| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:07.91 | Heidi Scoble | Good afternoon, Madam Mayor and council members. This meeting has been held pursuant to government code section 54953E. And in light of the declared state of emergency, the special meeting of the city council for November 17th, 2021, will be conducted telephonically through Zoom and broadcast live on the city's website and on cable TV channel 27. |
| 00:00:32.31 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you, Mr. Clerk, good evening and welcome to the special council meeting. for the City Council of Sausalito. And Mr. Clerk, could you please call the roll? |
| 00:00:43.87 | Heidi Scoble | Council member Sobieski. |
| 00:00:45.16 | Jill Hoffman | here. |
| 00:00:46.13 | Heidi Scoble | Council member Blavstein. |
| 00:00:48.12 | Ian Sobieski | here. |
| 00:00:49.04 | Heidi Scoble | Council member Cleveland Knowles. |
| 00:00:51.16 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 00:00:54.17 | Heidi Scoble | Vice Mayor Kilman. |
| 00:00:56.41 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 00:00:56.43 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 00:00:57.17 | Heidi Scoble | Mayor Hoffman. |
| 00:00:58.69 | Jill Hoffman | here, all members are present and we have a quorum. We have one issue on our agenda for this special meeting and that's a public hearing item. And that's an appeal of planning commission decision Approving a design review permit with heightened design review. Um, Can I please have a motion to approve the agenda? So moved. Check out. I'll say again. Thank you. Mr. Crook, could you please call the roll? |
| 00:01:29.37 | Heidi Scoble | Council member Sobieski. Council member of Loestein. |
| 00:01:33.30 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 00:01:34.19 | Heidi Scoble | Council Member Gliblet-Knowles. |
| 00:01:35.90 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 00:01:36.64 | Heidi Scoble | Vice Mayor Kelman? |
| 00:01:37.99 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 00:01:38.67 | Heidi Scoble | Mayor Hoffman. |
| 00:01:40.28 | Jill Hoffman | Uh, Yeah. Thank you. Motion passes unanimously. The agenda title, is the appeal of a planning commission decision approving a design review permit with heightened design review conditional use permit minor use permit sign permit tentative parcel map encroachment agreement and variance for the demolition of an existing mixed use building and the construction of a new 4,948 foot building. square foot Oh, sorry, 409,048 square foot mixed use building at 7 19 through 725 Bridgeway, the Langston Building Replacement Project. City Council, this is generally how we will proceed. City Council members will provide our ex-party communications, staff will do a presentation, Appellate will provide up to a 10 minute presentation and be allocated five minutes for rebuttal after public comment. The project applicant will provide up to a 10 minute presentation and will be allocated five minutes for rebuttal after public comment um, And at this time I would ask for any ex-party communications by the council members any of the parties in this case. |
| 00:02:53.98 | Jeffrey Graham | Thank you. |
| 00:02:54.03 | Jill Hoffman | done. |
| 00:02:56.14 | Ian Sobieski | I have none. |
| 00:02:59.73 | Jill Hoffman | I have none. I have none. Council Member Blassing? I have none. Okay. Thank you. At this point then I will introduce the contract staff planner, Jeffrey Graham. interim associate planner and request that you begin the presentation. Mr. Graham. |
| 00:03:17.37 | Jeffrey Graham | I will share my screen. |
| 00:03:34.18 | Jeffrey Graham | Okay, can everybody see okay? |
| 00:03:37.97 | Jill Hoffman | Yes, I can see and hear you. |
| 00:03:41.23 | Jeffrey Graham | Excellent, excellent. All right, good evening, everyone. Tonight's presentation is for The appeal of a planning commission decision, approving a design review permit conditional use permit, minor use permit, signed permit, tentative parcel map, variance, tree removal permit, and encroachment permit. at 719-3725. Bridgeway, also known as the Langston Building Replacement Project. The project is located on on Bridgeway has a designated, general plan. Designation of Central Commercial. and it has a zoning designation have central commercial within the historic our downtown area. Um, the uh, requests. that the of the project are in front of you here. |
| 00:04:43.19 | Jeffrey Graham | And also these. Thank you. |
| 00:04:50.30 | Jeffrey Graham | Just to give a quick background regarding the project, the application was first submitted on December 17th of 2017. Um, Subsequently, the project was taken to the Historic Preservation Commission for and determined Uh, where it was granted a certificate of appropriateness for the project. Following that, Um, It was taken to Planning Commission on March 3rd, 2021. where it was heard in front of the Planning Commission Um, Various issues were raised by the Planning Commission, which are outlined in the staff report, and it was continued. It was heard again by the Planning Commission on September 22nd. And ultimately the planning commission voted five to zero. to approve the application. applicants request for the entitlements. to demolish and replace the building. Shortly thereafter, on September 31st, a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was filed by Sharon Khan neighbor of the Langston project at 1014 Excelsior Lane. The issues raised are regarding the issues of the slope stability condition that is outlined in the staff report. The following slides will contain the grounds for appeal. and staff's responses to each one of those grounds for appeal. There are seven in total. |
| 00:06:23.85 | Jeffrey Graham | Route number one. There's a known site stability hazard at the project site. staffs responses that's Staff acknowledges the past instances and future risks of raveling of the slope as identified in the 2018 and 2020 middle Pacific correspondence to the city. |
| 00:06:46.92 | Jeffrey Graham | Ground number two, the negative declaration for the project inexplicably fails to acknowledge or address the existing site So I'll or stability issues at the project site. Our staff's response is, it is important to note that the California Supreme Court made clear in its decision in the California Building Industry Association versus Bay Area. Air quality. management district. CEQA does not require lead agencies to analyze potential impacts from existing hazards on a proposed project or to require mitigation measures of projects where the proposed project would not cause or exacerbate and existing hazards. I'm not sure. The preparer of the project's initial, Initial study, negative declaration. mitigating next Nick. mitigated negative declarations submitted a letter to the city responding to the assumptions, assertions made by the appellant. HIDING THAT THE The assessment of the Con Appeal is that its assertions are limited. to existing conditions and how Those existing conditions could affect the project and or surrounding properties. The appellant does not present arguments that the project itself would cause or exacerbate any of these existing conditions. Therefore, the issues that are raised in the con appeal are not a matter pertaining to CEQA and do not raise any valid questions of the legitimacy legitimacy of the initial study and mitigated negative declaration. So, These issues are further explored and examined in the staff report. |
| 00:08:27.11 | Jeffrey Graham | Round number three, the hazardous site conditions were clearly caused by excavation of the project site. The existing structure at 719 through 725 bridgeway was constructed many years ago. The questions raised about slope stability and connection with the current project that was before the planning commission and now the city council on appeal. is not one of causation, but rather whether the proposed project is compliant with the current municipal codes and regulations for development, within Sausalito. and if all requisite findings can be made for approval. The planning commission found that the findings could be made and that the conditions of approval related to slope stability, Address. concerns related to the project. |
| 00:09:13.99 | Jeffrey Graham | Round number four, the applicant does not intend to stabilize the hillside and mitigate the hazard. Um, The staff's response is a condition of approval. Number 53 requires that the applicant pursue one of two alternatives to address stuff. sloughing from the adjacent property. The final recommended conditions are the extent to which the city can regulate stabilization of the slope. has required by the municipal code and state law. Further, from a risk management standpoint, It is important that the revised final condition are the final conditions. applicable to the alternative approach Do not prescribe a certain solution, but instead require the applicant to develop plans. to stabilize the slope on their own property which the city may use discretion to require a third party review. Furthermore, regarding maintenance, the city cannot mandate that the applicant in perpetuity clear debris on property they may not own. The city has included in the condition some encouragement for the applicant to work with the adjacent property owners to develop a maintenance agreement to remove material that may fall against the structure constructed with the alternative approach. Staff has provided a, a copy of the condition of approval within the staff report. |
| 00:10:39.70 | Jeffrey Graham | Ground number five, failure to require mitigation as part of the project will result in an unsolvable problem. Staff responses, condition of approval number 53 requires that the hillside be stabilized either through the collaborative approach or alternative approach. The city cannot require the applicant to construct improvements on another property. In addition, it is important to note that the final appropriate solution for stabilizing the hillside has not been determined. and will be determined during the building permit process. Regarding the alternative approach, the applicant is required to develop the hillside stabilization improvement plans for their own property and submit them for review and approval by the city or a third party geotechnical engineering firm and or structural engineering firm of the city's choosing. Ground number six, condition 53 does not require the applicant to maintain their slight stability improvements. The alternative approach requires the applicant to perform slope stabilization measures only within the boundaries of its subject property. project. Um, As previously mentioned, the city can't mandate that the applicant in perpetuity in perpetuity, clear debris is on property they may not own. The city has included in the conditions, some encouragement for the applicant to work with the adjacent property owner to develop a maintenance agreement. to remove material that may fall against the structure constructed in the future. And ground number seven. Condition 53 provides no protection for delay or failure to complete the project. I'm not sure. There are a number of measures in place to protect against abandonment of a project mid-construction, Condition of approval number 53B outlines the alternative approach and requires the applicant to incorporate the stabilization improvement plan into the construction drawings. for the improvements associated with the approved design review permit. or submit a standalone application for the stabilization improvement plan concurrent. with an application for a building permit for the improvements associated with the approved design review permit. In addition, condition of approval number 23 was imposed by the planning commission and their approval of the project to ensure that demolition permits would not be issued until all building permits are issued. And finally, once the building permit is pulled, The applicant will be subject to the time limits and penalties of the Sausalito Municipal Code section 10.5. Um, 5-4 point 100 |
| 00:13:21.58 | Jeffrey Graham | Ultimately staff recommends that the city council approve the draft resolution that denies the appeal and upholds the decision of the planning commission. and the the Alternatives are provided in the slide in front of you. |
| 00:13:45.05 | Jeffrey Graham | And this concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have for me. Thank you very much. |
