| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:10.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I think Andrew just walked in. Should we just, if it's only a minute, should we wait or should you want me to go ahead? |
| 00:00:11.83 | Annie Tsang | This is a great day. |
| 00:00:17.12 | Director Phipps | Yeah. And let me turn on my microphone. Yeah, if that's the case, I think happy for us to wait one minute for Commissioner Junius to join us. With that in mind, I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce Kylie Otto to the commission. Kylie is a BBK attorney, and she'll be joining us this evening as legal counsel. Kylie, welcome to the Planning Commission of City of Sal Salido. Thank you for joining us this evening, and we look forward to working with you. I'll turn it over to you for any intro you'd like to share. |
| 00:00:55.63 | Kylie Otto | Thank you very much. I'm looking forward to working with all of you. Just a little bit of background. an attorney since 97, but been practicing municipal law since 2000. and all, but six months of those were in land use. I started as a code enforcement prosecutor. So I've been doing this quite a while and I look forward to working with you. |
| 00:01:21.15 | Director Phipps | Excellent. Thank you so much. |
| 00:01:23.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you for being here. We're all set now. We're waiting for you. We're all set. I'm going to call to order the Sausalito Planning Commission meeting for July 24, 2024. Director Phipps, please call to order. |
| 00:01:40.88 | Director Phipps | Yes, good evening to you, Chair, Vice Chair, Commissioners, staff, and members of the public. This evening's meeting is held at City of Sausalito Council Chambers at 420 Litho Street and is open to members of the public. Members of the public may also access this meeting and provide public comment through Zoom. With that, I will call roll, Commissioner Merlot. Commissioner Junius? Present. Commissioner Feller? |
| 00:02:02.22 | Kristina Feller | Here. |
| 00:02:02.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:02:02.85 | Director Phipps | vice chair son |
| 00:02:03.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:02:04.00 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:02:04.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | here. |
| 00:02:04.52 | Director Phipps | Chair Luxenberg. |
| 00:02:05.63 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Here. |
| 00:02:05.83 | Director Phipps | Thank you. We have achieved quorum, and I will pass it back to you, chair. |
| 00:02:09.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much. Next item is approval of the agenda. I'm looking for a motion for approval. |
| 00:02:14.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So moved. |
| 00:02:16.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Any discussion? Seeing none. Director Phipps, please call the roll. |
| 00:02:20.01 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Merlon. Yes. Commissioner Junius. Yes. Commissioner Filler. Yes. Vice Chair Son. Yes. Chair Luxembourg. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:02:24.31 | Kristina Feller | you |
| 00:02:24.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 00:02:24.45 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Yes. |
| 00:02:29.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Next item is public comments for items not on the agenda this evening. Director Phipps, if you can give instructions for that, that would be appreciated. |
| 00:02:37.51 | Director Phipps | Yeah, this is the time for us to hear from citizens regarding matters that are not on the agenda, except in very limited situations. State law precludes the commission from taking action on or engaging in discussions concerning items of business that are not on the agenda. However, the commission may refer matters not on the agenda to staff or direct the subject to be agendized at a future meeting. Video or audio public comment is limited to three minutes per speaker. If you'd like to make a comment, please submit a speaker card to me and or my colleague, Maria Hernandez, to my right. If you'd like to make a comment in the Zoom application, please raise your hand and you will be called upon when it is your time to speak. To raise your hand from a phone, press star 9 and each speaker will be notified when the time has elapsed. Thank you. I am looking to the chamber for interested speakers who have not yet had the opportunity to submit a speaker card. Seeing no interested members or maybe one who's interested, but seeing none. And I'm looking to the Zoom application for raised hands. Chair, I am seeing none, so I'll pass it back to you. |
| 00:03:44.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | This gentleman, are you looking for items not on the agenda or items on the agenda? |
| 00:03:52.33 | Director Phipps | You may find the speaker cards adjacent to the entrance. However, since we have a relatively low number of attendees in the chamber, I think we can forego that requirement. |
| 00:04:06.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:04:07.00 | Director Phipps | But we will also accept the speaker card. |
| 00:04:07.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But we will also accept the speaker card. Is this a statement that's on the agenda or not on the agenda? |
| 00:04:13.49 | Adam Blair | It's on. |
| 00:04:15.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, you still need to fill it. You can still pull out the card, but it will be for an item later. Okay, so there are no nobody's wanting to speak for items that aren't on the agenda this evening. We'll move on to item number four, Planning Commission minutes for July 10, 2024. Look for a motion for approval. |
| 00:04:38.06 | Kristina Feller | some of the. Thank you. |
| 00:04:38.65 | Andrew Junius | Second. |
| 00:04:39.60 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Any discussion? Seeing none, Director Pips, please take the roll. |
| 00:04:44.04 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Merlot. Yes. Commissioner Junius. Yes. Commissioner Feller. Yes. Vice Chair Saad. Yes. Chair Luxembourg. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:04:48.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:04:48.14 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 00:04:49.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:04:49.64 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 00:04:54.06 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Next item is communications. Director Phipps, if you can give an update for CDD, please. |
| 00:05:00.36 | Director Phipps | Yes, I have a couple updates. Once again, welcome to Cagliato. Thank you for being here. My second communication item this evening is related to the internal promotion of Salsalito's newest senior planner, Matthew Mandich. Matthew has exemplified accountability and efficiency in CDD since he joined the department and has shown exceptional leadership and growth in his planning role within the department. Matthew, congratulations on your promotion. I believe he's watching virtually from his office, but he will be joining us later this evening. And we look forward to seeing you continue to excel in your new role and continue to provide high-quality planning services to the Sausalito community. Thank you. As a third update and a compliment to the internal promotion, CDD has successfully completed the hiring process for the associate planner that was made vacant by Matthew's internal promotion, which I'll note received a high number of interested applicants. CDD has identified a preferred candidate, and we are conducting our final background check in connection with that particular candidate in collaboration with HR. I will not be sharing a specific name because we have not yet completed that process, but at our next meeting, I hope to have more specific updates. Thank you. And my final communication update this evening is related to planning commission going dark the month of August. With that in mind, commissioners, we will miss you for the month of August, but we look forward to seeing you at our first meeting in September that will be held on September 11th. |
| 00:06:34.54 | Annie Tsang | Thank you. |
| 00:06:41.98 | Director Phipps | Thank you very much, and that does it for my communication items. |
| 00:06:45.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Director Phipps. Again, congratulations to Mr. Mandage, and we look forward to the new associate planner as well. With that, are there any updates from any of the commissioners at this time? Seeing none, we'll move on to the next item on the agenda. At this point in time, we will go through ex parte communications. Commissioner June. |
| 00:07:10.63 | Andrew Junius | Nothing to declare. |
| 00:07:11.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Merlot. Nothing to declare. Commissioner Feller. |
| 00:07:15.47 | Kristina Feller | Nothing to declare. |
| 00:07:17.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Vice Chair Saund. |
| 00:07:17.94 | Kristina Feller | Nothing to declare. |
| 00:07:19.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And I need to declare several things. First of all, pursuant to 18702.2 materiality standard, I hereby disclose that my house is greater than 500 feet, but less than 1,000 feet from the proposed parking change for 115 Third Street on the agenda, item 6A this evening. This project would not affect my property's development potential, income-producing potential, the highest and best use of my property, and given the location of my property off on a side street, would not change the character of my property by substantially altering traffic levels, intensity of use, parking view, privacy, noise levels, or air quality. Further, it would not affect the market value of my property. Thus, any decisions regarding these projects are not, project is not material so I will participate in 115 3rd Street for item 6b pursuant to the same section 7022 since the these parking changes are within 500 feet of my property I will recuse that myself for that item and turn the meeting at that point over to Commissioner Saad and we'll come back for item 6c Item six this evening is a study session pursuant to Sausalito Municipal Code, Section 1504080. The City Council may by resolution prohibit or restrict the parking or standing of vehicles on certain streets or portions thereof during all or certain hours of the day. On occasion, residents and members of the public forward their concerns related to parking and traffic safety to various departments, including Public Works and the police. An internal traffic coordinating committee, TCC, comprised of the police, Public Works, and sometimes the Southern Marin Protection District, meet approximately every quarter to review these requests and, if deemed appropriate and reasonable, bring items to the City Council for action. The Traffic Coordinating Committee received and reviewed and supports requests by property owners for restricting parking to improve access to driveways and garages at 115 3rd Street, 22 Atwood Avenue, and 101 Prospect Avenue. Although the Planning Commission has no statutory role in such requests, the City Council has forwarded these requests to the Planning Commission for a review and recommendation. This evening we will facilitate a discussion and provide a recommendation to the City Council. Given that these three requests are in different locations, we will take each item separately, and although the staff report attached to the agenda contains all three requests, we will be doing them individually, and then we will take public comment individually and then vote on a recommendation for each item and move on to the next item. As mentioned previously, I will recuse myself for item 6B at 22 Atwood Atwood Street with that we'll start with item 6a and welcome Adam to see you thank |
| 00:10:26.08 | Adam Blair | Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the thorough introduction. It's a pleasure to present before you all this evening. I'm Adam Blair, assistant planner with the Community Development Department, and I, along with Andrew Davidson, senior civil engineer with the Department of Public Works, are conducting three study session discussions this evening and seeking recommendation by the Planning Commission directed to City Council. regarding the proposed amendment of parking regulations to establish a no parking zone fronting 115 3rd Street, and opposite the driveways of 22 Atwood, notably the driveway on North Street for 22 Atwood Avenue and 101 Prospect Avenue. Next slide. |
| 00:11:11.20 | Adam Blair | So overall project summary similar to what was iterated by chair on occasion residents and members of the public forward their concerns related to parking and traffic safety to various departments, including. the Department of Public Works, and Sausalito PD. These concerns range from restriping portions of city streets to making changes to existing no-parking areas to address safety issues and improve access to driveways. An Internal Traffic Coordination Committee, referred to as TCC, composed of police, Department of Public Works, and sometimes the Southern Marin Fire Protection District, meets approximately every quarter to review these requests and have deemed appropriate and reasonable, bring items to the City Council for action. The city council meeting pertaining to this item was held on June 4, 2024 and was referred to the Planning Commission for further discussion. Hence why we're here. Next slide. So the site locations are 115 3rd Street, identified by Assessor Parcel Number 065-264-28, 22 Atwood Avenue, identified by Assessor Parcel Number 065-203-02, and 101 Prospect Avenue, identified by Assessor Parcel Number 065-193-08. 115 Third Street is located located in the R-2-2.5 two family medium high density residential zoning district per Sausalito zoning ordinance and general plan. 22 Atwood Avenue is located in the R dash three multiple family high density residential zoning district per Sausalito zoning ordinance and general plan and one on one prospect avenue is located in the R dash one dash six single family low density residential zoning district per Sausalito zoning ordinance and general plan. Next slide. |
