appeal ground number two is that the applicants have failed to meet their burden to ensure that public nuisances and hazards to public health and safety will be avoided. as required by the condominium conversion ordinance. as stats rebuttal um, also outlined in the staff report. Staff asserts that the project was appropriately approved with the submittal of the required physical element report Pest Report and Soils Report prior to Planning Commission review. which indicate that the structural condition of the residential structure and related site improvements are in acceptable condition. and do not pose any imminent threats to habitation. Furthermore, the addition of condition number six, or condition number seven ensures that public nuisances and hazards to public and safety and the other. by requiring the city to conduct a review of the property to identify any drainage and erosion impacts that may be causing erosion to the slope below the reference property that impacts Edward and the other. and mandates repairs if needed to reduce the possibility of further destabilization of the lower slope. |
| 00:09:22.22 | Jeffrey Chase | Round number three. Um, states that the Planning Commission violated the due process rights of property owners along High Vista Road by approving our condominium conversion condition on maintenance provisions contained in the CCNRs between only the applicants and not including the other owners other owner property rights, for road access across the applicant's land. Uh, so for this, uh, the the city's rebuttal is that the city may only impose conditions on projects so as long as they're reasonable. and there exists a sufficient nexus between conditions of the project and the projected burden projected burden of the proposed project. I'm not sure. And, uh, The appellant's conditions that their due process rights have been violated by the city's approval. of the proposed project is unsupported. Opponents have been THE FEDERAL that's a good idea. given more than reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard I'm not sure. Thus their procedural due process rights have been met. Um, In addition, THE FEDERAL and the property that we have Um, of property ownership. the property does not and then we can also create any additional traffic to exacerbate the existing conditions Appellants are asking that the city impose conditions on the project that exceed the project's impacts the maintenance and repair of this private easement area is a matter that should be addressed by the impacted parties through available remedies in the easement documents themselves and or the Civil Code. And last round for appeal, The Planning Commission failed to adequately address the threat to public safety posed by instability on the applicant's property. the city streets, rights of way. Marion Avenue and Edwards Avenue. And staff's rebuttal to this is condition of approval number seven as noted prior. requires Thank you. that the city conduct a review of the property to identify any drainage and erosion impacts that may be causing erosion to the slope below. the reference property that impacts Edwards Avenue, and mandates repairs if needed to reduce the possibility of further destabilization the lower slope. So in conclusion, THE FAMILY. Staff recommends the city council to approve the attached draft resolution. which denies the appeal. and upholds the planning to mission decision. I WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE I've provided alternatives. Oh. that the city council May. take as well. |
| 00:12:40.10 | Jeffrey Chase | And that concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have for me at this time. Thank you. |
| 00:12:46.51 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thank you, Mr. Graham. That was an excellent presentation. um does anybody any of the city council members at this point have any question for mr graham or members of our staff Thank you, Mayor Hoffman. |
| 00:12:58.31 | Janelle Kellman | I have two questions for Mr. Graham. So Mr. Graham, I just want to make sure we understand the characterization of the rebuttal that is presented by staff. So it seems to me that, the The grounds for appeal are based on concerns that the city will not have conducted appropriate due diligence as to health and safety or nuisance and your rebuttal statements are explaining that in fact, the city will perform all necessary inquiries. It's just a condition of approval. So it doesn't happen prior to the project getting approved. It happens prior to the building permit or construction permit or approval of the CCNRs. Is that a good characterization? |
| 00:13:33.91 | Shazza (Applicant) | THEIR OWNERS. |
| 00:13:42.74 | Jeffrey Chase | That's correct. as well. |
| 00:13:44.15 | Janelle Kellman | Right. And then my second question is about jurisdiction. So, I'm sorry, I don't have it right in front of me because I'm looking at the question screen, but about the CCNR. So when you do a condo conversion, you file the CCNRs along with the subdivision map with the state, correct? It's not something that the city, the city will receive it as part of the I'm not sure if you're not |
| 00:14:08.37 | Warren Forster (Applicant) | That's correct. |
| 00:14:09.35 | Janelle Kellman | All right. |
| 00:14:09.62 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:14:09.80 | Janelle Kellman | Great. |
| 00:14:10.02 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you for that. Okay, thank you. Any other questions from the city council for Mr. Graham or our city staff? |
| 00:14:17.47 | Ian Sobieski | I have a question. |
| 00:14:18.65 | Jill Hoffman | Yes, Councillor Cray. |
| 00:14:18.95 | Ian Sobieski | What if any authority does the city have to acquired private parties that share a private roadway to participate in a road sharing agreement. |
| 00:14:34.91 | Mary Wagner | Thank you, Councilmember Sobieski. I'm happy to take that one. Jeffrey. So I believe the city's authority and the conditions that were imposed on the project are the extent to which the city can impose conditions on this project. If you recall, the item before you is really just a change in form of ownership. There's no physical development of the property. The property has already been developed. And it would exceed the city's authority and the requirement that there be a nexus between the actual project and the conditions that are imposed on it. And there has to be rough proportionality for that. In this context, staff is recommending that the city does not have the ability to impose that condition on the project. And that's the same information that we shared with the Planning Commission. |
| 00:15:23.13 | Ian Sobieski | Just to follow up, Mary, more generally, though, with the whole bag of tricks that we have, Does the city have any authority under any statute or anywhere. to the choir. a private party to participate in a of maintenance agreement. on for a private road that accesses their properties. |
| 00:15:43.24 | Mary Wagner | I mean, there may be some context council members OBSP, but not in the current project. And I really believe it's a matter for the private property owners to resolve amongst themselves. |
| 00:15:57.97 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Graham or Ms. Wagner. or any of our staff, okay. Seeing none from our city council, then I will, we will then move to a 10 minute presentation by the appellant in this action. |
| 00:16:20.25 | Mary Wagner | And Madam Mayor, just for clarification, that's the appellant's entire team, correct? |
| 00:16:25.50 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. Thank you. |