| 00:13:51.56 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you, Mr. Graham. That was an excellent presentation. |
| 00:13:52.41 | Jeffrey Graham | I'm sorry. |
| 00:13:55.17 | Jill Hoffman | Do we have any questions from the council members before we move on to... the presentations from the teams. |
| 00:14:03.24 | Janelle Kellman | Mayor Hoffman, I have one question for Mr. Graham. Nice to see you. Welcome to Sausalito. Quick question for you on some of the slides, as you were explaining the staff response, most of the response had to do with |
| 00:14:07.95 | Jill Hoffman | I don't know. |
| 00:14:16.91 | Janelle Kellman | measures that required during the building permit issuance process. Is there any risk during demolition? from a geotechnical standpoint, is there a risk that when that building is removed that the conditions will be exacerbated |
| 00:14:34.33 | Jeffrey Graham | I would like to... to see if these city engineers available for that? answer that question. |
| 00:14:44.89 | Jill Hoffman | I see Mr. McCown there, there you go. Good evening, members of the council. |
| 00:14:49.02 | Kevin McGowan | It's been such a short time since I've seen it. |
| 00:14:49.72 | Jill Hoffman | I'm going to go. Thank you. |
| 00:14:52.28 | Kevin McGowan | So to answer the vice mayor's question, it would depend upon what methods they decide to utilize for the demolition itself. Obviously, if they use a wrecking ball or something that causes a lot of vibration, that could be an issue. But I kind of doubt it in this case. I think that in this case, it should be the standard construction type of approach where demolition should take place with smaller equipment and not present a huge vibration to adjacent buildings. |
| 00:15:22.74 | Janelle Kellman | And thank you for that, Director McGowan. And so when that building is demolished, Is there a moment in time where the slope stability is impacted and there's no building and also no preventative geotechnical measures. |
| 00:15:39.38 | Kevin McGowan | It's my understanding that the slope behind this building, let me back up. So at this point in time, it's my understanding that the building doesn't support the slope behind it. It's simply the two touch together. So if you remove the building, it shouldn't impact the slope behind it itself. So, That's my understanding at this point, that it should not be an issue. |
| 00:16:05.13 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you. |
| 00:16:05.15 | Heidi Scoble | Okay. |
| 00:16:05.43 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you. |
| 00:16:06.01 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you very much. And vice mayor Kalman and members of the city council, if I can also add, um, prior to any demolition of the building, it will, the project will need to be reviewed for compliance with the building codes. And there will be a requirement for a demolition plan and a construction management plan. So the city's plan examiners will be looking at that and identify the provisions that are necessary during the entire construction process from demolition to completion. |
| 00:16:34.32 | Janelle Kellman | Great, thank you. |
| 00:16:34.36 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:16:34.37 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 00:16:34.69 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:16:35.44 | Janelle Kellman | Yeah, and so that wouldn't necessarily mean should there be a rain event in the forecast. um, that the city could, advise the applicant to not proceed. |
| 00:16:45.93 | Heidi Scoble | Yes well as part of the building permit construction plan there will be a stormwater prevention pollution plan and also an erosion control mitigation plan. So all those measures will be in place and those inspections are ongoing so if there is a rain event forecasted then the city's inspectors will go out there to look at the site, identify what's necessary to address the erosion control or drainage related to it. |
| 00:17:11.26 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Okay, thank you. Council Member Blaustein, go ahead. |
| 00:17:15.90 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah, thank you, Mr. Graham. Welcome to Sausalito. Great to have you with us. It's exciting. First time we're getting to know you. I had a question about the timeline to stabilize the slope because you had mentioned that it has to be a collaborative agreement. Is there any deadlines around that or did they just get to kind of arbitrarily work together to find a way to stabilize the slope. I think this was on, appeals section four. |
| 00:17:41.55 | Jeffrey Graham | Right. There isn't a deadline. There's also a collaborative approach and there's an alternative approach. So if the collaborative approach isn't reached between the property owners, of the hillside, then the alternative approach can be taken. |
| 00:17:58.71 | Heidi Scoble | And if I can jump in as well. So the conditions of approval also include expiration time periods. So if this project gets approved, the applicant owner has two years to vest the project. So within that two year period, the applicant needs to demonstrate conformance with that condition of approval and reach out and work with the neighbor and has that narrative alternatives to pursue. If for whatever reason there is an agreement that can be reached, then the project would have to go back to the hearing body to receive an extension from the time for it. |
| 00:18:33.04 | Melissa Blaustein | approval. |
| 00:18:33.60 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 00:18:34.62 | Melissa Blaustein | So technically there is in some ways a two year timeline because if they reach an agreement, okay. |
| 00:18:37.83 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. Yeah, and I'd also like to add that, historically there's kind of been a moratorium for lack of a better word, during the rainy season. So typically from October to March, The city typically wouldn't issue a demolition permit and for the new construction of the building, unless the applicant can demonstrate that there are sufficient erosion mitigation measures involved. But if the council wants to ensure that there wouldn't be any impacts to the hillside related to the demolition period during that rainy season, you could put a hard and fast condition of approval to restrict the demolition during that rainy season. |
| 00:19:20.96 | Melissa Blaustein | Great, thanks for that clarification. I really appreciate it. |
| 00:19:24.61 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thank you. Any other questions from the council members before we move on to the appellants team? see no hands or indication for questions we will then move on to the appellants team for their presentation They have 10 minutes allotted. |
| 00:19:51.20 | Robert Kahn | Hi, thank you for your time this evening and thank you to city staff My name is Robert Kahn and I'm here on behalf of my mother who lives at the property directly uphill from the project site. Um, We're appealing project because the conditions of approval failed to adequately address soil stability hazards. from the seeps on the Langston building The Lingsham property is located at the bottom of a hill, and when it was originally built, they excavated into the hill. The cross section on the screen in front of you is from the project plans and it provides a great visual of what it means when we say the hillside was cut into. So you can see this sharp vertical cut. The only purpose of this excavation was to enable the development of the property. It didn't benefit anyone else. And over time, what happens when you do that to a hillside without taking adequate precautions is that the lack of downhill support to the soil above leads to the slope getting steeper and steeper over time. And now it's gotten to the point where we've had two incidents of sliding in the last five years. The city's geotechnical engineer wrote a letter to the city stating that this is exactly what they believe has caused the steep slope behind the links and buildings. Now the Langston property wasn't the only one that cut into the hillside to develop their parcel on bridgeway. On the screen here are three properties from left to right Del Monte Apartments, Wells Fargo Bank, and the links in property. All three cut into the hillside to make their developments. And you might ask how do those other properties address the exact same problem? Well, the Del Monte Apartments built this wall, which I believe is a shock create wall. and Wells Fargo built. this retaining wall. Both properties acted responsibly to address the problem that they created by excavating into the hillside. This is what the hillside behind the Langston property looks like today. The photo on the left shows the steepness, which is near vertical, And the photo on the right gives a sense for the height. which is 40 to 50 feet of dirt. In February of 2017, the project sponsor emailed us to say that there had been a mudslide they're very concerned about their tenants living in the building and plan to evacuate My mother called the geotechnical engineer. who helped with some short-term mitigation solutions that we could do on our side of the hill We were told that a comprehensive long-term fix should really start at the bottom of the hill on the Langston property. Two years later in February 2019, The project sponsor informed us of a second slide and acknowledge that a long-term solution was needed. What would a long-term solution look like We have two examples right next door. It could be a shock crete wall like at the Del Monte, or retaining wall like at Wells Fargo And the city's geotechnical engineer identified an option called a TecoMesh. And what we're asking the city to do is to ensure that a comprehensive and effective solution will be part of this project that's going to fully stabilize the hillside in order to protect the health and safety of their occupants and the neighboring properties. The original conditions of approval for the project drafted by city staff seem to be trying to accomplish that. It called for the sponsor to stabilize the hillside under one of two paths, a collaborative approach where we could work together with the sponsor on a solution that would span both properties, such as a shotcrete wall, And if we weren't able to work together, there was an alternative approach that they could do on just their own parcel. And that could be accomplished with a retaining wall. These original conditions were not perfect. But they did do two things. First, they strongly implied that under the alternative approach, the solution was a retaining wall that would act as a soil barrier. And second, at the start of the process, it was required that the city's geotechnical engineer sign off on a plan that would in fact stabilize the hillside. At the planning commission meeting in March, two commissioners actually went out of their way to express concerns that the project sponsor was trying to put the onus of solving this problem on the uphill neighbor to fix a problem that the downhill property created. Two commissioners also noted that the draft conditions seemed reasonable as written. What ended up happening was that the sponsor asked for the project to be continued and then spent over six months lobbying city staff to try to water down the language in the original conditions of approval. And they were successful in doing so. In the final language for the alternative approach, They've removed the retaining wall language and replaced it with this vague language about performing some slope stabilization work. That is a wide open door, which literally just about anything could qualify for. GON also is the requirement that the city's geotechnical engineer Sign off. that what they build will in fact stabilize the hillside. The city here has an option to have their engineer review the documents. But review them for what exactly? There's no criteria here. In the staff report for this appeal, they described the alternative approach but they appear to be referring to the original draft conditions. because they say that the alternative approach requires a retaining wall. So, Unfortunately, That's simply no longer clear at all in the final language. So make no mistake, these changes were entirely intentional. The project sponsor spent over six months pushing to get these language changes. Um, but none of that would matter. if we could be confident that they were still going to build a comprehensive solution for the hillside. Unfortunately, the project sponsors made no secret of the fact that they have no intention of doing that. which is evident from the statements they made throughout the process. First, they got an engineer to submit a report saying that the solution was just to grade the hillside to a one-to-one slope. We all met out of the property in December of 2020 and everyone agreed that this was not a workable solution because it would require bulldozing my family's house. But then four months after that meeting, they submitted draft project conditions that would just require some grading and drainage, if necessary. At the September Planning Commission meeting, their architect said that what he anticipates them building is just a vertical fence. Also at this meeting, the Public Works Director Mr. McGowan actually said that one potential alternative option instead of a retaining wall could be to just strengthen the building itself. |