| 00:13:05.78 | Adam Blair | And so my presentation will mainly be focusing on the planning approvals associated with each of these property addresses. And so we'll dive into 115 Third Street first. The parcel consists of a single family residence, which was constructed in 1954. It was approved through construction permit number 1385. and after conducting a thorough search through the property's historic building records, planning project files, and building plans, no other permits pertaining to the design of the driveway or potential impact on ingress and egress. were found. And so with that, I will turn it over to Andrew Davidson. |
| 00:13:51.78 | Andrew Davidson | And Maria, if you would be so kind as to pull up the other presentation. Andrew Davidson So good evening. I'm Andrew Davidson. I am senior engineer in the city of Sausalito's Department of Public Works. As you've heard, I'm going to be presenting information related to the no parking requests made by property owners at 115 Third Street, 22 Atwood. 101 prospect in order to improve ingress and egress. or their driveways, garages, and carports. Next slide, please. And we'll handle it as I said, one at a time. So starting with 115 Third Street, which you can see here outlined in yellow, which is located mid block between Valley to the south. and Main Street to the north. There is no parking allowed on the easterly side of Third Street. And there are five parking spaces along the westerly side of the block. 115 Third Street is on the westerly side. Next slide, please, Mariana. There have been ongoing calls for service where the police have been contacted and dispatched to 115 3rd Street to resolve parked in red zone block driveway issues. According to police, between October 2023 and about two days ago, there have been 12 such reported occurrences. |
| 00:15:09.36 | Annie Tsang | Thank you. |
| 00:15:10.79 | Andrew Davidson | The issue for the property owner is that vehicles park on both sides of the 10-foot-wide driveway apron and regularly encroach into its red-painted wings. When this occurs, it is very difficult to enter and exit the driveway. A vehicle has to align itself perpendicular to the curb cut to avoid hitting a parked car. Third Street's about 20 feet wide from curb to curb, so a vehicle exiting the driveway will often strike the curb on the opposite side of the street. Next slide, please. To improve access to and from the driveway, the property owner is requesting that the entirety of the existing 18-foot curb to the south of the driveway be painted red. This would remove one of the five spaces along this block of Third Street. So in this image, north is to the right. So the car would be parked illegally if it becomes a red curve. Thank you. Next slide, please. So this slide shows a turning study for ingress and egress for this driveway. We've prepared similar slides for each of the addresses. |
| 00:16:16.47 | Unknown | ingress. |
| 00:16:23.30 | Andrew Davidson | The turn lines are in blue and show the right and left edges and the center of the vehicle as it moves. The dimensions of the car come from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials for standard passenger vehicles. So this exhibit shows that when a vehicle enters the driveway under existing conditions, it will come into conflict with the vehicle. with the on-street parked car on the side of the driveway that the vehicle's approaching from. For example, if the incoming car is approaching from the south and there is a parked car on the south side of the driveway, the incoming car will hit the parked car. So on that slide, I should just give you some information on the left side. I can't really read it, but I believe that's the ingress side. And the right side of the slide is the egress slide. The blue cars that are drawn in, those are hypothetical cars. Those are the standard car. the lines I described, you can just, they're a little light, but you can see where the, um, the vehicle strikes out its area while it's moving in and out of the driveway. So in this case, the approaching vehicle has to enter the driveway using a multipoint turn Removal of the Southerly parking space. So that would be the parking space to the right in this image, north is to the left. As is being proposed, we'll allow a car approaching from the south to enter the driveway with a single movement. Vehicles attempting to enter the driveway from the north, from the left, we'll need, still need to use a multi-point term. For egress from the driveway and only the southerly parking space removed, there will still be a need for the vehicle to use a multi-point turn, as you can see from the conflict shown in the diagram. So on the right side of the drawing, you can just see the blue line striking. I think there's a phantom car right there, but you can see it on the left of the driveway and see the blue line intersecting it. The spaces on either side of the driveway are substandard. The one to the south is approximately 16 feet, while the space to the north is approximately 13 feet. A typical on-street parking stall is between 18 and 22 feet or more, depending on where it's located. Now this doesn't mean that some vehicles can't fit in smaller spaces. So the traffic committee supported removal of one of the parking stalls, not both, and reached out to the property owner for their preference, which is removal of the southerly stall. Next slide, please. So opportunity for questions and comments. This is a Google Street View image looking at the driveway for 115 South, showing cars on both sides of the driveway. The car on the left side, which is the south side is actually probably encroaching on the driveway of that adjacent property. If you can imagine it sliding closer to The 115 driveway, you can see how pinched it can be. So thank you for 115 Third Street. |
| 00:19:37.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Andrew, thank you. At this point, we'll get questions from the commission and then we will open it up for public comments on this issue. Can we go back to that presentation, please? I just have one quick question for you before I turn it over to other commissioners. |
| 00:19:56.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | and go to the diagram right before the question one. |
| 00:20:03.03 | Andrew Davidson | Flight 5. |
| 00:20:03.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Um, |
| 00:20:13.95 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, slide five. |
| 00:20:16.45 | Andrew Davidson | Thank you. |
| 00:20:16.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | one. |
| 00:20:16.77 | Andrew Davidson | Thank you. |
| 00:20:16.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. So this is a peripheral question. You said there were five parking spaces. I just want to make sure I understand it, because obviously when there's only five in the street, it's important. If you look at the diagram on the left, and I see where the cursor is, and then to the left of the cursor, there's a car, and then to the left of that, there's another car. Not that one right there. That car is, that's a driveway. And it's got a little bit of red on the curb. And I think because it was a driveway, now they have a fence up. For that, is that one of the five spaces, Juno? |
| 00:20:54.72 | Andrew Davidson | The five spaces are locations where there's not red curb that a vehicle could park in. So I can't speak specifically to the one you're mentioning. But when I walked down, I counted five spaces where a vehicle could park if it was at least not too big. |
| 00:21:09.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So this is a driveway and it has fading red. So it doesn't look like it's very red. So I guess my thing is if this were to go through, we would probably wanna make sure there's no red there because the driveway goes to a fence. It can't, there's no parking. I mean, there's no reason for the driveway anymore, but you haven't taken out the curbing. So you would want that to be a space. You're showing it as space on this diagram. And I would just wanna make sure that that state of space is all in there. |
| 00:21:37.79 | Andrew Davidson | So when curbs curcups are removed or when driveways are removed or however, we try and get that curb reestablishes a full high curb. So if that is the case here, we would try and reach out or at least remove the red paint. There's not repainted. |
| 00:21:50.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | There's no Yeah, and as I said, it's not all that visible, and there was a car there, so I'm assuming that's the case, but I want to, you know, that's a place where a space should be able to stay is what I'm saying. With that, questions from the commission. Commissioner Felt. |
| 00:22:09.41 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair. And Andrew, Adam, thank you for the presentation. I just have a couple quick questions. The first is I want to confirm that we didn't receive any public comment from neighbors or any other member of the public on this particular item. |
| 00:22:25.59 | Andrew Davidson | So I have only received one comment associated with one 15 third street, and that was actually from the property owner. And that was a phone conversation we had. |
| 00:22:34.69 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Thank you for that. And then I wanted to ask you if you could articulate, just for clarity and for the benefit of the public, what is the process for property owners to request painting of curbs? And how did this particular request rise to the level of city council and then here, because there are a lot of other requests that I know of in the city. So I'm just for the benefit of the public, if you could just walk us through how that happens. |
| 00:23:07.76 | Andrew Davidson | Sure, I'll try. So if you want to have... If you request that the wings of your driveway are painted red, that we can do. We don't need to go to city council to that. That helps define the driveway, right? Right. If you are requesting that actually a parking space be removed as what is identified, I think at the beginning of this, the city council is the only body that can actually do that. So. the process we try and follow is a member of the public, a resident or a property owner will reach out generally to public work, sometimes to police as well. and say, hey, I have an issue here. And I think it would best be resolved by removing a parking space, which is what's happening with these three locations. It's a slow process for them. The traffic committee meets quarterly, maybe probably longer than that. So it gets very frustrating for all involved. The traffic committee, Then we'll review. the request and if it concurs will elevate it to the city council because again, it's the only body that can do it. Normally, I'd like to say normally, it's just a consent item. um, But it's not always consent. And this was an instance where at least one of the items of the three residents really brought out a lot of interest. And so the item was pulled from consent. And city council said, hey, let's send it back to the Planning Commission for initial review and recommendation one way or the other. So really, the answer to your question is reaching out to public works or police, getting in the queue of getting in the traffic committee. And then if it agrees, the committee agrees, it elevates to the city council and gets resolved or doesn't. |
| 00:24:48.39 | Kristina Feller | Thank you for that. Thank you. |
| 00:24:51.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Other questions, Commissioner Marlow? |
| 00:24:54.04 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Yeah, and thank you for the presentation. I just had a couple questions for my own education about the dimensions and so forth. So the existing curb cut is 10 feet? |
| 00:25:04.72 | Andrew Davidson | Existing curb cut for 115 is 10. |
| 00:25:07.36 | David Marlatt | And does that include the red wings? |
| 00:25:11.53 | Andrew Davidson | Okay. To be, I can't say precisely, but when I measured I'm, it was 10 feet. So I think outside the wings, inside the wings, inside. |
| 00:25:17.87 | David Marlatt | Inside the wings. Inside the wings. So it's 10 feet plus the wings. And when you paint the wings, just to help me out, is there a standard dimension that DPW uses? Wings are always 18 inches or? |
| 00:25:30.54 | Andrew Davidson | It often, so the answer is no, it may depend on what the joint shows. So the curb will have a joint, there'll be something that, that. five years from now, someone can come back and repaint when there's a request to do that. So the staff that actually does the work tries to keep it to something that they can return to. So is it very far? Well, I think not too far, I think at 22, The opposite property has a red of like two of approximately two feet, but we try and keep it as small as possible to maintain as much parking as possible. |
| 00:25:59.90 | David Marlatt | Right. |
| 00:26:04.44 | David Marlatt | Sure. So in the case of 115, between the outer edges of the red zone, it might be 13, 14 feet. |
| 00:26:12.22 | Andrew Davidson | So from the inner Yeah. So if you get up onto the curb, where the parking spaces are located, we have one side that is 16 feet and one side that is 13 feet. |
| 00:26:18.15 | David Marlatt | Yeah. Right. |
| 00:26:27.71 | David Marlatt | For the parking spots. For the parking spots, right. Okay. And the curb cut plus its wings is about 13 or 14 feet. |
| 00:26:28.90 | Andrew Davidson | Right. All right. |
| 00:26:33.81 | Andrew Davidson | Uh, it's 10, probably plus three feet, maybe 13 feet. I mean, I'm roughing it, but you know. |
| 00:26:37.33 | David Marlatt | Okay. All right. It's just helped me get a perspective on what we're talking about here. Thank you. |
| 00:26:45.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Any other questions, Commissioner Juni? |