| 00:16:26.81 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:16:26.97 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:16:27.00 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:16:27.24 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Yes. Shared time, shared 10 minute time presentations. So I see Mr. Woodside, but I believe Mr. Woodside is, there he is. Okay, now he's not muted. |
| 00:16:37.95 | Steven Woodside (Appellant) | that for a minute that I couldn't unmute myself. |
| 00:16:40.67 | Jill Hoffman | I'm sorry. |
| 00:16:41.33 | Steven Woodside (Appellant) | First of all, My name is Steven Woodside. I live on High Vista Road. I'm one of four people who will be addressing you tonight, four of the neighbors. involved in this appeal. And if you wouldn't mind allowing them to be seen, I don't think they'll interrupt me. I'm not sure. Thank you, first of all, very much for scheduling this as a separate session. I think it allows all of us to focus. It's a great way to deal with these kinds of issues that are complicated. And I compliment you for that. And I think it also underscores your role here as a reviewing body not a trier of facts. and to respond to a couple of questions asked by council members earlier, I hope you don't misunderstand what we're asking for today. Initially, we thought that you could impose a road maintenance agreement and we're persuaded that You can't impose it. but you can condition the project in a way that we'll have, appropriate provision for maintenance of the road. period. appropriate provisions for maintenance of the road. And those are simply not here today. And the reason is very simple. I'll get to it perhaps in more detail later, but the reason is, That road is a very important public safety consideration. The second condition, condition number seven, also has implications for public safety and I'm going to let Rob Cox jump into that, but I want to say one thing at the outset so you know where we're Of course we want you to grant our appeal, but we ask that it be granted without prejudice. but Mr. Graham has suggested a very wise alternative That's alternative number three. That would allow you to retain jurisdiction over this process so that we can much more carefully sort out the problems that are created by this condominium conversion. THE FAMILY IS NOT A |
| 00:18:42.27 | Rob Cox (Appellant) | Thank you, Stephen and council members. Hello, my name's Rob Cox and I count myself fortunate to have lived in Sausalito on High Vista Road with my wife Maggie for the last 11 years. And it bears repeating that High Vista is a private road providing the only access for 16 homes. up here at the southern end of Sausalito. And the first 200 feet of High Vista Road that you can see in the background in the photo behind Stephen Woodside, passes over applicants property and shares joint easement with the applicants and the other property owners. |
| 00:19:19.51 | Shazza (Applicant) | Thank you. |
| 00:19:25.20 | Rob Cox (Appellant) | And this road, like Edwards and Marion, was made by a cut across a steep slope and the soil from the cuts provides often the fill. that goes under the road for the foundation of the road. it makes road maintenance challenging. Because if the hill slides, the road can goes with it. So hillside stabilization goes hand in hand with good road maintenance. This particular area, you can see in the photo behind me, experienced a significant 55-foot wide landslide in early 1996. So significant, the city itself commissioned Herzog Geotechnical to study it. They did, and there's a 1996 report in the record And it states this hillside will be subject to ongoing instability unless it is retained. Over the last 25 years, the city has not performed any of the recommended retaining work. Coming back to the High Vista owners and our High Vista Road, We got so concerned we commissioned Herzog to update his work do soil borings on what's now applicants property, And in 2014, Herzog made several suggestions for us including putting in a retaining wall on the upslope side that you see behind Stephen in the photo. His report said the hillside problems undermine the road itself. That's my layman's understanding of his report. The slides happened before and they could occur again. So we other HiVista owners engaged experts and engineers built the retaining wall that you see behind Stephen in early 2019. And it's just an undisputed fact that the applicants did not contribute to the for that wall. The applicants in their papers assert that the hillside stabilization matter concerns only city property and not theirs, we disagree. and a review of the parcel maps, the geotechnical reports, the map that Mr. Graham put out. shows that the hillside at risk concerns both applicants and city property. So finally, I would like to acknowledge that the city staff tries to address this concern with condition seven. WE SUBMIT A condition seven doesn't go far enough. And at this time, I'd like to ask Maggie to inform you more on High Vista Road's importance to the public and health, public health and safety in this entire area. |
| 00:22:22.03 | Rob Cox (Appellant) | Maggie, you're going to need to unmute yourself. common Zoom issue. |
| 00:22:27.31 | Janelle Kellman | Hi, sorry about that. This is a matter of public safety for all of Sausalito. We had a fire in our yard in 2018. It was a morning, no unusual conditions. I was home. I didn't see the flames going all across our yard. But thankfully, Steven Woodside saw the smoke and alerted me. 911 told them we're adjacent to the GGNRA, which you can see out the window behind me. There was concern about the fire going up the hillside and thankfully there was a very quick response by two fire trucks and police. Turns out it was an electrical fire from our outdoor lighting. So now all of us are on high alert about fire danger. But I will tell you, this was an absolutely terrifying experience to see these flames. and to see them on this hillside. If there is a landslide below 195, 197, that blocks access to either High Vista or Marion roads. Those are the two roads that have emergency vehicle access to the GGNRA to fight the fire. So this is a public safety issue for everybody in Sausalito. the safety of this entire road. So I'll turn it over to Lucinda. |
| 00:23:51.38 | Lucinda Eubanks (Appellant) | My name is Lucinda Eubanks and for most of my life I've lived in the Virgin Islands and each place I lived in the islands was on a private road. So I know how important it is to work with my neighbors on maintaining the road I live on. I have been through eight hurricanes. I've lost my house twice, and I have also experienced firsthand a tragedy on my private road. Since purchasing my home on high Vista in Sausalito six years ago, I find myself on a private road again. To do my part, I pulled the evasive French broom. in the neighborhood I've spent about between two and 3,000 a year on maintaining a fire break between our property and the GGRA. I've also supported the building of the retaining wall on high Vista with my time and my checkbook. am living up to my responsibility for this neighborhood but sadly the neighbors at 195 and 197 high vista have not done so. They should be required to live up to their legal obligation to high-visstab, not just us, but for all concerned. all of Sausalito. If a fire were to come through here, Hurricane Gulch would be gone. Old Town gone. High Vista is one of the only routes for firefighters to fight a fire raging from the southern boundary of Sausalito. I may add, the eroding hillside above Edwards Avenue were to slide down, someone could get hurt and no one could be able to get in or out You have the opportunity here to make sure the road is adequately maintain to protect public safety. please, please take this opportunity to take action and make it happen. Thank you. |