| 00:25:59.77 | Robert Kahn | From Mr. Rex and Mr. McGowan's comments at the September Planning Commission meeting, It became apparent that the goal here in the alternative approach had changed from stabilizing the hillside to just trying to reduce the potential impact of the soil movement that was to come. Here's Mr. Rex again. saying that they fully expect that after they complete their stabilization solution, soil will still come tumbling down, and they're just going to try to put up a fence to try to catch it. So you can see why my family might be concerned that we're not going to end up with a comprehensive and effective solution here. Again, we're talking about 40 to 50 feet of soil. And they're talking about offense. So that doesn't make me feel very good about my mother who lives at the top of this hill. Now the project sponsor says, don't worry, we'll figure this all out at the building permit stage, which is honestly confusing. because city staff and planning commission has spent hundreds of hours hammering out such minutiae as pink colors and planter box sizes but the city is gonna leave something this incredibly critical for the building permit stage with only some extremely vague parameters around it. Why is doing that so important to the sponsor? I don't think it's to save time because they've had 19 months since we submitted all these concerns about the project in writing. They could have done all their soil analysis and engineering and put forward in the light of the public process exactly what they're going to build. The sponsor says that my family simply doesn't understand how the building permit process works But I actually think we do understand, and I think it's pretty simple. The building permit stage is not a public process. Neighbors and the public will have no opportunity whatsoever to review or provide input on what's and we can't appeal it. So, someone who sees himself as well connected might feel like they have a better chance to push behind closed doors to get their way. And we've recently seen what the stakes are. In 2019, a duplex in Sausalito slid down the hill A 75-year-old woman was trapped 25 people were evacuated. There was $10 million in property damage. and two lawsuits against the city. But no one died, so it could have actually been way worse. I don't think any of us here tonight believe that that catastrophe would have been prevented with a mere fence. But if we don't do something comprehensive here in the public process, I think, we should all expect a plan to be put forward consisting of something very much along those lines. And at that point, even if city staff wants to require something more, I think this language in the project conditions is going to really hamstring their ability to do so. if such a slide happens at the links in property which would be the third slide event on this property I want to be totally clear who the project sponsor is going to point their finger at. So here are two quotes from their architect criticizing the city for not having done something about this problem. And again, here's a quote from their attorney. once again criticizing the city for not having done something about this problem. is the project sponsors position that this is everyone's fault and everyone's responsibility except for the property that caused the problem and the folks who've owned it for the last 117 years while this hillside got worse and worse So, I know we all want to see economic development, But I think it really should not come at the cost of letting a serious public safety hazard go unaddressed. And if the city fails to act today, I fear we couldn't end up looking back on this moment. and asking why. Thank you. |
| 00:29:21.55 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thank you. Do any of the council members have questions with regard to the appellant's presentation. Okay? I'm not seeing any hand. Yeah, go ahead. Councilman Cleveland Knowles. And then I saw, I believe Councilman Sobieski. |
| 00:29:34.18 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:29:34.32 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 00:29:40.16 | Ian Sobieski | Go ahead. Thank you. I was just wondering, could you go back, Mr. Khan, to your slide that compared the language from the original conditions? to the current conditions. |
| 00:29:53.56 | Ian Sobieski | I don't think we have a copy of your presentation on our packet. Is that correct? |
| 00:29:59.08 | Robert Kahn | That's correct. Sorry. |
| 00:30:01.35 | Ian Sobieski | So the standard here that you are arguing that should be adopted as a barrier to soil movement. That's the objective standard. |
| 00:30:10.03 | Robert Kahn | Um, Yeah, you know, I wouldn't say that language is perfect, but what it did, you know, I think it made it clear that exactly the goal was to stop the soil movement from occurring in the first place. not just, you know, kind of catch it at the bottom of the hill and try to mitigate, you know, like a vertical fence might do. You know, you might catch the dirt at the bottom, which is kind of what Michael Rex was describing at the September meeting. But yeah, this language here talks about a retaining structure that's going to act as a barrier to soil movement. So, you know, to me, you're looking at something like what Wells Fargo did or the Dunlop team. |
| 00:30:50.00 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 00:30:50.04 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Councilor Sobieski. |
| 00:30:55.98 | Ian Sobieski | Mr. Khan, thank you for your presentation. Is it your position that the downhill property owner is 100% responsible for hillside stabilization? |
| 00:31:07.08 | Robert Kahn | Yeah, I think, you know, it is my position that, you know, they have responsibility. The property excavated the hill. They did it without taking proper precautions, you know, that said. We have been very vocal that we are so eager to get this problem fixed that we would be thrilled to come to the table and try to find a way to work together, including financially contributing, including, you know, potentially doing work on our property that would impact, you know, certainly impact our property to do that. You know, really, we want to get the problem fixed. |
| 00:31:48.00 | Ian Sobieski | Did you guys, Well, just to answer my question, are they 100% responsible or? Is that your position? |
| 00:31:55.21 | Robert Kahn | I believe that they're 100% responsible, yeah. |
| 00:31:57.35 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, so despite that, you... just said that you attempted to or were open to working jointly to stabilize the hill. And so did you ever make an offer or did anyone make an offer to the property owner about jointly sharing costs for hillside stabilization. |
| 00:32:18.12 | Robert Kahn | Unfortunately, we never got to that point. We, we've had conversations with them our lawyer has spoken to mr august and mr sincata again trying to start a conversation um but they never came to the table um to talk about what the solution would be and what the cost split would be. For example, I mentioned that we had We had submitted our original comments on this project. back in March of 2020. We didn't hear anything from the sponsor for seven months at that point. And then Mr. Rex reached out to me in October And what I essentially said to him was, you know, these are what we think the solutions are, let's go talk about finding, figuring out if something's gonna actually solve the problem and then try to work something out. And Mr. Rex's response at the time was, yeah, yeah, yeah, but we're not gonna decide what we're gonna do until we get to the building permit stage. Um, so, you know, from our perspective, um, If we're not willing to agree on a solution that is going to actually stabilize this full hillside, it's pretty hard to continue that conversation much further beyond that. |
| 00:33:41.50 | Jill Hoffman | Okay? Thank you. Did you have a follow up council member Sobieski? Was that okay? Thank you. Oh, I see vice mayor Kilman has her hand up. Go ahead. Thank you. |
| 00:33:48.00 | Janelle Kellman | Yeah, thank you, Mr. Khan, for that really helpful presentation. Two questions for you. You showed us images of the properties, the adjacent properties with their solutions. Have you had your own geotech expert come out and recommend one over the other of those two other solutions? |
| 00:34:06.61 | Robert Kahn | Um, No. We, the geotechnical firm that we, originally spoke to back after the 2017 fight event was actually Miller Pacific which is the same firm that represents the city and we have preliminary conversations with them and they they sort of laid out what they thought the you know potential approaches were the ones that would you know kind of fully stabilize the hillside as opposed to to sort of leave a problem would be shotcrete wall, seco mesh, retaining wall. They didn't necessarily opine one better than the other. There are certainly different costs associated with both. Um, So, Um, but to really probably dig further in that might require some further engineering work. |
| 00:34:59.79 | Janelle Kellman | Okay, and then my other question, just a bit of housekeeping, you had referenced in your slide deck a portion of the staff report that had, I think you said it was the old condition of approval. Where did you pull that from? |
| 00:35:17.18 | Robert Kahn | So this is in staff response to appeal ground four. And the language that I highlighted said, a second alternative approach would include installation of a wall system on the applicant's property. Um, |
| 00:35:35.24 | Janelle Kellman | Got it. And your point was that, That's exactly what had been removed from the conditions. |
| 00:35:40.78 | Robert Kahn | Yes, exactly. And, and, and, you know, based on the, um, the comments at the timber planning commission meeting. I think it's, um, you know, it's evident that, that the, the existing language would allow a much broader, um, scope of, of sort of, um, I guess what I would term sort of ineffective non-complete solutions. |
| 00:36:06.75 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Conner. Okay, thank you. Council Member Blaustein. |
| 00:36:11.99 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you for that exhaustive presentation, Mr. Khan. I have a couple of questions. Um, You spoke a lot about appeal ground four, but not quite so much about appeals ground six. and seven around the site statability improvements and also just the delay or the timeline. Do you have specific thoughts about those appeal grounds or is the majority of the issue specifically around the retaining wall and appeal ground four? |
| 00:36:42.76 | Robert Kahn | Thank you. Yes, Councillor Blasin. You know, I tried to, with limited time, sort of focus on what I thought were sort of the most important issues here. um appeal ground six and please correct me if i um and not answering your question properly, but that one talks about maintenance of their of their improvements. I think the way staff may have interpreted that comment was that we wanted them to have an ongoing obligation to come onto our property and do work and do, you know, clean up and maintenance on our property. That is certainly not something that we would desire or expect, but we do want to make sure, you know, whatever they build, you know, these things all have a, a shelf life. None of these solutions last for 1,000 years. Certainly, something like a Shaw Creek Wall or Tec O'Mesh lasts a long time, but there's still maintenance required associated with that. And it's our belief that just like there's a project condition saying they have to clean up food off the sidewalk, I think that a project condition could be imposed saying, You know, we're asking you to build something, but you also have to continue to maintain it, you know, at least whatever's on your property. |