| 00:26:49.18 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Interesting subject. I want to follow on some just clarifying questions that were started by Commissioner Feller. I'm kind of fascinated by this process in a way. Do a lot of the requests, are most of the, generic question, just not having to do any of this stuff. Are most of the requests parking related or do you ever get Questions or concerns about blind turns. And, you know, there's a lot of curvy streets, very narrow streets that I'm terrified to drive down, frankly. Are there other times when you guys consider a request from a neighbor or a property owner about that? |
| 00:27:27.72 | Andrew Davidson | Absolutely. So as a recent example is the intersection with San Carlos, Glenn, Bulkley, and I'm missing Harrison. It's a five, five legged intersection. Um, That came through the traffic committee and that didn't really have much to do with parking. It was some sight distance. So there was a parking stall involved, but it was addition of stop signs, right? And so that was actually just implemented just the last few days, yesterday, the day before they finally got installed. So that's an example of a non-parking related item. We have another item. People are often concerned about speed and that comes up on various streets. Can't help you with the curvy streets right but one possibility if if people are finding cars speeding well we can kind of narrow lanes perhaps by providing edge lines um and doing other types of things for traffic calling. So it's not – I would say it's 40%, 60%, 40% parking, 60% not. That's just rough. |
| 00:28:27.70 | Andrew Junius | That's just right. |
| 00:28:28.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:28:28.78 | Andrew Junius | I really appreciate that. |
| 00:28:29.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you. Vice Chair of Sade. |
| 00:28:33.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Chair. You mentioned that there were 12 cases with Sausalito Police for 115. Do you know what happens there? Has there been a need to tow? Because from looking at this, I mean, how can you access your driveway if someone's so egregiously into that red? |
| 00:28:53.55 | Andrew Davidson | So I just know that police... We were contacted and responded. I believe the resident is here and might have more information about whether the action required in towing or if the vehicles moved on their own. I know. |
| 00:29:04.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair. |
| 00:29:08.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I just want to confirm, so the space that's being removed is approximately 13 feet. Is that what you said? |
| 00:29:16.95 | Andrew Davidson | So the one that's proposed to being removed is about 16 feet. |
| 00:29:20.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm sorry, 16 feet. |
| 00:29:20.95 | Andrew Davidson | Thank you. |
| 00:29:22.13 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And the width of the driveway with the red things is the 13 feet. So 16 feet in a normal car length is 19 feet. Sometimes they're nine by 18 feet, but 16 feet is probably the limit of a car. So the fact that cars end up parking in the red is not surprising, I guess. No. Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. |
| 00:29:43.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:29:46.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | With that, any other questions from the Commission of Andrew? Yes, Commissioner Beller. |
| 00:29:51.18 | Kristina Feller | Yes, Commissioner Beller. Because you sort of triggered something in my mind. I don't know if there's a scenario or if this is helpful whereby that 13-foot area or 16-foot area, excuse me, that is the problem with the parking could somehow be designated or bollards could also be used where it could be motorcycle parking instead of car parking. So we're not completely losing the ability to park something there. Because if there are only five spots, you know, I'm just trying to think of a solution that doesn't completely take the opportunity off the table for motorcycles or something of that kind. |
| 00:30:35.58 | Andrew Davidson | So we haven't discussed the idea of making it motorcycle exclusive. That's a possibility. I'm not aware of other locations in the public right-of-way where it's motorcycle exclusive, but the road's pretty flat, so it's a possibility. I wouldn't suggest putting bollards in the road because I thought I heard you say that. But that's worth discussing, and I'm happy to talk about it. in-house to see I don't know what the demand for motorcycles is here in Sausalito. Maybe one or two. I don't know. I see them in the parking lots. I'm not sure either. |
| 00:31:05.60 | Kristina Feller | I'm not sure either. And, you know, certainly we don't want cars parking there because the length of a car is pretty much longer than than that spot anyway. But I'm just just trying to see if there's, you know, a middle ground where we're not completely taking it off the table. But appreciate the answer. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. |
| 00:31:26.71 | Jeffery Luxenberg | thank you commissioner feller uh with that we will uh close the staff presentation portion of 115 3rd street and open it up for public comment if you want to make public comment you can fill out a speaker card or raise your hand on zoom and i'll turn to director phipps for instructions for public comment |
| 00:31:48.10 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Sure. I will start with received speaker cards. I have received two speaker cards which do not have an identified item number. So I'm just going to name off names. And if you would like to speak in connection with this specific item, feel free to step to the dais. Annie, would you like to speak on this specific item? Very good. No, all good. Please state your name for the record, and you will have three minutes to speak. Thank you. |
| 00:32:12.10 | Annie Tsang | Sure. I'm Annie Tsang. I'm the property owner of 115 Third Street. So thank you for letting me be here. And I'm not familiar with these proceedings. I don't know what standards. So I just am coming to offer input or perspective in case it was helpful. So Andrew was very thorough already, so I won't overdo it. And I was just going to be open for questions or input if needed. I did want to help clarify for you, Mr. Luxenberg. Luxenberg. Yes, that spot with the fence on it, it is a spot. Yeah, people do use it. So in fact, I don't know if it was counted, but it is an extra spot on the road. And then the other question that somebody else had was you know have we ever had to have to have we ever had to have it towed we certainly should have had cars towed there often around over the years and the 12 instances where the police were called probably could have been honestly like 60 calls but it's just the burdens on me every time to call and it depends on how tired I am or how much I want to deal with it you know but there have been times I haven't been able to get out of my driveway altogether and I will |
| 00:32:39.56 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:33:21.76 | Annie Tsang | be on my way somewhere so I'll have to call an Uber or something or a walk or you know I just can't get out you know and and on top of that I just cross my fingers every time I'm backing out because I'm afraid it's like I'm going to hit something or there's a it's an they're very obstructed and I already have to back the butt of my car up over the opposite curb which I'm probably not supposed to do to try to. But I don't have the same vocabulary. So anyway, I'm not sure what else would be useful. I appreciate the consideration. It has been quite a long process. And in the meantime, I just feel like the hazard grows and my elderly parents are coming out of there. They, you know, I have to help them into it. by no fault of the engineering help that I've gotten and all of that, but it persists, and it's a daily – if it doesn't get fixed, I'd probably move, because every day it's very difficult. |
| 00:34:20.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. While you're there, can I just ask you a quick question? I'm assuming since you told Ms. Andrew that you wanted to have the one in front of the house, you would probably come in from the south if that was not there, is that how you would? |
| 00:34:20.62 | Annie Tsang | while |
| 00:34:33.60 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, Andrew knows that. I think we're supposed to be questioning the public during public comment. |
| 00:34:33.82 | Annie Tsang | Andrew knows that. |
| 00:34:38.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'd just like to get it, the commission can allow public comment if we want by vote of the commission. So I just think this answer might be helpful. Is there a commission to have an objection to getting an answer to this question? I'm not seeing, I'm seeing one objection, but majority is seven. |
| 00:34:59.40 | Kristina Feller | just trying to |
| 00:35:00.02 | Annie Tsang | That's all. |
| 00:35:01.07 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:35:01.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you would be coming in from the other side? |
| 00:35:04.14 | Annie Tsang | Yeah, Mr. Davidson knows I was, both of them are obstructions. He was very nice to ask for my preference and I spent all this time thinking about which would be more helpful because sometimes I come in from the south, sometimes I come in from the north. Probably more often I come in from the south, which is what was ultimately why I decided either one, the removal, you know, would help. I think this one would help more given the drop. |
| 00:35:26.13 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Good job. Thank you for that. That's helpful. Thank you very much. I'm not sure. Other comments, other people wanting to comment, director of the. |
| 00:35:36.10 | Director Phipps | So just want to state, Chair, that we paused the three-minute clock at 48 seconds. This member of the public still has 48 seconds if they'd like. Would you like to continue to provide public comment? |
| 00:35:47.19 | Annie Tsang | I won't hold things up too much longer. I just, I think I understood that the, that we're going to crawl before we're going to walk before a run and get, try to help with one parking space removal. I would say that the other one also continues to be really difficult. This certainly would help. But I would just like to state that both of them, um, create a problem, as you as you pointed out, depending on which side you come in. So it's just trading which problem it is. Thank you. |
| 00:36:13.26 | Director Phipps | Thank you very much for your comments. Thank you for joining us. And I will call the next potential interested speaker, as this speaker card does not have an item number identified. Bill, would you like to speak on this item in particular? Very good. Look forward to hearing from you when we address that item. Let's see. And I'm seeing three items on this speaker card. Frederick, would you like to speak on this item? Very good. Thank you very much. That concludes public comment in the chamber. Chair, I will look to the... Thank you. the zoom Thank you. room, seeing no raised hands, I'll give it back to you. |
| 00:36:51.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much. So at this point, bring it back up to the dais. We have no statutory role here. We all we're doing is giving a recommendation back to the city council. So whatever we do, the city council still needs to take an action. We don't need a resolution, but they're looking for a recommendation. So what's the pleasure of the commission? |
| 00:37:14.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Mr. O'Fell. |
| 00:37:15.50 | Kristina Feller | I recommend that this parking spot or sort of parking spot be removed and that the curb be painted red so no parking is there. You know, there's obviously the property owner is certainly having issues getting in and out of that and isn't able to, you know, enjoy their property as they are able to do. Thank you. isn't able to enjoy their property as they are able to do. In addition to that, I just want to voice maybe some other thoughts just for consideration if we're making a recommendation for the community. or providing comment to the city council. And that is that I know that there are many more of these types of issues throughout uh sausalito and i appreciate commissioner junius's follow-up question because there are definitely uh some dicey areas some blind spots um even just coming down spencer you know with all the parked cars it's it's hard you know um with one lane so i don't know if it's appropriate but i would like to um move to recommend to the city council that the traffic group, the TCC, meet more regularly. I think we should consider, since this does come to the Planning Commission for our thoughts and ideas, to pass on to the City Council that perhaps we identify a Planning Commission liaison to kind of help with that discussion or to report back to help expedite this. I don't know how long this has been in queue, but I hope that we can be part of a solution and certainly part of expediting troubled issues like this throughout Sausalito. So thank you. |
| 00:39:06.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | just for simplicity why don't we take your first motion now and then do the other two items and then come back to that motion |
| 00:39:15.49 | Kristina Feller | Well, we're not making motions, I didn't think. I thought we were just collecting. |
| 00:39:15.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Amen. We're going to vote on the record. |
| 00:39:20.51 | Kristina Feller | Okay, okay, well, I would make a motion to approve this. |
| 00:39:21.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So, but rather both. I'm gonna prove this. You're ready. |
| 00:39:26.89 | Kristina Feller | of the |
| 00:39:26.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, okay. All right. But we can talk about that last one, but let's do it after we have the other two so we have more information. |
| 00:39:28.07 | Kristina Feller | You're right. |