| 00:25:38.47 | Steven Woodside (Appellant) | I see that I have We have only a minute left and I'll try to compress what I was hoping to say in a minute. Number one. The problem with condition number six is that it's limited only to the property beneath Yeah, well, in the parcels owned by the applicants. Yet, as the city attorney correctly points out, and Graham mentions in one of the slides, These are reciprocal easements. The entirety of the road is a shared benefit. and a shared burden. So as a matter of law and matter of fact, Those conditions have to apply to the entirety of the road. not just the applicant's portion. I hope that is straight. for everybody. And finally, looking ahead, We really think there needs to be a very transparent process for the work that remains to be done And in that regard, we can certainly support alternative number three that has you retaining jurisdictions. Thank you. |
| 00:26:41.70 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Okay, moving on to the project applicant who also has 10 minutes. |
| 00:26:59.29 | Warren Forster (Applicant) | Hello, my name, hello city council. My name is Warren Forster. I live at 195 High Vista with my wife, Vanessa and three month old son, Will. Also in the meeting with us is Alipia and Shazza, who are the other owners who live at 197 High Vista with their two young daughters, Zara and Zia. Here with us today as well is Derek Weller, an attorney who has been helping guide us through the condo conversion process for the last couple of years. Alec and Shehzad and I were first friends. Back in 2016, when Alec and Shehzad were renting their unit at 197 High Vista, Shehzad sent me a text asking that if his landlord put their building on the market, would I be interested in trying to purchase it with him? Fast forward a few months and a lot of hard work later, we were able to become first time home buyers here in Sausalito. for which I feel very fortunate. Moving to the appeal. The primary reason we are here today is because the appellants led by Rob Cox contend that we have not paid our fair share for the retaining but it was built on our property however The need for the retaining wall on our property is due to an attempt by Mr. Cox and Danny Honfuss, another appellant who's not present here tonight to create a car turnout an area wide enough for two cars to pass one another on our very narrow street. Unfortunately, this was done without consulting any experts or the city. These neighbors simply excavated further into the hillside Subsequently, when this effort started to show signs of instability, they hired a geotechnical engineer who recommended that the destabilization of the hillside be remedied by constructing a retaining wall. Mr. Cox and Mr. Honkless signed an agreement with the previous owner of our property stating that they were responsible for all of the costs associated with the retaining wall. Around the time that we purchased our property, these neighbors decided that they weren't happy with the terms of that agreement and falsely claimed that they were going to abandon the project. So to renege on the terms of the agreement. |
| 00:29:28.94 | Warren Forster (Applicant) | Quite simply stated, we have no objection to paying for maintenance of High Vista Road, but what we do object to is paying for the repair of damage caused by these neighbors. On June 2nd, the appellants raised their concerns in the Planning Commission hearing. The Planning Commission heard the appellant's concerns, took them into consideration, and made the correct decision to unanimously approve our condo conversion. Their appeal lists the same concern previously voiced and additionally claims the planning commission failed in their responsibilities. First, their first ground for appeal is our failure to meet maintenance responsibilities. We do not believe this assertion is true. The planning commission condition of approval number six requires us to include language, typically drafted and suggested by the institution to ensure that we do our part to maintain the road and retaining wall in a safe condition as required by law. In the letters that Mr. Cox and other owners on Ibiza Road submitted, they contend that the project should not be approved unless we, the applicants, are required by the city to enter into a private roadway maintenance agreement. Neither the ordinance nor any other legal requirement provides any basis for the city to force the applicants or any other owners for that matter, many of whom who are not present tonight, to enter into a private roadway maintenance agreement. In the absence of a road maintenance agreement between owners on a private road, California's civil code 845 governs, which provides the proper forum and legal procedure for addressing private roadway maintenance obligations and shared costs between neighbors. While there have been some discussions of creating a road maintenance agreement since we purchased our property nearly six years ago, there has been no significant progress toward putting such an agreement in place. It wasn't until June 3rd, 2021, following the Planning Council hearing that Mr. Cox sent a rough draft agreement to us. We are open to signing a shared maintenance agreement But again, This approval process is not the proper forum and it is not part of the city's function or authority to force private parties to enter into a roadway maintenance agreement. either the parties enter into an agreement voluntarily or the default civil code rules and procedures apply. |
| 00:32:14.63 | Warren Forster (Applicant) | Further regarding maintenance along the road, I have personally built in potholes, removed debris from the road, added large landscape stones along the downhill edge of the road. And most significantly, I negotiated with PG&E to entirely repave High Vista Road on our property once they complete their gas line trench, which I understand will be occurring in the very near future. |
| 00:32:20.08 | Shazza (Applicant) | remove. |
| 00:32:47.61 | Warren Forster (Applicant) | The third ground for appeal is that the planning commission violated the due process of the appellants. As the planning commission stated earlier, their due process rights were not violated because they gave appropriate consideration to their concern. The appellant's property rights have not been impacted by our conduct conversion. The fourth and final ground for appeals is that the appellants contend that we have failed to address a threat to public safety. The appellants have submitted a photograph of city property, which is not part of our parcel. I can also pull up a diagram, which I've made showing the extent of the city property, where our property line is relative to Marion and Edwards at. We will follow the recommendations of the Planning Commission and Kevin McGowan with Public Works to inspect our property and make any repairs necessary as recommended. Council, we ask that you deny the appeal and uphold the unanimous approval of our conduct conversion. Thank you for your consideration. I'll now turn it over to Derek Weller, who makes some additional comments on our behalf. Thank you again. |
| 00:34:05.65 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Weller. |
| 00:34:07.42 | Warren Forster (Applicant) | Thank you. |