| 00:37:57.97 | Melissa Blaustein | And then the other question I had is it also seems like you are very much in favor specifically based on your conversations with your engineer of, of the retaining wall approach. Are there any other approaches that you've considered or would be amenable to in terms of securing or stabilizing the hillside, or is that your key focus? |
| 00:38:14.74 | Robert Kahn | Yes, thank you. I'm glad you asked. The way the project conditions are written provides for two paths. There's a collaborative approach and there's an alternative approach. The collaborative approach is sort of by definition, requires us all to agree. And so, you know, the language in it is important, but in terms of, you know, having a lot of detail about what projects would be feasible into that path, it's not, that's not as important to be in the language because we have the ability to agree or not agree to something that we think is not an effective solution. As Shawcrete wall or a Teco mesh are two options that we would very much be in favor of that would necessitate construction across both parcels. So those would be options that we would be amenable to under the collaborative approach. But I do think it's really important to have an effective plan B as well. And under plan B, I think a retaining wall is really the only solution that would protect both the uphill property and the occupants of the 725 bridgeway structure. |
| 00:39:21.79 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, thank you very much. |
| 00:39:24.79 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thank you. Any other questions from the |
| 00:39:25.97 | Ian Sobieski | Any other questions? |
| 00:39:28.24 | Jill Hoffman | Council members before we move on to the applicant's presentation. |
| 00:39:32.62 | Ian Sobieski | Mayor, I have a question, but it's for either our city attorney or community development director. Do you want me to hold that until after the applicant's question? I mean, Michael, I ask you. |
| 00:39:40.06 | Jill Hoffman | They might ask it because the applicant might want to address it too, right? |
| 00:39:43.27 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, great, thank you. So I seem to remember from other hearings, appeals that we've had and time on the Planning Commission, Um, that our conditions of approval need to be linked to the actual impacts from the new from the new construction or the new project. and not to existing conditions. that were in place before. And so I was just wondering, it seems from the Appellants presentation that the uh, allegation is that the original construction of this building caused the um, Soil instability. So could I just ask the city attorney if it's true that the conditions of approval do need to be limited to impacts that might be caused from this new construction? including demolition. |
| 00:40:37.22 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, thank you, Council member Cleveland Knowles. Yes, that is correct. the conditions of approval need to be tied to the impacts of this project. not the existing condition that the project finds itself in. |
| 00:40:52.74 | Ian Sobieski | Great, thanks. And could I ask just one other follow-up question that might be for you or for the Community Development Director, the language that was in the original condition that, um, said, that acts as a barrier to soil movement, that kind of standard. in that condition, whether That was changed because of a legal concern or some other policy concern. Or if you don't know now, maybe we could come back to that. later in the hearing. |
| 00:41:25.47 | Mary Wagner | My recollection, sorry, your community development director wants to weigh in there too. recollection is it wasn't related to a legal issue. And I don't know if Ms. Scoble has more information about that and or if your public works director may also have some information. |
| 00:41:45.58 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you, Mary. I was going to let the council members know that that's probably a more appropriate question for Director McGowan as he was closely related to these conditions and this project during that time. |
| 00:42:01.24 | Ian Sobieski | Great. Director McGowan, do you have anything to add right now, or do you want to answer that later? |
| 00:42:06.25 | Kevin McGowan | Well, could you restate the question? I'm sorry. |
| 00:42:09.43 | Ian Sobieski | Well, so the slide that I asked the appellant to we show showed a condition of approval from, I think it was the earlier March hearing and then the condition of approval as it was shown in September. And I do remember from looking at the March hearing that the project sponsor was objecting to the conditions. And one of the things that changed is that in the original, one of the original conditions, there was a standard. for the soil stabilization that it would act as a barrier to soil movement. Now there is not kind of an objective standard as pointed out by the appellant. And I was just wondering why that particular language changed, if that was something requested by the project sponsor or recommended by on our side. |
| 00:43:01.47 | Kevin McGowan | I think I'm slightly confused on what is meant by a standard and looking at soil movement and repair, or at least stabilization, you have to have a, type of a repair that's going to be conducive with the area itself. So when we took a look at this in the field, the most conducive way to stabilize this slope, which might not be on the applicant's property, is probably a Tyco mesh or is a shotcrete wall type of system with tiebacks. And to have a standard type of wall may not work in this specific area. You'll have to have something that is conducive with what we see in the field. I'm not too sure if I'm answering the question correctly. |
| 00:43:45.97 | Ian Sobieski | Well, our condition of approval doesn't say anything about that anymore. And I guess I can try to Um, find it again but um I think it was condition 53. |
| 00:44:02.76 | Kevin McGowan | Okay, well, instead of taking too much time, cause I'm not too sure how to respond. Why don't we move on at this point, if that's okay with the, the mayor, and yourself. |
| 00:44:15.84 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, that's what I was gonna suggest. We can circle back to that and, And in fact, councilman Sobieski and vice mayor their hands up. So If it's OK, if you council member Cleveland, I'm just going to skip to them and then we'll circle back on this. if we find that. the answer. |
| 00:44:32.22 | Ian Sobieski | the answer. It's not 53. Okay. Okay. Thanks. |
| 00:44:35.66 | Jill Hoffman | I believe I saw Vice Mayor Kelman's hand up first and then we'll go with council member Sobieski. |
| 00:44:40.69 | Janelle Kellman | Yeah, thank you, Madam. Maybe this will help. I was always under the impression that there were project specific conditions of approval. And then there are more general universally apply conditions of approval. and I thought that the general ones often pertain to construction, Um, hours and parking, et cetera. So I guess I'm wondering, Is this a project specific condition of approval or a general condition of approval? And maybe, yeah, for safety. |
| 00:45:14.11 | Mary Wagner | I'm happy to let your public works director respond. I mean, I think this is a, project specific condition of approval that you're discussing about the, um, slope stabilization work. That's correct. |
| 00:45:26.32 | Kevin McGowan | Thank you. |
| 00:45:27.17 | Mary Wagner | I mean, I typically think of general conditions of approval as things that apply to all projects, you know, are the vast majority. And then specific conditions are tailored to address the, the unique conditions, if you will, of a specific project. |
| 00:45:43.97 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thank you. Sure. Okay, can I talk about it? |
| 00:45:47.80 | Ian Sobieski | I have a question for our city attorney and perhaps Dr. McGowan, which is the same one I asked Mr. Khan, if that hillside, Slides, debris comes off it. Slide significantly. Is it the responsibility of the downhill property owner or the uphill property owner? |
| 00:46:05.83 | Mary Wagner | Council member sobieski I don't think that I'm. able to answer that question. And I don't know that any of us truly are. I think it depends on the conditions and would probably be the subject of a lot of investigation and special. Thank you. |
| 00:46:22.63 | Ian Sobieski | Does the city have any liability if there's a landslide rock slides. slide of debris. on either of those parcels. |
| 00:46:30.06 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. Um, in terms of the approval of this project? Is that the question? |
| 00:46:38.90 | Ian Sobieski | just in general, the approval of this project or just in general, does the city have being informed about the situation, seeing the emails, talking about a landslide between two property owners, two private property owners, and the city property We're aware of some rock slide. Is this, do we have a, any duty under the law, any obligation under the law, any liability under the law. being informed. of the facts that we've been informed of. |
| 00:47:06.07 | Mary Wagner | I think the city has suggested conditions of approval to stabilize the situation related to the project that you have that you're considering tonight whether or not the city would be um, brought into future litigation and causation and those sorts of things. I can't answer that for you and I don't think It's particularly helpful to to conject about that? You know, there are all kinds of defenses that the city has available to it, I don't know if your public works director wants to address related to city owned property in the area, but I think You know, discussions of liability and causation are, problematic in a vacuum. |
| 00:47:52.70 | Ian Sobieski | I guess I'm just asking about our legal risk. Yeah. again i just i suppose i just want to ask my question again i mean We were in school. It's on the record that there's been landslides between these two private parts properties. We're the city. I'm wondering if someone's hurt Like there's, private property damage from one property to another will Is it? Extremely unlikely, unprecedented, very rare that the city gets drawn into a claim like that, or is it common? And are we going to find ourselves in a position where we're having a settlement discussion because we don't want to spend the money to litigate. |
| 00:48:34.85 | Unknown | you |
| 00:48:35.03 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:48:35.22 | Ian Sobieski | and we'll just split the difference And... |
| 00:48:39.03 | Mary Wagner | understand. |
| 00:48:39.84 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah. |
| 00:48:39.96 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:48:40.00 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 00:48:40.01 | Mary Wagner | Yeah. |
| 00:48:40.06 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 00:48:40.11 | Mary Wagner | to. So I think council member Sobieski, the answer to your question is that staff is recommending the conditions of approval that they believe address the condition of the Hillside. and the planning commission agreed with staff and approved the project with that condition of approval. I can't guarantee you that the city would not be drawn into future litigation, if there is such a thing and if you know and they hopefully not going to happen event of a landslide, but I will also let your public works director respond if you would like. |
| 00:49:12.95 | Kevin McGowan | I would just, sorry, I would just add that anything can happen in the future. Generally when the city gets involved with something like this between two private property owners, water tends to be involved. So we have the property adjacent to 719 and 725, which is the old city hall. And I think Mary's absolutely correct. We've recommended what we think is the best conditions for these two property owners in order to solve this issue. |
| 00:49:46.25 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, just one last question. Do we have any legal requirements since this is a, appeal about a particular downhill slopes property owner's plans. Do we have any legal authority to require the uphill property owner to share in the cost of some kind of mitigation on slope stability or |