| 00:39:34.97 | Kristina Feller | and up |
| 00:39:35.30 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So on that, I'll take a discussion. |
| 00:39:38.97 | Andrew Junius | Sure. Thank you, Chair, and I appreciate the comments of Commissioner Feller. Yeah, this is, I mean, it's a shame that it takes so long to get something like this that seems pretty obvious. It's just horrible to hear a property owner and a resident not being able to get out of their garage. That's really pretty bad. Couldn't agree more with Commissioner Feller's ideas to figure out a way, you who listen we we all know government is can be slow at times and that you know we're not trying to you know cast blame or aspersions here but there's got to be a factor way to do this and maybe meeting more often or getting a liaison from the Commission might help this is a I mean this has got to be an enormous problem you know all over Sausalito whether it's parking you know people people's driveways being blocked or My concern, frankly, is always just getting to and from where I live. The streets are so narrow. There are so many cars parked on the streets. Sometimes, you know, you end up, you know, it's just, it's really difficult. So, but anyway, this one certainly seems like a no-brainer, and I think we're going to approve this one. So, thank you. |
| 00:40:43.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:40:43.82 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:40:43.95 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I sure say. |
| 00:40:45.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Just concur and I would definitely support Commissioner Fowler's plan and specifically for 115 to remove that space and paint it red on the south side. |
| 00:40:58.14 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Commissioner Marla. |
| 00:41:01.50 | David Marlatt | No, I concur with my fellow commissioners. And this does seem like a no-brainer. And I hope we can think about ways to be a bit more efficient with other requests in the future. |
| 00:41:12.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Mylon. I also concur with this. It's just obvious that no matter what, somebody's gonna park in this space, and it could be a truck, pickup truck, it'll make it so you can't physically get out of this driveway, so I concur on this one as well. With that, Commissioner Feller. |
| 00:41:31.32 | Kristina Feller | Chair, forgive me, I forgot to just reiterate that, but if we are able to do so, I'd also like to make a recommendation to TCC that they explore innovative ways to maybe decommission parking spots like this and look at a, Reuse for maybe a motorcycle or something like that. So we're not completely losing 100% of the parking. I don't know what the solution will be for that. It is these are just ideas and thoughts that I would like to pass on. So we're looking at it in a little bit more innovative way. So thank you. |
| 00:42:11.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, well, we've got your first motion to make a recommendation to the City Council to approve as staff recommended. Director Fitz, if you could take a vote on that. |
| 00:42:22.64 | Director Phipps | Yes. Commissioner Merlot. Yes. Commissioner Junius. Yes. Commissioner Feller. Yes. Vice Chair Saad. Yes. Chair Luxembourg. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:42:27.16 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 00:42:28.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:42:28.73 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 00:42:28.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. And your third motion with regard to the motorcycle, I think that that's sort of general. So let's, we could pick that as well right now. |
| 00:42:41.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I think it's more just of a concept for the study session. Thank you. |
| 00:42:45.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I thought it was going to be a motion just to suggest that you look into them. |
| 00:42:45.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:42:45.98 | Kristina Feller | These are friendly. |
| 00:42:52.24 | Kristina Feller | So, so... Yeah, I mean, these are sort of friendly recommendations. I don't know if we actually have standing. Certainly, we don't have standing to direct them, per se. But I'm hoping that, and maybe, Director Phipps, you can help direct us here. are how is it best to relay these thoughts and ideas beyond our motion to the city council and and in hopes that they will maybe consider the direction that we're thinking of |
| 00:43:22.29 | Director Phipps | Yeah, thank you for the question, Commissioner. I'd say that we can take a two pronged approach to ensuring that these recommendations are provided to Council. Prong number one, CDD will take the lead. Staff will bring this item back to the Council and will report back to the Council in a report prior to deliberation on the matter in connection with the recommendations provided this evening. I think that staff are taking notes in connection with everything that's said. Unless there's anything that is kind of vehemently pushed back against, we will be taking account of those recommendations. I would say it's not required for the commission to conduct a separate motion to make the recommendation that we consider creative alternatives for the leveraging of parking. I think that we will take account of that. If a commissioner feels that that is not necessary, speak now or forever hold your peace. The other prong can come from you. |
| 00:44:04.63 | Annie Tsang | Thank you. |
| 00:44:20.26 | Director Phipps | feel free to write an email or a correspondence to city council if you feel so inclined. Thank you. |
| 00:44:27.14 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:44:28.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I concur with Director Phipps. We'll leave it to CDD to relay these comments, as well as Public Works. Andrew from Public Works is here as well. So these comments can be considered, and then any of the commissioners can send emails. So that is an excellent solution. With that, we're going to move on to item 6B. I'm going to recuse myself, go in the other room. You can get me back when you're done with item 6B. |
| 00:45:00.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. We'll welcome you back, Adam, as soon as Chair Luxembourg departs. |
| 00:45:12.52 | Adam Blair | it. Thank you, Chair and Vice Chair Saad. Moving to 22 Atwood Avenue as soon as the slides come up. |
| 00:45:32.26 | Adam Blair | from slide number five. Perfect. Thank you. So diving into the planning approvals for 22 Atwood Avenue, the property as we know it today can be linked through planning approvals, starting with a design review, variance, tree removal permit, and encroachment agreement application from 2012, identified by Project ID 12-124. It was approved through Planning Commission Resolution number 2012-23. The design review with heightened review consisted of proposed modifications. through Planning Commission Resolution number 2012-23. The design review with heightened review consisted of proposed modifications within the Atwood Avenue right-of-way, including construction of facade modifications, construction of a mechanical room, retaining walls, stairs, pathways, landscaping, and the demolition of an existing parking deck. The modifications within the North Street right of way include the construction of the two car garage, retaining wall, stairs and landscaping. The variance portion of the application focused on allowing 432 square feet of building coverage to accommodate the new garage and the mechanical room. It allowed 817 square feet of additional impervious surface. It allowed 86 square feet of floor area for the garage and the mechanical room. It permitted a three-foot side yard setback from the eastern property line for the car garage. And it allowed a three-foot side yard setback from the western property line for the residence itself. The tree removal permit portion of the application proposed the removal of three pitosporum trees, one coast live oak tree, two toyon trees, and one cotton easter tree. And the encroachment agreement finally was to allow these improvements to be located within the Atwood Avenue and North Street right of ways, as described in the aforementioned design review permit above. Next slide. Moving forward to 2013, an application was submitted for design review with heightened review, encroachment agreement, and a variance, which was denied by the Planning Commission through resolution number 2013-3-1. The design review with heightened review was proposing additional modifications and additions totaling 347 square feet of new floor area, a new second floor covered deck, stairs, and other hardscape improvements, the removal of a parking deck and construction of a new walkway within the Atwood Avenue public right of way. The variance was to allow additional building coverage, floor area, and impervious surfaces beyond what was permitted in the R-3 zoning district. The tree removal permit, which was carried forward from the permit approved in 2012, was for the removal of three pitosporum trees, one coast live oak tree, two toyon trees, and one cotton easter. And the encroachment agreement was to allow these proposed improvements within Atwood Avenue and the North Street public right of ways. And just to reiterate, this application was denied in 2013. Next slide. |
| 00:48:36.50 | Adam Blair | Moving to 2014, which mainly approved the residents that we know as today. It was through a design review, variance, and tree removal permit and encroachment agreement application in 2014, identified by the project number 14-006. All aspects of the project were approved, which includes the curved driveway. It's noted in the upper right plan there. You can see the car turning into the driveway. Heightened review finding D. which focused on the two-car garage, said, A new two-car garage will be provided on North Street, which has been designed to not impact existing on-street parking and is set at an angle to facilitate ingress and egress. Then Heightened Review Finding F stated, quote, the project allows for adequate guest parking along the street frontage within the Atwood Avenue right of way. Now Heightened Review Finding F is complementary to Heightened Review Finding D just because it talks about ingress, egress in the driveway. But Heightened Review Finding D is related to the section of the street where the proposed parking is or the parking is proposed to be removed. While this assessment, when the plans were reviewed and approved, claimed that there would be no potential impacts to ingress and egress pertaining to that curved driveway. The property owner of 22 Atwood Avenue has expressed that there are indeed, when applied in real world circumstances, issues pertaining to ingress and egress when there are cars parked on North Street opposite the driveway on North Street. In 2015, an administrative modification to an approved project was approved. The notice of decision was issued on October 7th. |
| 00:50:26.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Uber 7? Sure. Please, sorry to interrupt you, Adam. Can we just not speak during the presentation? It makes it hard to concentrate. Thank you very much. |
| 00:50:36.11 | Adam Blair | The notice of decision pertaining to this modification to an approved project was issued on October 7, 2015, and it moved the proposed location of the two-car garage from a five-foot-four-inch setback from the eastern property line, as you can kind of see in the plans in the bottom right. It moved at about 7 feet 11 inches to 13 feet 3 inches set back from the eastern property line, which I am aware is where it is today. |
| 00:51:03.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Adam, I'm sorry to interrupt you again. It's so hard with the light. Can we hit the cursor if there's any chance to just see what you're referring to right there? Thank you. |
| 00:51:04.11 | Adam Blair | I'm on the car. Sure. It is. Yeah. |
| 00:51:12.73 | Adam Blair | I can walk over and kind of point to it. That's okay. |
| 00:51:16.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | that's okay. I think the cursor is visible. |
| 00:51:25.54 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 00:51:32.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Do you mind repeating that just into the microphone? Thank you. |
| 00:51:34.48 | Adam Blair | I'm a little bit of a |
| 00:51:35.01 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:51:36.53 | Adam Blair | So it's probably difficult to see, but in the bottom right diagram, there's a line... Just set back from the east property line that notes the original location of the garage. And then there's an outline a few feet to the left where you could see the outline of the new location of the garage that was approved through this modification to an approved project. And the relocated garage was deemed to have no impact in terms of ingress and egress at North Street. And ultimately, these improvements were constructed through building permit B 2014-343. And with that, I will turn it over to Andrew Davidson. |
| 00:52:16.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:52:26.44 | Andrew Davidson | Slide seven. |