| 00:34:07.44 | Derek Weller (Applicant's Attorney) | Hi, thank you. Again, Derek Weller. I am a local real estate land use attorney and working with the applicants, my clients, for the last couple of years on this project to convert the duplex into a condominium, which is merely just a change in the method of ownership. There's no physical improvements involved. It's just a change of ownership. So, I just wanted to reiterate a couple of points made by Warren, by City Attorney Mary Wagner. I'm not sure. First of all, I think everyone's in agreement. The city does not have authority to require a maintenance agreement. And also the city does not have the authority for resolving private party disputes over monetary obligations. The city just isn't in the business of doing that. I think that's pretty clear. I'm not sure. As far as the contention that the city does have some kind of authority to impose conditions through this project that covers the entire road and therefore all the owners along that road. When there's a subdivision project before the city like this, the jurisdiction and authority covers the land involved. the other property owners are not party to the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs are the mechanism where those conditions are imposed. CC&Rs are reviewed by the city. They are approved by the city. They're enforceable with respect to maintenance in particular by the city. And they're recorded with the county and run with the land against the property owners. There's nothing in the CC&Rs that covers or involves any other property owners. So there just is not a mechanism through this forum to impose conditions that are applicable to all the property owners, just does not exist. And I'll defer that point to Mary Wagner, the city attorney, if she can confirm that. As far as the the downhill issues with the potential slides I haven't seen any evidence of any imminent or even likely threat of a slide at this point. If there were then there may be a public health issue and the city would have authority to come in and address that issue but it's just not the case here and secondly with that it's off property this is not my client's property. It's someone else's property. And if, and I don't think they are, and I've seen no evidence causing a problem, Um, they could be held accountable for that. And that's why condition seven has been put in place and Mr. B. Allen is gonna come down and look at the property and determine whether that's the case or not. But there's no basis for saying that the neighbor's property landslide on their property is my client's problem because it's not their property they're not causing it amount of time. So with that, |
| 00:36:54.03 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thank you. Yep, thank you, Mr. Weller. Okay. At this point then do we have any questions from the city council? for either the applicant or the appellant or the staff based on these two presentations. Yes, I see the vice mayor has her hand up and then I see Councilmember Sobieski. So go ahead, vice mayor. |
| 00:37:15.70 | Janelle Kellman | Great, thank you very much, Mayor Hoffman. So just a couple of things I want to clarify. Councilor SWS, he'd asked a question about private road agreements. City Attorney had responded. Can the city attorney just confirm High Vista? High Vista is private property, not city property. Thank you. |
| 00:37:32.02 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:37:32.05 | Janelle Kellman | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:37:32.10 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:37:32.22 | Janelle Kellman | I understand |
| 00:37:32.76 | Mary Wagner | Madam Vice Mayor. |
| 00:37:34.06 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you. Yes. Okay. And I see that we have a public works icon up. So I'm hoping that Director McGowan is on. I would love to ask Director McGowan a question. |
| 00:37:47.78 | Mary Wagner | And Madam Mayor, while you're waiting for that, just confirming that you're asking questions of the applicant and the appellant now, and then you're gonna take other public comment? |
| 00:37:56.18 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. Thank you. Well, I was, yeah, I actually opened it up to the applicant, the appellant and staff, and then we'll take public comment after that. I guess, is that okay? Thank you. |
| 00:38:05.72 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, this is all |
| 00:38:05.73 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 00:38:05.97 | Janelle Kellman | This is all. THE PART OF |
| 00:38:06.73 | Mary Wagner | the |
| 00:38:06.97 | Janelle Kellman | you're right. |
| 00:38:07.03 | Mary Wagner | in. |
| 00:38:07.08 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you. |
| 00:38:07.10 | Mary Wagner | that's that's my |
| 00:38:08.32 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:38:08.33 | Janelle Kellman | Okay. So Dr. McGowan, I know you were at the planning commission hearing and you weighed in. Can you just clarify for us, what you see as any potential public safety risk, to the extent that there is some noticeable erosion, is that on private property or is it on city property? And what, if anything, is your department doing around monitoring that area? |
| 00:38:30.45 | Kevin McGowan | Okay, thank you so much for asking. I'm Kevin McGill with Department of Public Works. And what I'm seeing at this point is, well, let me answer your question directly. I don't know the exact position of the property lines themselves. I haven't gone out to see the corner points. However, what I am seeing is down on Edwards, there is some sloughing from the hillside that we've been monitoring for quite a few years. So we're keeping track of that and seeing if that actually continues to move. Now, in response to that, I have met with Mr. Cox in the field, and I believe Mr. Woodside as well. And we've talked about trying to do something with this area of Edwards, and I've reached out to our consultant, who is Miller Pacific, and Pacific and exchange a few emails with them and I'm asking them to go and take a look at this kind of as a third party to see if there is anything that the city needs to keep track of the latest response I've heard back from Miller Pacific is that they're anticipating looking at this from a historical perspective and weighing it with some risk assessment. So in other words, when I hear that, I'm hearing that it's not moving significantly, but it is something to continue to keep our eye on. So we'll get a better report on that a little bit later on. And we can share that with the council as well as in compliance with, I think it's the conditions of approval. |
| 00:39:57.55 | Janelle Kellman | So, Director McGowan, is it possible at this time to clarify whether the potential issue is on city land or on private property. |
| 00:40:09.24 | Kevin McGowan | So I believe that the toe was cut out in order to cut Edwards into place. So it's been there for many years. I think part of it is on city property, part of it is on private property. And this is down below on Edwards. |
| 00:40:24.02 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thanks so much. Okay, I see any other questions from the council at this point? Yeah, oh, sorry, pardon me, council members, so if you ask me, go ahead. |
| 00:40:34.05 | Ian Sobieski | That's okay. And it may not be answerable. I had a similar question to the vice mayor about city-owned property in that area. Comment was made by either the applicant or the other party. concerning work done by Herzog in response to the landslide that identified some city obligation and I wanted some clarification about whether there was not whether we had affirmative knowledge about that situation for us. I know it might be tangential to the narrow decision we're making, That was my question. THEIR HISTORY. So do we? that. |
| 00:41:10.41 | Jill Hoffman | So I, Does staff have a response to that? I see Mr. Forster's hand is up. Mr. Forster, were you wanting to respond to this particular issue? |
| 00:41:20.35 | Warren Forster (Applicant) | I... |
| 00:41:20.89 | Jill Hoffman | You're asking questions kind of hard. |
| 00:41:21.91 | Warren Forster (Applicant) | On the prior issue, I have a diagram that shows where our property line ends and where the city's property begins that I'm happy to put up on the screen. |