| 00:49:56.02 | Unknown | plans. |
| 00:50:06.09 | Ian Sobieski | are only uh, Is there only authority around approval or disapproval of this appeal? and adding conditions to the applicant. |
| 00:50:18.26 | Mary Wagner | So your ability to condition the project is based on the project in front of you at the address that it's at and the property owner and who's involved. Um, There's not an ability for the city to mandate that the upslope property owner participate in that, but you know, we did try and craft a condition that allows for the parties to come to you know, mutual agreement to do that. |
| 00:50:46.42 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 00:50:47.44 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:50:49.39 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. Um, Thank you. Any other questions before we move on to the applicants' presentation. |
| 00:50:57.75 | Janelle Kellman | Sorry, one more quick one. I don't think we've seen a property boundary or property line. Could staff just show us how much of the, Where the property line is, is the hill partly on the common property, partly on length and property. |
| 00:51:19.31 | Jeffrey Graham | I can look for that and come back to you. |
| 00:51:22.67 | Jill Hoffman | Great. Yeah. |
| 00:51:24.44 | Jeffrey Graham | That'd be great. |
| 00:51:25.05 | Jill Hoffman | Um, Okay, thank you. Let's go to the applicant and applicant has 10 minutes. for their presentation. |
| 00:51:44.19 | Davidson Carter | That would... That would be me. Uh, |
| 00:51:47.38 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:51:48.47 | Davidson Carter | My name is Davidson Carter and I'm here on behalf of Moshe August and Carol Slomovich, the owners of the property. I had another idea for |
| 00:51:56.05 | Unknown | Bye. Thank you. |
| 00:51:58.53 | Davidson Carter | what I was going to be presenting, but I should probably address some of the issues that were already raised by the appellant |
| 00:51:59.49 | Unknown | Exactly. |
| 00:52:04.01 | Davidson Carter | in his testimony now. First of all, let me address the one question that, Commission of Cleveland Mills raised about the There I am. Ah. Sorry about that. So, question that was raised about the language and the conditions of approval as having been part of the team that was drafting those conditions I can tell you our intent was not to narrow the possibility of solutions, but to broaden them because It should be noted that there During the presentation by Mr. Khan, He referred to various alternatives of Shot Creek walls, mesh. None of those were ever proposed. There are no drawings. There was nothing that was done because we don't know the full condition of this until we do more. And in fact, conditions that were put into the conditions of approval either city and the planning and the public works director were to allow for the city to ask for whatever materials they felt was necessary for them to understand the full full situation of that slope. To answer another question from you, Commissioner Kellerman I, I can tell you from the directors report. I think it's in your file under, uh, exhibit attachments nine C. Mr. McGowan has pointed out that the vertical face Oh, this is a... An exact quote. the vertical face, appears to be fully on the Kong property. fully on the con property. So, That's where we're dealing with. to go back to the named Declaw, where I hope to start. It should be noted that. THE SECA IS NOT require any will be fired. examination or review. of existing conditions is what the conditions of the project itself will cause. Are there potential negative environmental impacts as a result of proposed project? What all the engineers did, but the environmental consultants did. You've got two different engineers Cities engineers. Pacific. and DAC consultants. I've all said, project in and of itself. will not impact the Hillside. It will not create a new potential environmental impact or instability to that hillside. as long as the project |
| 00:54:52.04 | Kevin McGowan | So, |
| 00:54:52.76 | Davidson Carter | remains. existing footprint. Oh. project. the existing Roger. So, Uh-huh. So, |
| 00:55:07.72 | Davidson Carter | Miller Pacific specifically said that The subject site is not susceptible to any deep seated landslide. That's put it in your reports as well. That's the city's engineer. Thank you. I think I may owe Mr. Khan an apology because He quoted me as saying that I thought that the city's engineers concluded |
| 00:55:32.99 | Kevin McGowan | Thank you. |
| 00:55:33.32 | Davidson Carter | I thought that he claimed that they concluded that it was It was... The hillside was being unstable by the project itself. I was taking from that his implication when he reported that Middle Pacific did not concur with some of the statements in the but, What I was pointing out is that They did not concur on a minor issue of where the sloping and because and raveling of the hillside was coming That was the only thing they did. and then They also agree that it was shallow and it was not significant. Huh. In fact, Miller Pacific's comments were that should not significantly impact stability If it remains in the same footprint and does include modifications to the slope. I want to point out that during this process too. the director of public works, did require a special sort of conditions for in those conditions of approval, that require THE stabilization plans to be submitted as part of the building permit process. This is appropriate. It's the way it's consistently done. I think that At that time, whatever materials are necessary, whatever additional materials, third party reviews, additional studies, all of that The director of public works has the authority to ask for those things to make sure we have the right solution the hillside. That's all we're talking about. We didn't want to be, fixed with any particular solution. Shock Creek, State retaining walls. None of that can be read into what Mr. Khan is saying. because no plans were ever suggested So. finally just Just to repeat, CEQA does not require a review of his testing conditions. It does not require mitigation measures. where the proposed project will not have an impact on an existing condition. So... Now, with regard to the permit process, I think either Mr. Collins misunderstanding the permit process or he's being disingenuous about how it's supposed to work. because it's clear from the conditions of approval that we must submit plans that address the hillside We must, we're not going to avoid it. Thank you. fact that they would suggest that Marsha and Carol I'm not going to do anything about that hillside. It's impossible. So, Bye. It's already been determined by the on the bridgeway property must be addressed and it will So... Now with regard to the collaborative approach, collaborative approach. I think We would love to see the collaborative approach, but the collaborative approach is more than just Our site. just the site at 719 and 725 Bridgeway. It would require the participation of the city because it is part of the hillside is on the city's property. that would require the participation of the cons because they aren't that pub's help. I'm recently. the planning director I mean, Public Works Director suggested it may even require a fourth party So, Those are all have to trigger you. to the participation. We have not seen any evidence of any willingness to contribute to that. because as we pointed out, most of this hillside And as others, is not on the subject prominence. So, We are willing to consider that because we think it would be beneficial to everybody. |
| 00:59:37.77 | Davidson Carter | Now the issue of Mr. Khan's legal theory about how We caused the uphill problem. is. building was built decades ago. decades ago. Basically his legal theory is when the city decided to build Bridgeway, and have projects beyond that prop that whoever owned 719 and 725 Bridgeway, they were going to be forever responsible or Mr. cons, profit. that. I think that'll be a great case in some law journal but it's not going to be. So, I don't think that's going to be Oh, she's... Like I said, I'm optimistic that we can do something in the future, and we'd like to try and work it out on the other property owners, but we needed a solution to handle what's on our property and what we can do to stabilize the hill from our side. in the right measures. So, Michael Rex is also here to answer any questions about the project. of project design. But again, you don't have any final design solutions that were never any opposed to want to make them as broad as possible. So we have the right solution. for what we can do on our houses. Thank you. |
| 01:01:02.19 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thank you, sir. Do we have any council member questions for Mr. Chincana, is that right? Did I say that right? |
| 01:01:10.38 | Davidson Carter | Actually, that's the Italian way, and I thank you for doing that. I hope you've Englishized it. |
| 01:01:12.69 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. Ciao, Belle. |
| 01:01:17.40 | Jill Hoffman | Does anybody have any questions? I see council member Sobieski. |
| 01:01:21.62 | Ian Sobieski | I have just one question. And also a question for Mary. So my question for you, sir, is the same one I asked Mr. Khan, do you, as the applicant, have any perceived any responsibility for the stabilization of the Hillside any legal responsibility for that |
| 01:01:41.98 | Davidson Carter | Excuse me, are you asking to him. |
| 01:01:44.77 | Ian Sobieski | Do you perceive any port stability? I know that it's a requirement in the application, but do you perceive the stability of the hillside that was impacted by the original excavation of the hillside by the original construction that property to be any of your responsibility. |
| 01:02:03.82 | Davidson Carter | I don't. Okay. I don't believe. I think there is some responsibility to do some work on that property for that hillside. I don't think, It emanates from the Uh, the fact that the hillside was dug into. century ago. Thank you. |
| 01:02:24.24 | Ian Sobieski | And then I just had a question for Mary that would maybe inform other questions, but just, Mary, is it, I don't know if it's actually in there or not, is it possible to, um, Is there any kind of categorical indemnification from the applicant to the city? for any liability associated with the with the soil movement from the hillside. |
| 01:02:46.46 | Mary Wagner | There's a general condition of approval that we include on all projects that the applicant will indemnify and defend the city for any, litigation or any claims related to the project. So there's that language which could be read broadly. that if the project itself causes the hillside to become unstable, then the city would look to the applicant as the real party in interest to indemnify and defend the city. |
| 01:03:17.48 | Ian Sobieski | can we take advantage of this opportunity to more broadly indemnify the city from this potential private party dispute that is potentially in the offering where the hillside slides and they're looking for They blame each other and they're looking for the deepest pocket to blame, which is of course the city. So is there a chance that, we can indemnify ourselves here and now. |
| 01:03:41.81 | Mary Wagner | I think I would recommend that you utilize the condition of approval. And if you feel that it needs to be expanded, to say including without limitation any soil movement that we could do that. |
| 01:03:57.57 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, thank you. |
| 01:03:59.26 | Jill Hoffman | Sure. Council Member Blaustein. |
| 01:04:03.89 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you and thank you for that presentation. I appreciated that you had said, you know, we would love to take a collaborative approach we might take an alternative approach. I'm just trying to understand from what you're saying, are you making a commitment to stabilizing the hillside to the best of your ability by do as part of the permitting process? |
| 01:04:24.46 | Davidson Carter | Yes. THE END OF do have a commitment And we are honoring it. to Whatever we need to do on our property, to protect the health side |
| 01:04:37.86 | Unknown | move. |
| 01:04:38.24 | Davidson Carter | I'm only going to be further. Whatever we can do there, willing to do. But we have The plans for account. and some tests we need to do. |