| 00:52:34.29 | Andrew Davidson | Thank you, Maria. So you can see 22 Atwood outlined in yellow. And the garage, as has been mentioned repeatedly, it actually opens up on North Street. Next slide, please. So here you can see to the right, the driveway and garage for 22 Atwood with approximately 33 feet of parking on the curb opposite the garage along the 301 North Street frontage. The driveway flare for 301 North Street is painted red for approximately two feet. And the curb at the access to 301 North Street is also painted red and that bounds the 33 feet. The width of the street is about 18 feet. The driveway and garage for 22 Atwood are skewed, oriented to assist drivers approaching from the east, as you see it here. So we're looking west. According to the property owner, they are unable to effectively ingress and egress the garage with a vehicle parked on the opposite curve on the front edge of 301 North. Next slide, please. The property owner is requesting that the curb opposite their driveway be painted red to facilitate their ability to use their garage. The resident would prefer that both spaces be eliminated, but that eliminating one would be just adequate for ingress and egress into their garage. The property owner stated that because of the difficulty of ingress and egress to the garage, they are required to use two on-street parking spaces in the area. However, If they can use the two spaces in the garage by eliminating one space on North Street, there would be a net gain of one parking space to the neighborhood. This would be accomplished by adding 13 feet of red curb and leaving a single 20-foot parking space along the 301 North Street frontage. The existing 33 feet do not equate to two full parking spaces. However, this doesn't mean that two cars are unable to park here and still be out of the existing red. They would have to be parked well enough and small enough to fit. Next slide, please. So here is the parking study. And I should have mentioned this the first time. These were prepared by Parametrix. Parisi, who used to be its standalone company, is now part of Parametrix. And they are functioning as an on-call program. traffic engineering firm for us. So the turning study here shows that a vehicle attempting to ingress and egress from the driveway has conflicts if a vehicle is parked at the eastern end of the non-red curb. So east in this case is to the right. West is the left. You can see the blue lines intersecting with the parked car at the eastern end of that curb. Painting 13 additional feet of curb with red will allow a vehicle to enter and exit the 22 Atwood Garage while facing the westbound direction and will leave a single 20-foot parking space along the North Street. Sure. 301. Next slide, please. Opportunity for questions. Here is another Google Street View showing two cars parked opposite the 22 Atwood garage. I do not know if they are encroaching into the red that's already painted out there. |
| 00:56:18.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | that That's it. That's it. Great. Thank you very much for the presentations to both of you. I will look to the commissioners for any questions. Commissioner Veloz? |
| 00:56:19.03 | Andrew Davidson | Thank you. |
| 00:56:19.05 | Unknown | That's it. |
| 00:56:28.50 | Kristina Feller | Just a quick question. I know this is going to sound repetitive, but since we're taking these one at a time, can you just confirm that we have not received any public comment from any of the neighbors in the surrounding area? |
| 00:56:41.02 | Andrew Davidson | Well, I can't confirm that you haven't, but the city council certainly got a lot of public comments during the city council meeting. And prior to the city council meeting, I received a number of phone calls. And of course, the property owner has provided comments as well. So there has been a fair amount of comment related to this particular address. |
| 00:57:02.20 | Kristina Feller | But not specific to being agendized on the planning commission? |
| 00:57:04.86 | Andrew Davidson | I have not. No, I'm not aware of any. |
| 00:57:06.62 | Kristina Feller | Okay. All right. Thank you for that. And again, for the avoidance of doubt, could you just explain for the benefit of the public how a property owner actually gets this request in front of the city council and therefore in front of the planning commission? |
| 00:57:25.57 | Andrew Davidson | similar to how 115 Third Street would do it, and they would reach out most likely to police or public works and saying, hey, we have a problem, and then go through the long process of getting it through. the traffic committee. And then up to the city council. And in this case, it was pulled from the city council and brought to you for recommendation. |
| 00:57:47.02 | Kristina Feller | Great. I know that that sounds repetitive, but just in case these are handled separately, I just wanted that on the record. Thank you, Andrew, and thank you, Adam. |
| 00:57:57.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Marla, any questions? |
| 00:57:58.96 | David Marlatt | Yeah, thank you. Just a couple of questions. Kind of following on on the process and how one gets on the agenda, is it ever the case that the TCC is proactive about removing parking, or is it always just as a matter of course, only react to the parking lot? |
| 00:58:14.34 | Andrew Davidson | and we'll see you next time. It's more reactive. If fire, for example, says, hey, we have an issue at this particular location. then that's, I would consider that more proactive. So we have to be, it's not like people are, we're looking around for things, right? We're not looking around for that specifically. However, I will state, um, for Prospect, which is the next item, we are very interested in what could happen along that street because it's narrow, there aren't any, and I wasn't going to discuss this for Prospect, but it applies to other streets as well. It's narrow, didn't find any parking prohibitions, and when cars are parked on both sides of the street, it's really going to be impossible to pass through. So there are streets like Prospect and Edwards is another example. That's very steep and narrow and difficult to pass. So those are a couple of streets that are sort of we need to we need to take a look at. We do. |
| 00:58:46.69 | Unknown | Sure. Here's a general question. |
| 00:59:10.72 | David Marlatt | And that may or may not be something that the TCC takes up on its own. I mean, it has not to date, but it might. |
| 00:59:17.16 | Andrew Davidson | It might, right? We've discussed it. Right. |
| 00:59:19.88 | David Marlatt | And then we talked about timelines. Just for my own information on the three projects, what is the approximate time lapse timeline since from the 22 Atwood, for example, initial contact to today? |
| 00:59:33.41 | Andrew Davidson | It may be last summer. |
| 00:59:36.35 | David Marlatt | Okay, so maybe a year. Yeah. Okay. I wouldn't be surprised. That is indeed a long time. I had also a question maybe more for Mr. Blair regarding the approval permit, because with the previous case, the house was built in the 50s, regulation was loose, historical fact, this became a parking space, nobody thought about it. But here we've got a case that was only in 2015 was approved, and then prior to that it had been completely analyzed as a variance and so forth. was this issue never addressed? I mean... And then prior to that, it had been completely analyzed as a variance and so forth. Was this issue never addressed? I mean, what's changed that suddenly, and it's not really a question for DPW, but was this never looked at or addressed in the design review process that this garage |
| 01:00:22.62 | Andrew Davidson | I believe Adam spoke to that, that it was part of the process. And he did mention that in a real world, they're finding that the resident is finding that they're having these issues of getting into it. You can see from the exhibit prepared by parametrics how... You know, I'm not sure how they get in and out. |
| 01:00:41.37 | David Marlatt | Well, I can see from the attachment exhibit six, or attachment six, that cards don't work. It's in the drawing. So I'm wondering why I'm surprised that this didn't come about. sooner during the approval process because it just feels like it comes back to us only nine years later as sort of a fait accompli. So now, Sausalito, what are you going to do about my problem? Thank you. That's my only comment. |
| 01:01:06.19 | Director Phipps | If I may ask a follow-up question to the question, did this property change hands since the original approval? |
| 01:01:06.33 | David Marlatt | . |
| 01:01:14.83 | Director Phipps | Was it sold? And for the record, I believe it was sold. So this may be a product of challenges that the new owners have encountered that may not have been encountered in the same way by the previous owners. |
| 01:01:34.71 | David Marlatt | Yeah, perhaps. And I'm not here. We're here to make recommendations. So I'm certainly not trying to argue necessarily one way or the other. I'm just surprised to see that nine short years later, we're coming back to see an issue that was there the whole time at the design level. Thank you. |
| 01:01:51.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Any other comments? |
| 01:01:52.23 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:01:52.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:01:52.63 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:01:53.29 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Junius? Director Phipps took my question about property ownership. In your, that apron that's in the front of that driveway, I guess, I don't know if apron is actually the correct word, that small portion before the garage door, I don't know how large that is, but that certainly wouldn't accommodate a vehicle, correct? Correct. |
| 01:02:17.66 | Andrew Davidson | I don't believe it is. I don't believe it does. You're parking outside the garage. Right. |
| 01:02:21.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right outside that group. |
| 01:02:21.96 | Andrew Davidson | It would hang out into the street. |
| 01:02:24.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so the two spaces are very specifically within the garage. Okay. Thank you. |
| 01:02:27.38 | Andrew Davidson | Correct. |
| 01:02:32.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No other questions, we will get to public comment. I can turn it over to Director Phipps, please. |
| 01:02:39.39 | Director Phipps | Yes, thank you, Vice Chair. Frederick, would you like to speak on this item? Very good. Welcome. Please state your full name for the record, and you will have three minutes to speak. |
| 01:02:49.96 | Frederick O. Lewis | My name is Frederick O. Lewis. I'm the owner of 22 Atwood. The situation is with the parking is if you come down from 3rd Street, it's absolutely impossible to make the turn coming into the garage. Impossible. Nobody can do it. It's very clear if you come see it. If you go down a few blocks. and go around the Josephine and come up. After navigating seven, eight times, you might be able to get one car. We've done it. It takes a lot of time. and it's a hassle. So what happens in exchange is we end up parking on the street. So, by allowing us to at least block out one space, two would be better, but at least one space, we'll have two vehicles parked in there. And then the net gain is either one, certainly, maybe even two parking spaces on the street. So there's certainly no net loss of parking spaces. What's my standing? I spend $70,000 a year in city and county property taxes and I can't park my car in the garage. Why didn't this come up before? I don't know why it didn't come up before with Johannes. I know one thing. I know Johannes concealed a problem with the retaining wall. and when I originally purchased the property, you couldn't even access part of the street because, The retaining wall for the neighbor was falling down. The city was up in arms, putting sandbags in the streets. And he claimed, It wasn't an issue for him. I took the same position for a while. So the neighbors for about a year and a half could barely get up and down the street. And I make this point being that I'm trying to be a good neighbor. So I took the same position. It's not my problem. It's not my wall. It's your wall. And as a result, the entire street was blocked, at least a portion of it. And the city really wanted it cleaned up. Months and months after I purchased the property, this is a year and a half into it went by, and I said, look, I need to cooperate. And as a cost of $50,000 to me, I allowed them to break down, to demolish my wall so they could rebuild the entire wall and rebuild. and recreate the retaining wall so that it no longer, there was no longer any obstructions in the street because they had, hundreds of sandbags in the street, and it was becoming a very serious problem with a rainstorm. So, My request is that uh, that simply I should be able to park car in my garage, both cars in the garage, unobstructed. And there is no argument that, uh, coming down from Third Street, it's impossible. Coming from Josephine, possibly you can get a car in, but it's a two-car parking spot. And because it is difficult even to get a single car in, We park on the street. And it will be a net... positive result of parking Possibly one, if not two, parking spaces. So I would be gracious. I graciously ask that they approve my request. |
| 01:05:53.25 | Director Phipps | Thank you, sir, for your comment. |
| 01:05:54.13 | Frederick O. Lewis | Thank you. Thank you. Please step down. Okay. No questions? |
| 01:05:58.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, we won't be asked questions. Thank you. |
| 01:06:03.75 | Director Phipps | confirming, Bill, you'd just like to speak on the prospect item. Very good. Looking to the Zoom application for raised, Would you like to speak on this item, sir? Very good. We'll wait for the prospect item. Thank you. Looking to the Zoom application for raised hands. Seeing none, I will give it back to you, Vice Chair. |
| 01:06:23.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Director Phipps, and I will turn it over to my fellow commissioners. We can have a discussion for a recommendation to council on 22 Atwood. Commissioner Juniors. |
| 01:06:33.36 | Andrew Junius | Well, I certainly would recommend that we move the approval of the resolution to remove this parking space. Thank you. Could not agree more with the speaker. It seems like if you have a house with a garage on a street, you should be able to get into it. Again, I would hope that we can start figuring out a way to move these things along a little faster. Just to point out to the public, the streets are For the most part, I mean, the Saucyutu is a pretty strange town, and there are easements and a variety of different things that could come into effect. But the streets are owned by the city, and the city should be able to do these things when it just makes sense to do them, loss of parking or not. I think there's no question that in the hillsides and on these very narrow streets, we've got lots of parking issues. The loss of any parking, I know, is a concern for neighbors, especially if a house doesn't have any parking garage. But if you've got a garage and you're willing to use it, gosh, let's make sure people can use their garages. So that would be my motion. |