| 00:41:31.88 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, well, thank you. Perhaps you could save that until your rebuttal or if the council member will find it helpful now, we can put it up now. |
| 00:41:39.47 | Ian Sobieski | I just have one more question. This one actually was from Mr. Forrester. You say that you're happy to sign a road maintenance agreement and I I was just wondering, If you'd have any objection to just making a commitment to entering into such an agreement, I know it's not a, it may or may not be during this right here, but I'm just curious, It seems like everyone agrees we're going to enter this into the screen and yet here we're were at this issue because there's a disagreement about entering into such an agreement. |
| 00:42:14.62 | Warren Forster (Applicant) | I would have a disagreement with making that a condition of approval. There are several property owners who are not on the call tonight. I think it's important that every property owner on Hivista Road be party to that. agreement so we would all have to agree to those same terms. I'm not sure if we'll ever how long it'll take to get to a point where that will be the case. Um, I'm happy to take a look at it. Like I said in my, when I was speaking earlier, we just received a rough draft of that agreement. I'm not sure. |
| 00:42:56.25 | Janelle Kellman | Amen. |
| 00:42:59.32 | Warren Forster (Applicant) | I think we believe it's in everybody's best interest to have one, but I don't know that, how long it'll take to get to a place where we can all agree and i see uh shazad who's uh also with me uh is raising his hand |
| 00:43:18.07 | Jill Hoffman | So we'll go to Mr. Shahzad, because I believe you're gonna weigh in on this, Mr. Shahzad, to the same question. |
| 00:43:19.49 | Shazza (Applicant) | Thank you. |
| 00:43:23.44 | Shazza (Applicant) | Yeah. I feel like it seems- |
| 00:43:24.08 | Jill Hoffman | I feel like it's... |
| 00:43:24.99 | Janelle Kellman | is, you know, |
| 00:43:25.51 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:43:25.53 | Janelle Kellman | Oh wait, come on. |
| 00:43:26.16 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:43:26.51 | Janelle Kellman | Oh, sorry. |
| 00:43:26.73 | Jill Hoffman | Bye. |
| 00:43:26.75 | Shazza (Applicant) | Thank you. |
| 00:43:26.86 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:43:27.76 | Janelle Kellman | Could I just suggest, I was under the impression that we are not legally able to require that of the applicant in any instance. So could we get confirmation before we have all these folks tell us whether or not they would do that? I just don't, I would not be supportive of that condition. I just would like to hear from city attorney, Mary Wagner, that we're going to have whether we could even make that suggestion. |
| 00:43:51.53 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, go ahead. Good, Justin. Go ahead. |
| 00:43:53.04 | Mary Wagner | who's been here. Thank you, Councilmember Clevenal, members of the council. As indicated previously, I believe that the condition that you have that was approved by the planning commission is the extent that the city |
| 00:43:56.61 | Janelle Kellman | as in |
| 00:44:03.47 | Mary Wagner | can require of this applicant based upon this project. I think the question from Council Member Sobieski was, hey, you've indicated you're gonna do this. Can you make that commitment? And I think that's the extent to which the city can go. I would not recommend it as a condition of approval. |
| 00:44:20.31 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, I think that makes it clear. Mr. Shazada, I believe you were gonna weigh in on that. I think you're gonna have made a thumbs up on that. Yeah, okay. |
| 00:44:27.68 | Shazza (Applicant) | Yeah, I was just weighing in that it seems like we're not for an road maintenance agreement, and we have actually multiple emails saying that we're open to it. |
| 00:44:35.75 | Heidi Scoble | Okay. |
| 00:44:35.90 | Shazza (Applicant) | It also, you know, considering the fact that we are the newest owners here, this road has not had an enrollment agreement for many, many years. And we have not blocked that for so many years, right? It's been there. Like it's a complicated process and it should not be involved in this because it's complicated. And we've actually not said in any way we're against it. We're just, it's just, it's complicated. It takes time to get done. And which is why it's been many years now and there's no road maintenance to do it. And we've just bought the house with the newest- |
| 00:44:53.15 | Steven Woodside (Appellant) | Thank you. |
| 00:45:02.83 | Jill Hoffman | I understood Mr. Stott. I don't think Council Member Sobieski was wanting to go down this particular rabbit hole. I think we all understand we don't have the authority to require agreement as a condition. I think he was just in this forum casually asking that you would indicate that you would agree to that. To the extent that Mr. Weller and Mr. Woodside and Mr. Cox have your hands up, does that encapsulate, that summarize pretty much where we're going where we're at i don't know i don't want to take more of our precious time for an issue that i think is is probably um resolved at this point so Yes. Yeah. |
| 00:45:42.30 | Rob Cox (Appellant) | I agree it's time to move on on this particular issue. I am delighted that Warren Shahzad and team will proceed forth to get road maintenance agreement with their neighbors, that's great. |
| 00:45:53.09 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thank you, thank you. Okay. Um, Very good. I see hands up from our council member Blaustein. I'm looking to say yes, Councilman Glossian, go ahead. |
| 00:46:04.95 | Melissa Blaustein | Great, I'm just wondering, and maybe City Attorney Wagner or perhaps Public Works Director McAllen can help with this question. Is there any precedent whatsoever in our city where there's been a responsibility for shared roadways or where the city has requested responsibility for a shared roadway with the condition for this type of agreement? |
| 00:46:23.61 | Shazza (Applicant) | Thank you. |
| 00:46:30.21 | Mary Wagner | I'm happy to weigh in and then let your public works director weigh in also. I mean the issue has definitely come up before. I can recall particularly up on Cloudview Trail, the portion of Cloudview that's not, public It's also come up in areas of the Marinian, I'm not aware of the city imposing conditions that would extend beyond you know, the type of condition that we're we're recommending to you tonight in connection with those projects. There may have been circumstances long ago when areas were subdivided, but that would not be something that I'm familiar with. |
| 00:47:10.78 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from council members? |
| 00:47:15.76 | Mary Wagner | And if I may, Madam Mayor, it may be appropriate for you guys to take the rest of the public comment, give the applicant and the appellant their rebuttal time to make the comments that they have their hands raised for. and then close the public hearing |
| 00:47:28.67 | Jill Hoffman | That's fine. I have one question though. with regard to this agreement, that Mr. Forster referenced with the prior homeowner, the owner of the property, about the cost of the retaining wall. The retaining wall would not be assessed against his property. Is there any dispute among the parties that that agreement exists? |
| 00:47:54.16 | Rob Cox (Appellant) | That agreement did exist. It has been terminated. It's no further force in effect and we are Uh... I think this is an issue for a different form. |