| 01:04:48.55 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay, I was just trying to understand where they were. So thanks. |
| 01:04:54.56 | Janelle Kellman | Vice Mayor. Okay, thank you, Mayor Hoffman. Thank you, Mr. Sincotta. Question for the city attorney and follow up to Councilmember Sobieski's questions. Could we require a bond? from the applicant and relatedly, could we have a condition of approval that the cons would be on the construction insurance during the duration of the project. |
| 01:05:18.71 | Mary Wagner | On the question of the bond, you know, the city would not draw down a bond to do work on private property. We've been asked that question in the past related to other projects and done some research into that. So the idea of a bond or some kind of surety that's given to the city is that typically that's utilized for public improvements that are related to a project. So then in the event that the public improvement is not the city would go in, draw down that bond under certain conditions and and complete that improvement at the expense of the applicant who was required to do the improvement, but we would not draw down a bond and do work on private property. So I don't know that that would, answer that you know solve that that issue with respect to your second question I'm sorry madam vice mayor could you repeat the second part of your question |
| 01:06:07.87 | Janelle Kellman | Oh, yes. I've seen in some other municipalities that the applicant will add, a concerned neighbor to their insurance. through the duration of the construction of the project. So should there be some kind of impact to the property that would be covered under the insurance policy |
| 01:06:24.78 | Mary Wagner | That's not something I'm familiar with. Perhaps the applicant can address that question for you. |
| 01:06:32.42 | Janelle Kellman | I'm just trying to figure out the scope of our legal what we could impose from our end. Thank you. So thank you. |
| 01:06:40.93 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 01:06:41.28 | Janelle Kellman | Thank you. |
| 01:06:41.30 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:06:41.63 | Janelle Kellman | Okay. |
| 01:06:41.82 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Um, Okay, any follow-up? Yes, Council Member Clevesonals. |
| 01:06:49.01 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah, I have a question that is not related to this appeal at all for the applicant and perhaps the architect. Um, During the planning commission discussion, it was talked about that the height of the building with I think it was a pre exceeded the height limit there, but the building's only two stories high. And I was just wondering, with such a high hill behind it, And there's already two stories of housing, you know, one story of housing above the retail. Was it ever considered to add another story of housing? I mean, there'd be no view impact here because of the hill. address some of the instability. But I was just wondering, if that was ever considered. and how the height limit at that point was exceeded by a two-story building. If that's true, I think I heard that at the planning commission. |
| 01:07:48.14 | Davidson Carter | I think. I think Michael is probably the better person to answer that question I don't know. Thank you, Michael. |
| 01:07:56.93 | Michael Rex | I can tell you |
| 01:07:57.47 | Davidson Carter | I know. Thank you. |
| 01:07:58.87 | Michael Rex | The reason the Heights, is an issue. for a two-story building is it's only, it's a restriction on height, in the first 15 feet for an uphill lot, and height is no longer measured from gray in the first 15 feet on uphill lots, it's measured from the height of the center line of the road at the center line of the parcel. and we are a couple of feet over That's why we asked for a variant so we can replicate the height of the existing building. or come close to it. Um, in response to your second question, Do we ever consider adding a third story for additional housing. The answer is no. It's the first time the question's ever been asked to my knowledge. It's a good question. I will say though at the time that we were, this project started out as a remodel. And then when we found out what a terrible position, condition the building's in, it we morphed into a new building. But we were always concerned about parking because we weren't adding parking. So we were reticent to expand the use in any significant way, which would trigger a need for more parking. Also, the last thing I'll say is, We started planning this project five years ago. We've been in the review process for four years. And in that time, the state has mandated, as you know, greater need and responsibility for communities to provide housing. So housing has become a much greater issue since we first conceived and started planning this project. So there's lots of reasons that it probably wasn't considered then. Could it be considered now? It'd have to be a very different project. Um, |
| 01:09:49.79 | Davidson Carter | Let me add something to that, Michael. |
| 01:09:51.55 | Ian Sobieski | And don't worry, I'm not going to send your project back. |
| 01:09:55.04 | Davidson Carter | Bye. |
| 01:09:55.16 | Michael Rex | Bye. |
| 01:09:55.21 | Davidson Carter | you |
| 01:09:55.26 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 01:09:55.29 | Davidson Carter | Yeah. |
| 01:09:55.31 | Michael Rex | Bye. |
| 01:09:55.43 | Davidson Carter | So I think the only issue- |
| 01:09:55.49 | Michael Rex | Yeah. |
| 01:09:56.44 | Ian Sobieski | I'm just kind of interested in our process. |
| 01:09:59.49 | Davidson Carter | Good question. |
| 01:10:00.13 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 01:10:00.29 | Davidson Carter | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:10:00.79 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah. |
| 01:10:01.16 | Davidson Carter | I think it would have been a problem for the Historic Preservation Commission because in order to make this project consistent with it, Sausalito Downtown Historic District we were able to, we were required to maintain existing bulk in some of the facade lines. There it is. That would be the biggest hurdle for adding additional |
| 01:10:23.30 | Michael Rex | Although that probably had more to do with the streetscape. If you set it way back, you probably could maintain the streetscape, but as you would set it back, you'd be cutting into that hillside. And, That might not be a good idea. |
| 01:10:39.25 | Mary Wagner | Madam Mayor, I apologize to Councillor Cleveland. If I may, just a point of clarification in response to Mr. Rex's great comment about, you know, the housing crisis that we've been talking about a lot, or what's, the recent legislation regarding housing. This project is not creating new units, it's replacing the same number of units that exist currently on the project site. I know that isn't the question that you asked, |
| 01:11:02.59 | Unknown | currently on the |
| 01:11:06.30 | Mary Wagner | Council member Cleveland knows, but I think it's important for clarification on the record |
| 01:11:09.85 | Jill Hoffman | but that's the context for the plan. It's a replacement of existing Yes. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. No, thank you. |
| 01:11:20.95 | Janelle Kellman | Okay, so vice mayor, go ahead. Thank you. I just want to clarify for the city attorney. So maybe I wasn't clear. I was asking about something called builders risk insurance. And so it would be a certificate of insurance, naming the neighbor as an additional insurer and we could seek it for both the commercial general liability and builders risk policies. So that's what I've seen in other jurisdictions. So they would want that. for their own policy, but it would be naming the appell neighbor as an additional insurer. So I don't know if that, if that, Me naming it. |
| 01:11:55.04 | Mary Wagner | Me naming it. Thank you. |
| 01:11:56.44 | Janelle Kellman | The question to me is |
| 01:11:56.49 | Mary Wagner | The question to me is can we require that? |
| 01:11:59.51 | Janelle Kellman | I was just clarifying that that's what I was asking about. It's called builder's risk insurance. And so I was a little vague before, I just wanted to clarify. |
| 01:12:06.86 | Mary Wagner | Thank you, Madam Vice Mayor. And there have been situations in the past and I can't recall a specific project. You may recall some of them |
| 01:12:13.56 | Janelle Kellman | human rights. |
| 01:12:15.29 | Mary Wagner | or council member Cleveland Nulls from your time on the planning commission where there have been certain identified risks related to construction, maybe if houses were particularly close together. where we've had conditions that are similar to this. I'm BEEN. you know, and we could look at that language and and craft that for you if that's the council's direction. |
| 01:12:36.85 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thank you. Any other questions before we open up for public comments? After public comment, then we'll come back. Each side will have five minutes. for rebuttal and then we'll close and have council discussion. I would say though that if the public works are looking for the map that shows Um, who owns what on that hillside, that would be helpful. I think we're going to want to see that as part of our discussion. Oh, Mr. Graham, do you have? |
| 01:13:06.45 | Jeffrey Graham | Yes. I can show it now if you'd like. |
| 01:13:08.83 | Jill Hoffman | I think that'd be helpful. |
| 01:13:10.13 | Jeffrey Graham | Sure. |
| 01:13:19.66 | Jeffrey Graham | Okay. So here's from our GIS system. 719, if you can see the numbers. |
| 01:13:26.94 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:13:27.63 | Jeffrey Graham | 719. property is here. 12 Celsius is above. that. And then, down here. We have another with contours. |
| 01:13:40.76 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. And so that parcel that says 12 on it, |
| 01:13:45.18 | Jeffrey Graham | Yes. |
| 01:13:45.84 | Jill Hoffman | Is that the uphill? Thanks, yep. |
| 01:13:47.57 | Jeffrey Graham | That's the other thing. That's the Epco property. That's correct. |
| 01:13:50.95 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, good. Thank you very much. That's helpful for me. Does anybody have any follow-up questions on that? Thank you. |
| 01:13:57.31 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:13:57.94 | Ian Sobieski | I don't have a follow-up question on that, but I did just have one more clarifying question for Director McGowan, maybe before we go to public comment. Okay, sure. So I... I think I got confused by the slide that the appellant was showing. So I did go back to condition 56, which was in our packet. so for director mcgowan the beginning of section of condition 56 says the hillside located behind the subject property site shall be stabilized with one of the two methods noted below. And then it does the collaborative approach and the alternative approach. So I guess my question is, that seems very clear to me, and it is a mandatory shall. And the question for you is, um, shall be stabilized with one of the following approaches. Is that word stabilized? |
| 01:14:44.53 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:14:50.27 | Ian Sobieski | clear. from an engineering perspective. giving direction here to both the applicant and the appellant as to you a outcome. through either the collaborative approach. or the alternative approach. |
| 01:15:12.39 | Kevin McGowan | So I think that's- |
| 01:15:12.62 | Ian Sobieski | It seems clear to me, but I don't, I'm not technical. engineer like you are. |
| 01:15:20.39 | Kevin McGowan | Thank you, I think. It's a very good question. And I think the wording there is a little bit misleading. When it says stabilize on the adjacent property, that may not be true. In other words, the first part of it, which is the collaborative approach, is intended to stabilize the slope that could be on the cons property. However, the alternative approach would be to stabilize the slope only on the applicants property. So, and I want to be clear with that. So let's just say for the sake of argument that the collaborative approach cannot be, that we don't come up with a solution for the collaborative approach. In other words, the parties don't agree. So therefore the applicant has the ability to go ahead and protect their property from this slide by possibly putting in a retaining wall or putting a stronger building to support it. If something slides down against it, and that would have to go on their property specifically. That is the intent of that. condition. Hopefully that answers your question. |