| 01:07:33.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Pelwick? |
| 01:07:34.89 | Kristina Feller | I will second Commissioner Junis' motion. Thank you. And just go on to make a couple comments. Again, there's a theme here. I would like to see the TCC be proactive rather than reactive. I believe this commission is poised to help be part of that solution. And I'm sure we are all happy to do our part in that. But yeah, I mean, these conditions are, not tenable at all. I mean, they're just completely ridiculous. So I also want to just mention, and maybe for the benefit of staff taking notes, that this commission also made a very firm recommendation to city council dating back to 2019 to look at a parking master plan and study both in terms of utilization and to come up with a larger master plan idea And I don't believe that that has ever been enacted, let's say, from the city council. And I do think this is really important. It's not just for meters downtown or things like that. It is almost more important for some of the residents with these really dicey streets and dicey situations. So staff, if you could make note of that, and I'm sure that the second prong of that, we will make our thoughts and ideas clear to city council members on our own. So thank you, Vice Chair. |
| 01:09:08.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner and Commissioner Marlott. |
| 01:09:10.61 | David Marlatt | Yeah, thank you. So I understand the problem, clearly. And I understand that the parking space clearly impedes the use of the garage as it's intended. But I'm really... trouble that less than a decade ago this thing was approved as such, and the city now is being asked to correct something that was a result of a design decision that was made by the professionals at the time for a different owner, and that this owner obviously saw the garage. It's not a hidden, latent condition. Nothing's changed, and it's being put on us. And I guess we do have to act, because I can see that it's not functioning. but I just want to kind of go on the record that I think it's deeply troubling that we're asked to correct what is kind of a design flaw that was approved by this commission and just a very short time ago. And I wonder if, and this is just also maybe a little bit out there, when we approve tree removal permits, for example, automatically either new trees are replanted or money is paid into a fund. And I wonder if we can think about, not for this meeting, a system where when the city has to alter the public infrastructure, because that's the public's parking space, it's not the owner's parking space that we're being asked to remove. If there's not some mitigation or offset because we're doing it, we're accommodating for a private landowner, the public right away. And whereas in 115 Third Street, it's an historical fact. It was the 1950s, things weren't regulated. I totally get that. But this I struggle with. |
| 01:10:49.17 | Kristina Feller | Just a comment on that, and thank you for bringing it up. But with approvals and even with this commission, let's not forget that both Southern Marin Fire do review and approve plans in terms of what their purview is, as does DPW. And the director of DPW is on the TCC. So I don't know that it's entirely what I would call on a designer or on an architect who's looking at a property. And we do have ordinances that require |
| 01:10:49.22 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 01:11:24.05 | Kristina Feller | on-site parking if you are not within a certain radius or walking radius of public transportation. So I don't really believe that... this particular property had an option other than to park on site. And again, there are other jurisdictions having authority over designs and approvals and it's not just this commission. So thank you. |
| 01:11:52.69 | Andrew Junius | If I might, interesting comments, and you certainly make a good point, Commissioner Marlott. That said, it does look like, I mean, the garage does appear to have been originally designed in such a way as to slant back so that somebody should have been able to get into the garage from one side of the building. At least that's the way I saw it. And I, you know, I, it's, I don't know if maybe the way back when, when the house was built, they should have asked for this right off the bat. you know, so that it was just clear Um, Yeah, and I think a lot of us just have different views of parking. I agree in some respects that parking, on-street parking, is kind of a city resource. I also think that... from my opinion, generally speaking, there's way too much street parking on these narrow streets. They're dangerous. There's a lot of, there should be a lot less parking all over the hillsides and all over these narrow streets. There, it's sometimes it's impossible as I think the next one we're going to see, impossible to get through. So, um, you probably won't ever find me, uh, you know, uh, uh, trying to save a parking space. And I'm simply because I just think you know, it's, it's tough and people should be parking, you know, in their garages. And I think A lot of people do things with their garages don't park their cars. So their cars end up on the street. And I think a long time ago, I think commissioner Feller and I had an interesting back and forth about that exact issue. It's like, wow, you know, some of these streets are just packed with cars. And the streets lined with garages. And it's like, what's going on here? So I don't know. It just seems, you know, fair point. I thank you for raising it. Interesting discussion. But to me, it seems pretty straightforward. So the motions on the floor, is there going to be somebody? Anyway, so. |
| 01:13:33.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, thank you very much. I'm going to support that motion as well. I'm happy to, although noted Commissioner Myrlott, it is a unique situation. I think to Commissioner Feller's point, there are a lot of stop checks here, and there seem to be a few issues down the line, but in the interest of netting more parking and allowing this property owner to successfully park in their garage, I'm happy to support this motion. So I think with that, if there's no more discussion, I'll look to Director Phipps to take a vote. |
| 01:14:04.48 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Vice Chair, and I will do that. Commissioner Merlot. |
| 01:14:08.38 | David Marlatt | I'm going to abstain from this one. |
| 01:14:10.48 | Director Phipps | Very good. Commissioner Junius. Yes. Commissioner Feller. Yes. Vice Chair Saad. |
| 01:14:13.83 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:14:13.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 01:14:15.49 | Director Phipps | Yes. Motion passes. And for the record, note that Chair Luxenberg has recused for this item. |
| 01:14:15.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 01:14:24.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, we'll bring Chair Luxembourg back before moving on to our next item. Thank you. which will be 101 Prospect Avenue. |
| 01:14:46.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Next item on the agenda is 101 Prospect Street. Adam, welcome back. |
| 01:14:54.11 | Adam Blair | Thank you chair. Thank you. |
| 01:14:55.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | once we get there. |
| 01:14:57.32 | Adam Blair | Perfect. Um, so moving into the planning approvals for one-on-one prospect Avenue, um, The parcel consists of a single family residence, which was constructed in 1956 through construction permit number 1723 and similar to 115 Third Street. After a thorough search through the historic building permit records, building plans, and planning project files, no other permits pertaining to the design of the driveway or potential impacts on ingress and egress were found. And so with that, I'll turn it over to Andrew Davidson. |
| 01:15:32.44 | Andrew Davidson | Thank you. Get some water. Thank you. I don't know. Maria. It'll be slide 13. Or slide 12, sorry. |
| 01:15:50.91 | Andrew Davidson | There we go. Thank you. So there is a 101 prospect outlined in yellow. What I really want to point out here, and you probably already know this, prospect is dead end to the west. So the only way out of there is towards the north and the east. Next slide, please, Maria. The width of Prospect Ave at this location is about 18 feet. With a vehicle and with a vehicle parked opposite the 101 Prospect Ave driveway, the resident states that it is difficult to exit his driveway without performing multi-turning movements, multiple turning movements. The existing curb available for parking opposite 101 Prospect is about 70 feet between residential access for 86 Prospect and the driveway of 100 prospect. This distance provides space for about three cars. Next slide, please. The resident has requested that the curb opposite their driveway be painted red to facilitate access to and from their driveway and garage. This would have the effect of eliminating one parking space along the westerly side of Prospect Avenue. It should be noted that 100 Prospect has access to its garbage enclosure along the curb. One unintended consequence of painting the requested curb red could be to push vehicles to park in front of that access. And you can just see that. sort of to the Southwest or farther into the picture. Next slide, please. Once again, the turning study. In this turning, Sony indicates that vehicles may enter the driveway from the southbound direction. under existing conditions. The installation of 20 feet of red curb would allow a vehicle to exit the 101 Prospect driveway and depart in the northbound direction with a minimum number of turning movements. So you can see on the right side where the car is basically backing out of their driveway. Um, and they can tuck the back end of their car. back end of the car. um, into that space and then makes it easier, much easier than otherwise. Next slide, please. So here again is a street view from Google, and it's back a number of years, but it shows a vehicle parked opposite that driveway, and you can get an idea of the tightness of it. So thank you. |
| 01:18:25.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Mr. Davidson. At this point, we'll have questions from the commission of staff. I want to thank both you and Adam for your excellent thorough work on all three of these items. With that, I'll turn it over to questions. Commissioner Marla. Thanks. |
| 01:18:32.81 | Annie Tsang | I'm sure. |
| 01:18:41.77 | David Marlatt | Yeah, thank you. I just have one question. This seems to be almost a typical case on Prospect. Are there other properties who have not come forward with a request? I believe so. I believe so, yes. |
| 01:18:51.06 | Andrew Davidson | I believe so. I believe so, yes. And that's one of the reasons I think we've had discussion about prospect needs to be looked at. |
| 01:18:57.13 | David Marlatt | Right. And that kind of comes back to my previous question about being proactive. Is it because one neighbor has taken the initiative to remove the space, which is in all likelihood we're going to agree with that recommendation. Is it up to DPW now to go back and look at the other neighbors or? |
| 01:19:12.96 | Andrew Davidson | I believe it's up to DPW to take a look at the street and to come up with fire, with the help of fire, come up with a rational plan for prospects. |
| 01:19:22.16 | David Marlatt | Okay, thank you. And then one last quick question just to complete the theme tonight about timeliness. Is this also about a one-year timeline, this project? |
| 01:19:30.12 | Andrew Davidson | I don't think this one was as agonizing. I think it just managed to grab onto as it was going into the traffic, the TCC. So I don't think it lasted that long. Thank you. |
| 01:19:40.57 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Commissioner Fellowship. |
| 01:19:44.47 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Commissioner Marlott, for that question. I guess maybe as a follow-on question to that is, you know, with these three study sessions that we're hearing this evening and the three different but similar circumstances, you know, in an effort to be fair and transparent with everybody, can we make risk recommendation to tcc to use these conditions as sort of templates for um a curing mechanism for similar situations throughout the city so for example um on um what was it uh 115 third where we have a space that That is only 16 feet, and we know cars are longer than that, can we then make a recommendation just to say, well, any of these spots that are only 16 feet should be removed because we know that they're not viable parking spots. So, you know, it's just sort of a follow-on question because it seems like if we're doing it one place, why aren't we proactively looking at these conditions everywhere, particularly when the street width is pretty much consistently 18 feet on these, you know, more narrow roads, which tend to occur in the hills, but not exclusively. Some of Old Town, those are really, really narrow streets. So that is sort of a question to you, or maybe to solicit your thoughts. |
| 01:21:22.19 | Andrew Davidson | I think... I wouldn't necessarily want to have a blanket statement saying that anything less than 16 feet, for example, would be non viable because there are plenty of vehicles that would fit within that. We don't have a policy and maybe that would be helpful to come up with. again, the only body that gets to make these decisions is the city council. We can make recommendations as, as we want. Um, I don't want to say it's an impossible task because you said, as, as you all know, there are a lot of conditions like this and how, how do we, do we spend our, our full energy making this better, it'd be great, but I don't know that we can. Um, That's why... I think looking at a street like Prospect and looking at a street like Edwards makes a lot of sense. And there are probably other streets like that. Yeah. We got to start somewhere. |