| 00:48:04.98 | Jill Hoffman | Got it. OK, very good. Thank you so much for that. Okay. Okay, so then at this point, I will open up a public comment. on this matter? this one matter on our special meeting agenda? |
| 00:48:19.66 | Shazza (Applicant) | All right. |
| 00:48:22.50 | Jill Hoffman | Um, Mr. Clerk, I don't see any public hands up. I see hands up from the appellants. Do you see any public hand? |
| 00:48:33.21 | Heidi Scoble | That is correct, Madam Mayor. I see no other hands raised. |
| 00:48:36.74 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thank you. In that case, I'll close public comment, and then we will go to five minute rebuttal for each side. And, um, I believe we go to five minute rebuttal first to the appellant and then the applicant, Mary, is that the right order? Yes, thank you. Yeah, okay. So go ahead, Appellant, you have five minutes. |
| 00:48:55.07 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you. |
| 00:49:01.19 | Rob Cox (Appellant) | I'm sorry, Steven Woodside, I think, was going to speak to this. |
| 00:49:05.87 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, very good. Mr. Woods, there you go. We can, I think you're off mute, but we still can't see you if you would like to put your Camer on. |
| 00:49:16.26 | Steven Woodside (Appellant) | I've been trying to put my camera on and raise my hand for 10 minutes. I wanted to. |
| 00:49:22.12 | Lucinda Eubanks (Appellant) | There you go. |
| 00:49:22.69 | Steven Woodside (Appellant) | I wanted to respond to the first question by Mr. Sobieski. concerning the property on the downslope And I wanted to let you know that Mr. Cox has all the detail on that. And we would request leave to answer that question in writing if necessary. Secondly, as to the earlier assertions that Mr. Hontalis or Mr. Cox somehow gouged the road, As far as I know, that's not true. And I'm quite sure Mr. Cox would be happy to enter into a declaration under penalty of perjury, that he's done no damage to the slide that took place there, that required the wall to be constructed. It's very upsetting to have to respond to this or that, and I'm sure you're not happy to have us going back and forth on the facts, the disputed facts. I thought I'd made it clear at the beginning that we were no longer requesting some sort of order that there be. a road maintenance agreement. our point from the beginning. has been that this entire road is a matter of grave for the safety of not only the neighbors here, not only Mr. Forrester and his children, or Shahzad and his children. but for everybody in Sausalito. This is no laughing matter. This is no matter that you should rely on based on hearsay that you heard earlier. I know there are three lawyers on the panel, and if I had been in court, I would have objected. I'm sorry to to be as emotional as I am. but it is very troubling. It is very troubling. that the matters of public safety take a back burner. to what is not. a simple cookie cutter condominium conversion where you check the boxes. That's not what we should be doing today. We should be looking closely at the two conditions that I think we all agree are appropriate to have conditions on those two areas of concern. But I hope you agree that when you look at them, they don't go far enough to protect the city of Sausalito and its residents and anyone visiting here. I understand that others have I'm not sure. submitted some up. Emails today on this topic including a former member, a geotech, member of the landslide task force who is urging you to take this more seriously, and, in all of the inquiries that are going to be made and all of the analyses that are going to be made and all of the recommendations, you've got to put these up for public review so that we all have a fair chance to comment and weigh in. We're not telling you what the final outcome is going to be. We probably don't know enough today to say Is that hillside going to slide? Certainly Mr. Herzog said, you know, what, how many years ago? uh, It's a problem. You need to address it. And it's been sliding ever since. Don't wait. for another Sausalito Boulevard. to come down. Don't wait. don't look at this as just a little sloughing off from time to time that we can cart away the debris. You can see the hillside behind Rob right now. That's what it looks like now. Those trees are not on city property. Those trees are on the property in question. If they come down, Who's going to be responsible? Let's all be realistic here. There's a lot of potential liability if we don't get this straight. There's a lot of potential for people getting injured. There's a lot of potential for people losing their way in the time of fire or not being able to get out. And that's true for everybody. That's true for everybody. It's not just us. So, you know, this is not a matter of a, you know, a neighborhood dispute over payment for the wall. That's what triggered some of this and grew our attention to the fact. that we have conditions here that seem to look at this as a purely private matter. when the public interest is so so clearly at stake. public health and safety should not be swept under the rug should not be let to slip down the hill. Thank you. |
| 00:54:01.80 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Very good. The applicants may have your five minutes. |
| 00:54:11.72 | Jill Hoffman | I believe Mr. Weller is trying to get his you UNMUTED. |
| 00:54:18.09 | Derek Weller (Applicant's Attorney) | Thank you. Again, just thank you to all the council members, Madam Mayor, Mary Wagner, Jeffrey for your time, the rest of the staff. Um, I don't think there's anybody on this call right now that doesn't share Mr. Woodside's concerns about potential risks or potential public safety issues. Um, But what's really being raised here is maintenance of a private road. And that just simply is not a public matter. That is a private matter amongst the private lot owners. If there's a maintenance agreement in place, there's a lot of benefits to that. As a land use real estate lawyer, I can attest, a maintenance agreement does have benefits. I would never recommend my clients to agree to enter into an agreement without knowing what it says ahead of time. So I would not recommend that commitment here today. But as far as looking at what an agreement says, and it's fair, and it's something everyone can live with, I think that's actually a good path forward. But the reality of the matter is if there's not maintenance agreement in place, there are civil code provisions in place today that cover this exact situation. Civil Code 645 says, All people who share in a private roadway have a shared obligation to maintain and a proportion obligation to pay. for that maintenance that doesn't cover maintenance created by you know, issues created by other neighbors, but let's put that aside as Stephen said. So, But what it does say in that code is that if there is a dispute, there is a specific arbitration procedure in the civil code for handling it. So That's the proper forum, not here. I'm not sure. to ask that the city council somehow can impose conditions on the entire roadway, is asking the city council to impose conditions on every owner along the roadway. most of which are not even on this Zoom. or at least some of which. And you don't have authority to do that. And the CC&Rs are the mechanism to require maintenance of the applicants for their property. I'm not sure. And no one else except for the applicants are subject to the CCR, it runs with their land, not anyone else's. So as far as imposing conditions on the entire roadway, It's just not feasible legally or even practically. in this forum. It's a different forum. And frankly, I agree the proper and best forum is for the parties to privately agree to a roadway maintenance agreement if they can reach agreement. This point that hasn't happened. Unfortunately, my