| 01:16:33.20 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah, I think that answers my question, but just to be clear, director, it just says the hillside located behind the subject property. And then a talks about both properties and B talks about only |
| 01:16:45.02 | Unknown | Like, |
| 01:16:46.08 | Ian Sobieski | that applicants property. So I think it's I think the wording is consistent because there is, |
| 01:16:53.20 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:16:53.52 | Ian Sobieski | As I understand it, there is some hill that is located on the applicant's property. It's not the steep part, but there is some hill. Is that correct? |
| 01:17:04.44 | Kevin McGowan | That's good. Yeah, that is correct. After looking at the plan set and the, the aerial that, that Mr. Graham brought up, which was from Marin map, we don't necessarily have a GIS program. So the property lines are a little bit off, but that's the intent. |
| 01:17:21.89 | Ian Sobieski | Great. Okay. I think that resolves my earlier |
| 01:17:25.97 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:17:28.08 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:17:28.50 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Any other questions before we move on to public comment? No, okay, thank you. At this point, I'll open public comment. Mr. Clerk, do you want to read the ways to participate with public comment. your |
| 01:17:44.50 | Heidi Scoble | Yes, Madam Mayor. |
| 01:17:45.75 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:17:54.27 | Heidi Scoble | Video or audio public comment participation is limited to three minutes per speaker. If you would like to make a comment, please raise your hand in the Zoom application and you will be called upon when is your time to speak. To raise your hand from a phone, press start nine. Each speaker will be notified when the time has elapsed. And Madam Mayor, it looks like we have one hand raised. Joan Cox. |
| 01:18:19.25 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thank you. |
| 01:18:20.55 | Heidi Scoble | Joan, you've been unmuted and asked to share your video. |
| 01:18:29.27 | Joan Cox | Good evening. A really interesting presentation, really great presentation by both parties. Just a couple of thoughts. I would refrain from dictating how the applicant should stabilize the hillside if the city decides to move forward. Because if you tell them how to do it and then it doesn't work, Now you're inserting yourself into their process. So rather than telling them how to do it, I would enunciate some possible solutions and then perhaps require that it be peer reviewed by an independent third-party engineer at the applicant's expense. That is a condition of approval that was previously in the project and I don't know why it was removed. But I think that's a better then you don't have non engineers dictating how something should be built and the city has no potential of buying liability. In terms of the indemnification that you're considering, I would try to make it as broad as possible. so that the city is indemnified from any issues arising from the construction of the project. So. And those are my and I appreciated Council member Kelman's comments about Having the neighbor and the city named as additional insurance on the builders risk slash course of construction insurance as well as the commercial general liability policies so that if any personal injury occurs or any property damage occurs, the. risk is borne by the applicant and its insurer. Thanks everybody. |
| 01:20:20.44 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Thank you. Okay. I see no other hands raised for public comment. |
| 01:20:28.34 | Heidi Scoble | Madam Mayor, you are correct. We have no other hands raised at the moment. |
| 01:20:32.24 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thank you. Then I will close public comment. And we will have the appellant first with any rebuttal for five minutes and then the applicant five minutes for any rebuttals. So. you Mr. Khan, if you'd like to. Make any comments and rebuttal. We have five minutes. |
| 01:20:58.29 | Robert Kahn | Yes, thank you. Yeah, so I'd like to respond to a few of the arguments that made by the project sponsor. You know, the first, the sponsors argued that, that, you know, in their opinion, the worst portion of the slope is on my family's property. And, um, They want you to conclude that based on that, fixing the slope should be my family's responsibility. A few comments on that. First of all, |
| 01:21:32.62 | Robert Kahn | The over steepened area at issue here seems to clearly span both properties. The diagram on the screen was a submittal from the applicant's geotechnical engineer, and you can see he's circling an approximate area over steepened slope that needs to be stabilized. A good portion of it is across their property line. But even if the steepest part of the slope, you know, is, you know, entirely on our property, I'm not sure really how that's relevant here, The logic seems to be that when your neighbor creates a hazard and damages your property, they're not responsible for fixing it because the problem's on your property. like, um, I sort of imagine tossing a match over my neighbor's fence and then saying that most of the fire damage seems to be on their property. Um, But I think, you know, even if you agree with that concept that the injured party is the one responsible, you really have a real problem still in this instance. because the slope cannot be truly comprehensively fixed from above. If you build the first, you know, the top half of a stabilization solution without going all the way down to the bottom of the hill, the dirt will erode out from underneath, which will make it ineffective. So, you know, I think if the city doesn't act to impose a comprehensive stabilization solution, we'll end up in a bizarre place where the, stabilizing the entire hillside will become impossible, unfixable. Um, The project sponsor has also kind of argued that the excavation that caused the problem happened a long time ago. Again, that really has no relevance. I think they're sort of trying to claim that if you just can wait it out long enough, then the responsibility gets flipped to the other party Um, which, you know, certainly doesn't make any sense to me. I think if anything, the fact that the sponsor's family has owned this property for over 115 years and watched it get worse while doing nothing is, in my opinion, a really strong argument for why the city needs to act to require a comprehensive stabilization solution here. The sponsor also argued that their project won't make the problem any worse than it already is. And assuming for a moment that's true, that may help them under CEQA, but I don't think it follows that the city's role in approving a project is to ignore an existing hazard and just confirm that they're not making it worse. I think the city has an obligation here. They're gonna be certifying this building for public occupancy. the city You know, they could let them build it, you know, rebuild it without fire sprinklers or with turn of the century structural standards. because none of that would make any of those problems any worse. But the city's not going to let them do that because you don't get to grandfather in life safety hazards. Um, Finally, you know, Mr. Sincada quoted Miller Pacific in a line And he quoted to say that the site is not susceptible to any deep-seated landslide. I have the quote in front of me. The actual quote is, there is a low risk of a deep seated landslide. And I think how that sentence sounds may be different if you're the sponsor versus if you're one of their tenants that lives in the building or if your mother lives uphill. When I hear Miller Pacific say there is a low risk of a deep-seated landslide, that's not a comforting statement in the least to me. They're saying that there's a small risk, but a real risk, of a catastrophic event. And things like fires, earthquakes, the actual risk of those events happening to anyone building is low. but we impose project safety requirements to protect against those risks because they are low, but they're catastrophic. Um, So, you know, when I, when I kind of, um, circling back here, you know, on this issue about the whether or not the conditions are stabilizing the hillside and whether or not we should be you know, imposing a specific requirement on them, I think we need to get the criteria correct in the alternative approach. I think, you know, they should be stabilizing the entire hillside or working together with us to stabilize it across both properties. because otherwise The most likely outcome here is that a known public hazard is going to go unaddressed and it's maybe completely unfixable. Thank you. |
| 01:25:44.90 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thank you. Mr. Rex or Mr. Sincana, do you have any rebuttal? |
| 01:25:54.23 | Davidson Carter | Yes. Yes. |
| 01:25:58.52 | Jill Hoffman | Just a moment. reset the clock. There you go. Go ahead, sir. |
| 01:26:06.94 | Davidson Carter | Do you want to add the visual? Well, Yeah. |
| 01:26:11.81 | Joan Cox | one. |
| 01:26:12.62 | Davidson Carter | Yeah, they go. So, But first I want to say that We have tried to suggest various means of working on this collaborative project the uphill neighbors. We even suggested a mediation with the cons. At that time he had a council and then his council was told that It was no longer. |
| 01:26:38.32 | Davidson Carter | working with him and that they had to deal directly with the cons. The cons rejected. possibility of reaching. of of doing a mediation to figure out how and who should be responsible for what. So that has been given us the cause that it's going to be difficult to work out a collaborative approach. not discarding it. and just saying that it's going to be difficult Secondly, I think that We should also point out Miller Pacific specifically asked for topographical survey. to help us determine where the worst first part of this slope is. because All we can do is speculate now. As I said, Uh... public work director. Mr. McGowan was fully on the comments. We don't know. We asked them to do a topographical survey so we could do this kind of analysis. That was a good one. they refuse to do. So we are Um, willing to try and work these things out. but we can only be responsible for working on our property. This is. all we can do for sure. And we do have to stabilize the hillside behind our problem. And that's what we will do. are conditions to do that. for us to try and solve everybody's existing condition I don't think that's appropriate. I don't think it's going to I don't know. to improve any conditions. Um, I think Michael wanted to add something. |
| 01:28:14.16 | Michael Rex | Thank you. I'd like to show you the surveys. The Marin map that Jeffrey showed you is rather vague, if I may. I'm going to share screen with you here. uh, and Can you see the survey? Is it big enough? |
| 01:28:31.76 | Jill Hoffman | Yes, I think so. If there's a certain portion and you want to |
| 01:28:36.35 | Michael Rex | Yeah, what you see is the Langsom property, Wells Fargo's to the left, Gene Hiller's to the right. You can see the wall on Wells Fargo, it's on their property that Mr. Khan showed you. This survey really only shows our parcel, but this survey, this is by the city's surveyor, it shows a Gene Hiller parcel you can and ours is to the right and this shows the topography on three parcels ours cons and and the city's and you can see where it says top of slide it says dotted line at the very top I don't I don't know if you can where that oak tree is there, but where the topography stops is a vertical cliff and it's well on the Kahn property. And we're still hoping maybe we can collaborate if the Kahn's are willing, we are, because it'd be great to stabilize the whole hillside. But if we're unable to get cooperation, we can only work on our own property. And that's what this is all about. Um, Thank you. |
| 01:29:50.41 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thank you. You have a minute and 13 seconds. Are you done? |
| 01:29:55.98 | Davidson Carter | That's good. |
| 01:29:57.04 | Jill Hoffman | That's fine. Okay. |
| 01:29:58.90 | Davidson Carter | Okay, you too, thanks. |