| 01:22:14.43 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. I appreciate your comment about policy or policy decisions. And then my last question, again, is repetitive. But for this particular hearing and study session, are you aware of any public comments we've received? I did not see any attached to the agenda, but just wanted to ask that for avoidance of doubt again. |
| 01:22:19.34 | Andrew Davidson | Thank you. |
| 01:22:35.26 | Andrew Davidson | So before the city council meeting, I received one phone call from a neighbor who was in support of removing that parking stall. along with some other items that he would have had concerns about, but he, he was in support. That was the single comment I've had. And I believe we have a speaker here. I'm not sure what side of the, |
| 01:22:58.07 | Kristina Feller | Street Hilfers. |
| 01:22:58.07 | Andrew Davidson | Thank you. |
| 01:22:58.91 | Kristina Feller | I appreciate it very much. Thank you, Andrew. Thank you, Adam. Thank you. |
| 01:23:04.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:23:04.52 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:23:05.94 | Jeffery Luxenberg | uh vice chair so uh i uh in noting in your staff report you mentioned that prospect as a whole should be looked at i would since this is a study session i'm part of the comments encourage you to look at the whole street not only with fire access but this is not the only example of a an 18 foot street i mean the what was the width on third street is that 20 feet you said |
| 01:23:30.93 | Andrew Davidson | That I think is about 20 feet. |
| 01:23:32.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So 18 feet is two feet smaller. And if you have to back out perpendicular, which even with this red curve, they have to back out perpendicular. But their driveway is wider, which is why it makes it better. But there are probably other issues. So if you're looking at the fire safety of which side you shouldn't have parking on, also look at where the driveways are, which you probably would would anyways and you mentioned in your staff report so with that if there are no other comments from the questions from the Commission we will open this item up to public comment as well and director Phipps if you could look at your cards and the zoom of who we have that want to speak on this particular item |
| 01:24:14.33 | Director Phipps | Bill, thank you for your patience. Thank you. Please state your full name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes to speak. |
| 01:24:20.29 | Bill Goldman | Thank you. My name is Bill Goldman. I'm a resident on Channing Way, which is right off and above Prospect. So I'm very familiar with the situation there. And I'd like to just add to what Commissioner Junius and Mrs. Richardson said, which is that this needs a thorough examination of, just for rationality. that That picture that you saw must have been taken early on Sunday morning. It is never that empty. And if anyone is having any renovations on there are at least four or five pickups right all around on that street. And my concern and what I brought to the commission wasn't just the importance the reasonableness of convenience and access It's an issue of public health. you If on a usual day when that is jammed, the resonance It's like going through a minefield, but we learn to live with that. but has become increasingly obvious as you have not broadened the street. But the truck, the cars and the trucks get bigger. as well as just being more frequent. And everyone has a garage. That doesn't mean they're all using it. But you can't get an ambulance through that. EMT can't get through there. A fire truck can't get through there. The police might. that's a bigger thing. that I'd like to bring to your attention. I just want to say thank you for your service to the community. |
| 01:26:15.78 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comment. I will look now to the Zoom application for raised hands. And I am seeing none. Back to you, Chair. |
| 01:26:25.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. I'll bring it back up to the dais. I'll close the public comment portion of 6C. And what's the pleasure of the commission? |
| 01:26:35.52 | Kristina Feller | I'll make a motion to approve this particular request to install the red curb to allow ingress and egress from 101 Prospects garage. |
| 01:26:52.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Just a correction, that's a recommendation of city council. That is a recommendation. We're technically approved. |
| 01:26:55.72 | Kristina Feller | which had technically approved. Thank you. Thank you for correcting me. I do stand corrected. Recommendation to city council. Thank you. |
| 01:26:58.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:27:05.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | for a second. |
| 01:27:06.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you |
| 01:27:06.10 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:27:06.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:27:06.19 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:27:06.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Secondly. |
| 01:27:06.61 | Kristina Feller | . |
| 01:27:06.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:27:07.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Any further comments? Seeing none, Director Phipps, if you could take the roll, please. |
| 01:27:11.80 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Merlot. Yes. Commissioner Junius. Yes. Commissioner Feller. Yes. Vice Chair Assad. Yes. |
| 01:27:16.19 | Kristina Feller | Yes. Yes. |
| 01:27:18.34 | Director Phipps | Tara Luxenberg. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 01:27:21.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you all. And again, thank you to both Adam and Andrew. Excellent presentation. And you've heard other comments this evening. Hopefully they're helpful. Thank you very much. We will now move on to new business, which this evening, item 7A, is to receive and file a presentation for code enforcement progress report update. And I think we have Paul and, uh, We have a PowerPoint this evening. Thank you. |
| 01:27:54.31 | Paul Van Hook | Yes, sir. Paul Van Hook, V. Good evening, Commission, my name is Paul Van Hook I am the code enforcement officer for the city of South Salida. I've been here for Close to a year and a half. I've had dealings with all of you. Hopefully they were all positive. So just to give you a little bit of background about myself, I was a firefighter engineer for eight years for Santa Clara County Fire, which is Campbell, Cupertino, Los Gatos, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and then worked for Palo Alto Utilities for five years. What I will say is I've really enjoyed my time here. This is a difficult position and it can be trying at times. However, I really enjoy the community, my coworkers. It's a joy to come to work every day. I believe that Director Phipps has really pieced together a great team. we have a really good time. So that being said, let's move on to the code enforcement section of it. Next slide, please. |
| 01:28:56.82 | Paul Van Hook | So I started here in late February of 2023, and it was kind of a mess. We had a lot of consultants here and a lot of things that have kind of slipped through the cracks in residents that weren't real happy with the service and whatnot. One of the things that I pride myself on is just courtesy and service and following up with the community and really trying to go above and beyond to answer people's questions and get back to them. So, As mentioned, when I started, it was around 73 active code enforcement cases. Currently, we are at 33 cases, which is a reduction in code enforcement cases of over half, of 55%. Next slide, please. Okay. And I'm just giving you for the quarter number two. And the reason being is this is typically our busier quarters is, is the summer months it's for lack of a better term. It's, it's building season. In the winter months, it kind of slows down because it's rainy as you all know. But there's normally a spike in it today alone. I started five code enforcement cases. So, The current cases are at 33, as mentioned. We've opened 53 since a year. Last year, we had a total of 63 cases. So we are on track to open well over 100 code enforcement cases. We've closed 34, and 76 of those are informal. So I know that some of you had inquiries before and asked about various things. And a lot of times, you know, if it doesn't result in an active code enforcement case, it will just be logged as informal. So as opposed to really, you know, kind of inflating the numbers and spiking them and whatnot, I like to keep them kind of true. So next slide, please. Okay. And as far as the most code enforcement, the most common code enforcement cases, I think the top three would be building without permits, building without permits, and building without permits. It is a real issue here, as you know, and unfortunately South Salido has a bit of a reputation of not following up on this. And that is something that I'm actively pursuing Most recently, I've had contact with the Contractor State Licensing Board and the contractors that are licensed and are doing work without permits. I will report them and send them an email and give them a description of the work that was performed along with pictures and whatnot. And typically what happens is they will log them in a database. And then if it's done again, then they will go ahead and either issue citations. And if it continues, they will revoke their license. So that's something that wasn't done before. And I think that was a real problem and why we kind of received that reputation. Um, Moving on next is, Building above the scope of work described. A lot of times we have, Um, Some residents that will kind of inquire, whether it be via email or at the counter, as far as what they need to do or what not need to do, and try and kind of get some of the easier permits to obtain. And then when inspections are done or reports are made from other residents, we find that, you know, if it was just possibly a low-bearing wall, that it's, you know, a bathroom remodel or a kitchen remodel or electricals being done or a lot of other things that, you know, would add on to through the scope of work for said building permit. Um, Also, another thing that occurs as well, too, is that, as you all know, the property lines in South Salido can sway a little bit. And a lot of times people will build retaining walls or something like that, you know, will need building permits, but they also will be in the public right of way, which will trigger an encroachment agreement as well, too. So that's something that we run across. Also, weekend construction and after hours construction. Unfortunately, we have some bad actors out there. Not many, but a few. that kind of know the system and know that they can do work on the weekends. Unfortunately, I'm not here on the weekends. I do try to follow up to these complaints and I let the residents know if they can contact South Salido PD and have them document it and take pictures of it, then I can go ahead and start a code enforcement case and issue citations. As mentioned previously, I really do take this seriously. I think it's a problem in South Salido and it's, it's something that, uh, I would really like to nix. Um, also another reason we're here, we, you guys get a two for one. Uh, we're doing another, uh, unpermitted tree work, which you'll hear later on today for 388 and 390 South Salido. Um, senior planner, uh, Matthew Manich will be presenting that. Um, if you have any questions about that, you can ask me afterwards as well too. Also gas powered equipment use, which is a really tough one to enforce. Or the metaphor, but it's similar to herding cats because it's tough. There's a lot of workers out there that, you know, are trying to feed their families and, you know, they have gas powered equipment. Maybe they're not aware of it. And, you know, it's my duty to educate them towards it. And I do speak Spanish fairly well. depends on who you ask, but I am able to communicate with them and let them know just the rules and whatnot. And afterwards, a follow-up is an email is sent to the property owner with pictures of it, if need be, as far as the violation, the section of code that it violates and informing them that the next occurrence will, that citations will be issued. And then the last is illegal signage. We have some realtors here that, and it really has slowed down since I've been here, that will post their real estate signs, just on public property. Also some signs in the historic downtown area. I know you've seen it, I'm dealing with it right now, that are past the 30 days or they're over the allotted length as well too. Next slide, please. Okay, so some of the highlights for the code enforcement case is the citation hearing for 230 Santa Rosa, which you all heard for the tree topping of the bay trees, which you will also hear later on this evening as well. The 27 central deck reduction case, which will be heard at Council sometime in September, I believe, for the city councils. And then, um, I mentioned um, 580 and 590s, the tree citation hearing. Also, the closure of multiple code enforcement cases from five plus years ago. Those are tough. And what I would recommend for the residents that are watching out there is if there is someone that is doing unpermitted construction and you want it addressed, it is much easier for me to deal with that when there's active construction going on. It's very, very hard once the construction is done, unless the house is listed on Zillow or something like that. And we can check to see if there were permits pulled for, you know, set improvements and whatnot. But it's, it, it, you know, if that is not the case, then inspection warrants need to be done. And it's, it's, it's, it's very time consuming. And then another thing that I want to note is that the city of Sosceletal Policy is that we do not discuss any current code enforcement cases. And this is for the protection and autonomy of our residents. Once these code enforcement cases have been presented for the Planning Commission and city council, they're a matter of public record. And we can talk about them and discuss them, you know, anyone that would like to do so. So next slide, please. So that is my presentation. If you have any questions, I'd love to answer them. |