understanding is other neighbors not on this who are not in agreement of doing so. So I don't know if it'll ever happen. I don't know who that is or if that's but as far as it stands right now we don't have unanimous agreement amongst all the neighbors period that doesn't exist So, Um, that's just not possible in this forum to put conditions on the entire roadway. As far as the potential landslide, there's a report from 20 years ago that says you should look at it, keep an eye on it, could be a problem in the future. Mr. McGowan just said, that's exactly what the city is doing. He did say the toes down on public land, uh... that's not the applicant's private land, that's the private land below them, as I understand. It's not their problem. So, you know, if it's their problem condition seven says city's going to come out look at it see if the applicants are creating a problem have a problem And if they do, It'll get addressed. I don't see that there's any other steps that the city could reasonably take to address these issues, except to step outside their jurisdiction, step outside their authority, and somehow take a global picture that in connection with this conduit conversion they're going to solve all the problems of the immediate neighborhood around them. It's outside the scope, it's outside authority, THE FAMILY IS It's just not the correct. I'm not sure. or approach for resolving these issues. I understand there's been disputes in the past, I understand there might be some frustration, I, none of you should even be on this Zoom being involved in those issues. These are purely issues amongst private parties. As far as the landslide goes, and it becomes a city issue, it's being watched. If there's really a problem and there's no evidence of any imminent or even likely, So we're going to have to go ahead and talk than they'll deal with it. But as far as requiring my clients to take care of the problem for everybody else, I don't think that's fair. were allowable quite frankly. I'll leave it at that. |
| 00:59:15.88 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Okay, based on those comments, do any council members have questions for the appellants or the applicant or any other follow-up questions? And if not, then we'll move on to our discussion, but I wanted to get further questions. Or Ms. Wagner, do you have a... You look like you may be wanting to say something. |
| 00:59:38.81 | Mary Wagner | I just want to make sure I'm available for questions. If there aren't any council questions, I would recommend you close. the public hearing and then move to council comments and discussion. |
| 00:59:49.19 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thanks very much. |
| 00:59:51.47 | Mary Wagner | Um, |
| 00:59:51.49 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. Thank you. Okay, is there any further questions by council members based on anything at this point. before we move to our discussion, before I close the hearing and move on to discussion. Okay. |
| 01:00:06.47 | Janelle Kellman | Mayor Hoffman, did you take public comment from the non |
| 01:00:09.95 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. yes i did there was no public comment |
| 01:00:11.57 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you. And then there was a lot of So, |
| 01:00:13.04 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, sorry, I thought I saw him. uh, Okay. All right, then if there's no further questions by council members, then I will close the public hearing and I'll move us into our discussion. |
| 01:00:16.87 | Janelle Kellman | and then eventually, |
| 01:00:23.26 | Jill Hoffman | portion, who would like to kick us off? |
| 01:00:26.01 | Janelle Kellman | I can start unless you want to, Madam Mayor. |
| 01:00:27.77 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. No, go ahead. No, happy for you to start. |
| 01:00:32.71 | Janelle Kellman | Yeah, so I just want to thank everyone for being here today. And I can definitely tell there's a lot of emotion and concern for the public safety and the stability of our hillsides in Sassolito. And I just want to acknowledge that the council places a high priority on that issue as well. And we've been working with our land side task force and looking for funding to address this issue on a citywide basis. So I agree with all of the concerns and the thoughts on that issue. But in terms of this particular situation. I do agree that this is a private roadway and the obligations for maintenance and public safety on the roadway lie would be easement, reciprocal, these mint folders. Um, And, you know, as has been mentioned, they can, um, organize themselves either through a maintenance, the roadway maintenance agreement or through the provisions of the civil code. I'm not sure. I think really the issue in front of us today is a condominium conversion of a duplex into two our souls. And at least from what I've heard today, I don't see that the change in ownership has any impact on either existing or potential safety issues in and of itself. So I reviewed the planning commission discussion. I wanna thank the planning commissioners for their time on this. I've reviewed the resolution. I can make the findings under the condominium conversion ordinance and the subdivision math act. and I would suggest that we deny the appeal. and uphold the condominium conversion, but of course I'm open to hearing what other council members Have to say. |
| 01:02:20.26 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Who wants to go next? right Thank you. I'll go ahead. Okay, Vice Mayor, you're welcome to go. |
| 01:02:28.15 | Janelle Kellman | Sure, thank you, Mayor Hoffman. I will just simply agree with Council Member Cleveland Knowles on a couple of things. So I think this is very emotional as well. I think public safety disaster preparedness is an absolute priority for this community and this council. We do have a robust landslide task force list of recommendations. I know that our city manager is committed to working with the council and the community to follow through on those. So I just want to say on the record, I did not take this lightly. I do not think this is something to ignore. I do not want to push it off. My main sort of fact pattern here that leads me to deny the appeal is that there's no change in site conditions here. If we were removing trees, we were creating some type of soil movement, we were doing something different. I do think it would be an opportunity to look at this again and learn more closely. But what I think this has done and rightfully so, has brought it back to the attention of the public works to the council, to the city manager. And I think that's a really good outcome of this. Um, but because this is a condominium conversion is basically, a legal paper transaction and there'll be no new groundwork, nothing changing on the site, I think we need to stick to the merits of the conversion Um, and I support what a council member, Cleveland, the, |
| 01:03:50.96 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, I'll go next if unless Councilmember Sobieski or Councilmember Blaustin want to go. I'm happy to go next. Okay, so I would tend to, I do agree with Council Member Cleve-Knowles and the Vice Mayor. I think that the evidence before us is that there were reports on the condition of the land at issue here that it was an acceptable condition and that it didn't pose an imminent threat and that there were no code violations. |
| 01:04:14.53 | Shazza (Applicant) | IT WAS A LITTLE BIT. |
| 01:04:21.11 | Jill Hoffman | that the condition seven from the planning commission requires the city to conduct a review of the property to identify any drainage and erosion impacts that may be causing erosion to the slope |