| 01:30:00.44 | Jill Hoffman | Just to make sure, yeah. You're welcome. Okay, all right, so. I'm going to... I'll close the presentations and follow up questions from, I see from council member Blaustein and then council member Cleveland-Knolls. Is this part of the world? |
| 01:30:17.94 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 01:30:18.39 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:30:18.41 | Melissa Blaustein | We're still at follow up questions, |
| 01:30:20.30 | Jill Hoffman | Well, I was going to, yeah. Well, let me just say this. Um, Do we have any, do we have any follow-up questions for the applicant, for anybody before we start our discussion? Let's just, let me just say that. Yes, Councilmember Clever-Knowles. |
| 01:30:33.60 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah, I just wanted to follow up on two conditions of approval that had been suggested. I was looking at the, Condition of approval number 19 is our general like indemnity provision and it is very broad. but I just wanted to ask the city attorney, it says at the end, any claims relating to or arising from the city's approval of the project or any portion of the project and whether we should add approval or construction. add construction to that. and if that would be acceptable. um, And then my I think that I agree that that would be helpful here from the other council members comments and then to follow up on the vice mayor's comment about insurance that seems to be condition number 34. And we are additionally insured. It says they should obtain liability insurance with policy limits. $500,000. and name the city as additionally insured. because that condition number 34, vice mayor. include the type of, is there a different type of insurance that you're contemplating |
| 01:31:48.20 | Janelle Kellman | I think that's probably the insurance, the same type of insurance. And I'm glad to see we had that. Thank you for finding that as to the city. I guess maybe the outstanding question might be whether we would want or ask that the that the cons be named as additional insurers if we wanted to sort of smooth the way as an opportunity for them to work together. I thank you for finding that the city is the beneficiary of that. |
| 01:32:18.41 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah, so I'd be amenable to that change in condition. 34. And Others are amenable to a change in condition 19 to add construction to make it. just ultimately clear what we're indemnified for. |
| 01:32:39.94 | Jill Hoffman | because they're great ads. Yep, thank you. Council member Blaustein and then council member, are we still, do you guys have follow-up questions or are we into discussion? Okay. I don't know. Okay, well, let's just start our discussion, I guess. And if we have follow-up questions or any clarification, I guess we can ask for that. So we're going to move into our discussion. So Councilmember Blaston, go ahead. Do you have your hand up? |
| 01:33:05.10 | Melissa Blaustein | your hand up. |
| 01:33:05.81 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:33:05.84 | Melissa Blaustein | Yeah, great. Thank you, Mayor Hoffman. And thank you to the applicants and the appellants and all of the time that's been put on and to the staff. And I know this has been a five year process and I really appreciate the time that the planning commission as well as HPC took on this too. I want to acknowledge that. I am inclined to deny the appeal. However, I would like to see what additional provisions for, with exceptions, essentially for the hillside. And I was really interested in what Our former council member Cox suggested and said that there had been a precedent for, and I would like to see if we could include this which was that Since the applicant hasn't identified the actual solution yet and is trying to complete the work as part of the permitting process. And because there's concerns about the conditions Would it be appropriate to require that whatever solution the applicant does do is peer reviewed by an independent third party at their own expense prior to starting construction. So I would be in favor of that. So that there is some added level of ensuring that the hillside is, is stabilized in a way that is, whether that is with a concrete retaining wall or with mesh or otherwise, that has been appropriately peer reviewed. and that the peer-reviewed expense is at the cost of the applicant. So that's where I'm at with it at this point. but I'm open to hearing what others have to say. |
| 01:34:28.34 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thank you. Go ahead, Council Member Fleva-Knowles and then Council Member Sobieski. |
| 01:34:34.27 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah, thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilmember Blastain. I'd be in favor of that as a third. amendment to the current conditions I just want to thank the applicant and the appellant. I think this is really an excellent project. I mean, so many aspects of it that we didn't even talk about tonight, but will be a great addition to the downtown You know, I would just... in response to the appellant's arguments, I think that this condition 56 really is a great roadmap. We can't require an applicant to work on a neighboring property without the consent of the neighboring property owner. So the collaborative approach is really the path forward. |
| 01:35:12.64 | Unknown | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 01:35:17.05 | Ian Sobieski | for the best results and the best solution, but it definitely requires the cooperation of both parties. So I hope that that's the path that is picked, but in the event that that can't work out, I think we have to give the applicant a path forward. So I have having heard all of the appellants' arguments about that. I think. I'm satisfied that condition 56 for the changes that we've suggested to other sections um is the best a solution for the stability of the hillside that we can get through this process. And I'm in favor of denying the appeal and approving the project. |
| 01:36:04.30 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thank you. Councilmember Sobieski. |
| 01:36:06.99 | Ian Sobieski | I support Marissa's addition of the independent expert assessing and qualifying the outside stabilization as part of a requirement to insert here and I also support Susan's broadening of the indemnification claim. In fact, More generally, I would support the broadest possible indemnification. Since it is a dispute between private parties, if the Hillside does slide, I would like to the extent possible to remove the city's deep pockets from a claim concerning that so if we could even broaden the indemnity to be anything uh, without limitation resulting from the sort-of movement of the hillside. Basically the same language Mary proposed. So I would second to her what she said earlier. And then I would just second what Susan said too. Obviously we want to preserve the historic integrity of downtown. but it's probably too late on this project, but it would be great if, if we riffed off of the creativity, Susan, just, just, just, Crawford about the win-win that would have occurred if there was a setback construction of a higher story that could have actually helped with slope site stability and added housing unit or two. who are downtown. So it may not be relevant here, but I think it's worth articulating. Thank you. |
| 01:37:36.45 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thank you. Vice Mayor, do you have any comments Thank you. |
| 01:37:40.87 | Janelle Kellman | Yeah, well, I mean, I think everything was well said by my colleagues before me, the three additions slash expansions, the peer review, wholeheartedly agree with that. the broader identification provision in 19, And then I think there was an agreement on the named insureds that we would ask the applicant to include the cons as a named insured. So if those are the three and everybody agrees, agree with denying the appeal with those three measures put into place. |
| 01:38:08.73 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. Thank you. I also you know, thank everybody who's been working on this for so long. And I will note though that, you know, The views of the slope that were presented are you know, our appear to be significant, the slope. And so I would encourage the owners of the slope, the cons to take this opportunity to work with and collaborate with the Sincadas and the owners of the project to stabilize their slope. So this is their chance. This is your chance to collaborate to secure your slope. So I would encourage you to do that. I agree with all of the conditions that we just talked about. And, um, I think, Mary, how do we need to do this? Do we need to take a pause so that we can get the exact language that we need or Can we, is this direction enough? |
| 01:39:08.42 | Mary Wagner | So if I may, Madam Mayor, first, I think the direction is very clear on the modifications to condition 19. to ensure that we add construction and that including without limitations slope movement, the condition 34, it's very clear to add the upslope property owners as additional insurers also, in addition to the city. I did want to point out for the city council that condition 56B, the alternate approach includes language that explicitly allows us to retain independent third party geotech at the applicant's expense. So that language already exists in the alternate approach, in the collaborative approach, the city is engaged and can have our own geotech engaged in that. as well, so I don't believe it's as necessary in that provision, but would look to Mr. McGowan to see if he thinks that it would be helpful to add that same language in 56A. |
| 01:40:11.60 | Kevin McGowan | I would suggest we add it at this point just to make it a uniform document. |
| 01:40:16.36 | Mary Wagner | Great, so we'll just copy and paste that same language from 56B one. that the city may choose to utilize a third party geotech engineering firm. and or structural engineering firm to review the submitted documents and the cost of such third party review shall be paid by the applicant pursuant to the city's standard reimbursement agreement. And with that, Madam Mayor, I think we have very clear direction if that's if the Council's in agreement with those modifications. |
| 01:40:42.41 | Jill Hoffman | I believe that we are. Do you need us to- Go ahead, Councilman, please. Also, go ahead. |
| 01:40:48.69 | Ian Sobieski | I was just gonna make a motion with those amendments as articulated by the city attorney and council members during the discussion. |
| 01:40:55.12 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. The motion to deny the appeal. |
| 01:40:58.09 | Ian Sobieski | motion to deny the appeal with the amendments to the conditions articulated by the city and council members. |
| 01:40:58.70 | Jill Hoffman | I can't. |
| 01:41:05.12 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. Thank you. Second. Can we please call the roll? |
| 01:41:10.46 | Heidi Scoble | Council Member Sobieski. |
| 01:41:15.13 | Heidi Scoble | Yes. Councilmember Blavstein. |
| 01:41:17.90 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes. |
| 01:41:18.91 | Heidi Scoble | Council member Cleveland Knowles. |
| 01:41:20.50 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 01:41:20.52 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 01:41:21.43 | Heidi Scoble | Vice Mayor Kellman. |
| 01:41:22.88 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 01:41:23.55 | Heidi Scoble | Mayor Hoffman. |
| 01:41:24.55 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. Okay, thank you everybody. Good work, everybody on all counts. Thank you to the applicant, thank you to the tenant, and thank you to my fellow city council members and staff. Excellent work. Thank you. |
| 01:41:36.95 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 01:41:36.97 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 01:41:37.00 | Ian Sobieski | I'm not sure. Thank you. |
| 01:41:38.00 | Jill Hoffman | I'm going to go. |
| 01:41:38.02 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:41:38.25 | Ian Sobieski | All right. |
| 01:41:38.34 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:41:38.37 | Ian Sobieski | It's a great day. |
| 01:41:38.54 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:41:38.56 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 01:41:38.57 | Jill Hoffman | you |
| 01:41:38.76 | Unknown | If I don't get out that much, it's just because I'm having such a hard time. |