| 01:04:28.98 | Shazza (Applicant) | erosion. |
| 01:04:32.45 | Jill Hoffman | below the reference property that affects Edwards Avenue and mandates repairs. So I think that's sufficient with regard to the evidence that we have before us. I was a chair of the landslide task force. So I'm very focused on these issues and I'm not sure. I'm very interested in all of the issues that were raised today by the neighbors in that neighborhood. I'm very happy that they all, everybody on this call seems to be in agreement. Thanks to council member Sobieski's question that, that they will have a an agreement with regard to maintenance of the road. And so, um, You know, I would I would hope that everybody moves forward in good faith with regard to those representations that are made not just here, but also, I believe, at the Planning Commission. they were made. So I'm also ready to make the findings to approve the tentative minor subdivision map and condominium conversion permit and I'm ready to support a resolution as set forth in the staff report and attachments so Okay. either council member sobieski or councilor glasstein |
| 01:05:35.06 | Ian Sobieski | I was just going to say I am not a lawyer as you all know but I spoke with our city attorney today |
| 01:05:35.13 | Jill Hoffman | I'm sorry. |
| 01:05:44.14 | Ian Sobieski | exploring every about whether we had any authority to require this, because I feel like, It's just a decent thing to do up there to have a road sharing maintenance agreement among the private parties. But, uh, She tells us that we have no authority My three colleagues who are all attorneys say we have no authority. The Planning Commission unanimously says we shouldn't do it. I'm certainly not going to disagree with everyone else. But my understanding is if we did, condition it we'd act from our city attorney my understanding is we'd actually incur city liability we could be sued and have to defend that position So we'd actually incur but I am pleased that of, Mr. Forster, indicated that He's disposed to sign a Road maintenance agreement and I'm disappointed to hear there are other parties that might not. And I'm really even more disappointed to hear so much contention over something that seems so straightforward. So I just hope that after this, the parties can maybe clear the air or erase the past and start anew and just get a road service agreement done. work with. It's just the right thing to do. Thank you. |
| 01:06:59.28 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Councilman Blastings. |
| 01:07:01.92 | Melissa Blaustein | Right, thank you. And I also tend to go after my colleagues who are attorneys on issues like this and very much appreciate and agree with your expertise and the perspective that you bring to the conversation. I really want to thank everyone on staff and also everyone from both the appealing and claim sides who are equally passionate about public safety as an issue in our community. I think it's really valuable that we're having this conversation about landslides and about what that's and that we are thinking about what needs to be done and that we're considering the recommendations much more seriously of the landslide task force and how we can |
| 01:07:31.40 | Shazza (Applicant) | Thank you. |
| 01:07:36.88 | Melissa Blaustein | execute on those sooner rather than later, which is really critical. And I also want to thank the neighbors who did bring up the issues of fire safety on the road and how critical the conditions that we face in our community with the GGNRA so close and how we would potentially get fire trucks up the road. But as Councilmember Sobieski pointed out, as much as it might make sense to suggest that there would be some sort of requirement for a shared agreement on the road, it's just not within our jurisdiction as a city to recommend something like that. But I'm happy to hear that the neighbors have all said that they would be willing to work towards the shared services agreement on the road. And so I would agree with that. |
| 01:07:46.45 | Shazza (Applicant) | you know, |
| 01:07:55.07 | Shazza (Applicant) | Thank you. |
| 01:08:17.84 | Melissa Blaustein | what all of my colleagues have suggested and just hope very much that the neighbors can come together to create an agreement on improving the road and keeping it safe and accessible for everyone. |
| 01:08:30.51 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thank you. Okay, so I think we're ready to make a motion. Someone would like to make a motion adopting the resolution of the city council and the city of Sausalito denying an appeal and upholding the decision of the Planning Commission and approving a tentative minor subdivision map and condominium conversion permit at 2019 dash zero zero zero eight zero to convert an existing duplex at 195 197 high vista road into it into two single family condominium units i would be willing to entertain that motion. So moved. or second? Second. Mr. Clerk, could you please call the roll? |
| 01:09:14.64 | Heidi Scoble | Councilmember Sobieski. Yes. Councilmember Blasdene? Council Member Clever-Leghan-Holm. |
| 01:09:23.26 | Janelle Kellman | Yes. |
| 01:09:23.65 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:09:24.46 | Heidi Scoble | Vice Mayor Kellman. |
| 01:09:25.79 | Janelle Kellman | THE END OF THE |
| 01:09:26.00 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 01:09:26.10 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you. |
| 01:09:26.11 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. Mayor Hoffman. |
| 01:09:28.83 | Jill Hoffman | Yes, the motion passes five zero. Thank you to all of our staff, to the appellants and to the applicants for everyone's hard work on this and to my fellow city council members. These appeals are never easy for us, I'm sure you understand. So thank you to everybody for your hard work. Okay, at this point, We will adjourn our city council meeting begins afresh. We're closed session at 6 p.m. and our open session is at seven. So thanks very much. Thanks, everybody. |
| 01:09:56.27 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you. |
Rob Cox — Against: Appellant described High Vista Road as the only access for 16 homes, highlighting historical landslide issues and a 1996 geotechnical report indicating ongoing instability. Noted that applicants did not contribute to a retaining wall built in 2019 and argued condition #7 does not go far enough to address slope safety. ▶ 📄
Maggie (last name not provided) — Against: Appellant shared a personal experience of a 2018 electrical fire, stressing that a landslide blocking High Vista or Marion roads would impede emergency vehicle access to the GGNRA, making this a critical public safety issue for all of Sausalito. ▶ 📄
Lucinda Eubanks — Against: Appellant, drawing on experience with private roads in hurricanes, stated she has invested in firebreak maintenance and the retaining wall but claimed the applicants have not met their legal obligations. Warned that a landslide could block emergency access during a fire, endangering the broader community. ▶ 📄
Warren Forster — In Favor: Applicant explained the background of the condo conversion with co-owners. Contended the appeal stems from a dispute over a retaining wall cost agreement he believes neighbors are trying to renege on. Asserted they are open to a road maintenance agreement but objected to it as a condition of approval, noting civil code provisions govern private road maintenance. ▶ 📄
Derek Weller — In Favor: Applicant's attorney reiterated the city lacks authority to require a maintenance agreement or resolve private monetary disputes. Argued CC&Rs only bind the applicants, not other property owners, and that condition #7 appropriately addresses any erosion issues caused by the applicants' property. ▶ 📄