| 01:37:02.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Mr. Van Hook, thank you very much. Excellent presentation. Also, the fact your work to get rid of the backlog, and now we have a normal situation, and you follow up excellently. So I appreciate all your hard work. Thank you, General. With that, I'm going to ask the questions, Commissioner Junior. |
| 01:37:16.42 | Paul Van Hook | Thank you, Gina. |
| 01:37:17.58 | Andrew Junius | with the uh, Thank you, Chair. Paul, I really appreciate the updates, and I love the enthusiasm. On behalf of us, a little thank you for all of us. Thank you. Appreciate you, Shane. |
| 01:37:28.47 | Paul Van Hook | Thank you, Commissioner James. I appreciate it. |
| 01:37:30.10 | Andrew Junius | Really quick question on the tree trimming. You know, um, Are you aware of any licensing that those tree trimmers are supposed to get? Or it's not like there are the contractors? So. |
| 01:37:40.04 | Paul Van Hook | So, It varies. You know, a lot of times the one that you're going to hear tonight was from Tree Masters and, um, What I will say before the presentation as well, too, is I found tree masters to be very, upfront, honest. After I made communication with them, they didn't blow me off. They got right back to me. And that's much appreciated. A lot of times I have to chase these people down and whatnot. But, you know, it is recommended that a certified arborist has does this. And, you know, that the tree work is less than 25%. However, you know, that, that, most of the time isn't the case. Thank you. Yes, sir. |
| 01:38:22.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Merle. |
| 01:38:23.97 | David Marlatt | Yeah, thank you. And yeah, great summary. So I really appreciate the keeping all of this, getting this under control on all of our behalf. I just a couple of questions, partly for my own education. You'd mentioned that I guess the number three cause of complaints in regards to noise and construction work. And this is probably just for my own education. That's actually in Title 12, our ordinance. So is it the Community Development Department? I always thought it was the police. So with that, Mr. Marlant, it is |
| 01:38:27.63 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:38:50.02 | Paul Van Hook | So with that, Mr. Marlach, what Unfortunately, I'm only here during business hours. What I would advise residents to do is similar to what I mentioned previously, that if there is construction that is occurring before 8 a.m. after 6 p.m. is to contact the South Salado Police Department. They're very helpful. They're quick to respond. I have a very good working relationship with them. They do understand the code. I've dealt with Chief Gregory on some other issues on noise complaints and whatnot, and she's assured me that her officers are well aware of the code and in my absence, they will respond. |
| 01:39:31.35 | David Marlatt | Right. So I guess maybe my question is even more for the director, is the members of the CDD, and it's fine with me, but I don't know if this has been fully vetted, is enforcing a section of the Health and Safety Title 12 conditions on behalf or deputized by or how does that How do those lines of authority work? Should we ever be challenged? Thank you. |
| 01:39:53.32 | Paul Van Hook | It is written into our municipal code, the, the hours of construction that they are allowed to perform said construction. And, you know, obviously it's, it's, it's Monday through Friday. It's from 8am until 6pm. And then on Saturday, it slows down to, it goes up to 9am to 5pm. And then it is prohibited on Sundays and on holidays. |
| 01:40:16.09 | Director Phipps | Right. Absolutely. And, Paul, thanks very much. Commissioner Merlot, I appreciate your question as well. Let me just read out a section, a general section of the Municipal Code, Chapter 12, as you mentioned. It is declared to be the policy of the city to prohibit unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noises from all sources subject to its police power. The city, I will call out there, a general referent. So in our code, it's memorialized generally. I would say in practice, it's a one-two punch, as Paul has colored. When Paul is not on watch, when he's not at work, we generally defer to the other powers that be who are present to help to address those noise-related concerns. If Paul is present, he's generally the one that pushes those kind of inspections and evaluations forward and collaborates with PD as appropriate there. |
| 01:41:00.03 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:41:00.16 | Annie Tsang | Thank you. |
| 01:41:09.24 | David Marlatt | Thank you very much. So then if the police come out on a weekend, someone's working or making too much noise, they're going to, of course, instruct them, not ask them, instruct them to cease, but then they're going to refer the case to Paul for any kind of further actions. |
| 01:41:26.17 | Paul Van Hook | Yeah, and I've just I've recently dealt with this case. Obviously, I'm not going to be honest, but it is on Sausalito Boulevard. And one of the residents, the neighbors complaining about construction before the 8am. And, um, you know, after the 6 PM and after 5 PM on Saturday, um, and, and I, I, basically, you know, informed her to contact PD as you know, in my absence that I can't be there and to do that and if if given it, you know the the documentation by the South Florida Police Department, then citations will be issued for that. |
| 01:41:58.70 | David Marlatt | by the CDD. OK, thank you very much. One other somewhat unrelated question. But I imagine that the majority of the complaints come in through neighbors or anonymous calls. Absolutely. Is it roughly? Yeah. 9010, 9010? |
| 01:41:59.87 | Paul Van Hook | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:42:10.72 | Paul Van Hook | absolutely yeah it's 10 yeah i would i would say that it almost 95 percent of them come in from neighbors that you know or have dealt with long time construction and and it um You know, they are very well aware that is before the recommended hours. Okay. Thank you very much. |
| 01:42:31.88 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:42:33.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Other questions, Commissioner Fo? |
| 01:42:35.80 | Kristina Feller | Paul, thank you so much for all the hard work you're doing. Thank you, Ms. Sheville. You know, the issue of code enforcement in general is such an important part to come full circle with everything that community development does. |
| 01:42:40.60 | Paul Van Hook | Mishra. |
| 01:42:50.73 | Kristina Feller | but also this commission as well. So the integrity of that and the integrity of the work that you're doing is so critical. to this city. So thank you for that. Obviously it's impressive the amount of reduced code enforcement issues. and certainly the manner with which you handle Probably very difficult situations and difficult conversations is most appreciated. I had actually requested that we get a report from you from Code Enforcement before August recess, because I think we need to keep this issue elevated. Absolutely. In the discussions, in the purview of our community and CDD and the Planning Commission here, because I also believe that we can learn things here at the commission from issues that you come up with um you know in in your uh you know code enforcement uh day to day um and so you know anytime that we can |
| 01:43:38.05 | Paul Van Hook | Absolutely. |
| 01:43:59.04 | Unknown | I agree. |
| 01:44:02.23 | Kristina Feller | you know, exchange those ideas or situations, I think it just makes for a better commission, a better CDD, and a better community where we are all bound by the same rules. So I really, really want to thank you for your time, your attention, and the manner with which you resolve these very successfully. So thank you. |
| 01:44:24.37 | Paul Van Hook | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. And I'd like to add to that my door is always open or you guys have my email and phone. Give me a call anytime if you have any questions. Thank you very much for your time. |
| 01:44:33.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Any other comments? OK. With that, we want to thank you for your presentation, and we will move on to the public hearing, and we'll move on to 8A, 388, 390 Sausalito Boulevard. This is, as you mentioned, an administrative citation hearing to consider all relevant information pertaining to the unauthorized tree alterations on private property located at 388 to 390 Sausalito Boulevard and to impose an administrative fine or remedial order or both as deemed necessary by the Planning Commission and we have Mr. Mandage. Congratulations on your on your promotion. |
| 01:45:13.54 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. Thank you very much chair and lovely to see you all this evening, Commissioners. Yes, so we'll just jump right into this. I think you did a great job summarizing it. So this is, you know, following on from the code enforcement update, a code enforcement case that is coming before you today for the approval of an administrative citation. Next slide, please. the location of the property here 388 390 sausalito boulevard is a duplex located right here you can see on sausalito boulevard above presson avenue next slide please so background for this is on may 20th 2024 a complaint was received by our code enforcement officer paul van hook an inspection of the property was done that very same day by pa, and violations were observed. Multiple heritage trees. Heritage trees are, again, trees that have a diameter at breast height over 10 inches and are not on our undesirable list. So a bay tree does qualify when it's over 10 inches DBH as a heritage tree. So violations observed were multiple heritage trees significantly altered without a permit. On June 10th, 2024, an administrative citation was issued by Code Enforcement Officer Paul Van Hook, and a public hearing was scheduled. The property owner was notified pursuant to our notifications in the section of code on trees and views. The meeting must be scheduled no earlier than 21 days after the citation and no later than 60 days. So the public hearing was accordingly scheduled on July 24th today. Next slide, please. So what will happen tonight? PC will review all relevant evidence pertaining to the alleged violation and pursuant to our municipal code. If it is determined that a violation occurred, the Planning Commission may impose an administrative fine for illegal removal slash alteration of up to $1,000 per tree, a remedial order, or in some cases, both. the planning commission will consider the factors set forth within our municipal code to determine the extent and the fines or the remedial order or both, whatever is considered appropriate. These factors include the severity of the violation, the value of the trees that were altered or removed, the impact that this alteration or removal had on the community, the number of violations that occurred, the frequency of violations, and the economic impact of a remedial order, as well as the good faith efforts of the violator. So all of these kind of factors come into the fine that will be assessed this evening. Next slide, please. So analysis here, this is just a little bit of, again, digging deep into this section. It's a very long and kind of cumbersome section of our code, but this is still how we do things when it comes to the administrative citation and the removal or alteration of trees. So it's going to read out some section of that. It is unlawful for any person to remove or alter any protected tree as defined herein. And a protected tree is our only protected species is the coast live oak but any heritage tree which already discussed which is a tree that has a diameter breast height over 10 inches not on the undesirable list is also qualified as a protected tree any alteration or removal of protected tree is without a permit issued and posted as provided in this chapter except for the purpose of routine pruning, is a violation of the code. And I have some definitions down here. Alteration equals a significant change or damage to the tree. That includes significant cutting of trunk or branches, changing drainage around the tree, cutting of roots, or removal of the upper portion of the trunk or the main leader. A protected tree, we just discussed. And routine pruning, that is just the removal of dead branches. So next slide, please. Here's the photographic evidence that our code enforcement officer, Paul Van Hook, was able to obtain from the property. Photographic evidence shows that at least four Bay Laurel heritage trees were significantly altered without the required permits. I've gone ahead and numbered those here. One, two, three, and then that's three again and four. You will see that there's a number of trees coming up that looks like a lot of trees here, but the way that the bay laurel kind of root system works, it's kind of like a ball and it shoots a lot up. So we've gone ahead and just said that these are two trees right here and counted it as four in total. Next slide, please. Just a little close up again of those trees on the left. Tree one, you can see significant size here, definitely over 10 inches DBH as tree two as well. The little V coming up here. Next slide, please. So brings us to the recommendation. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission impose an administrative fine of $500 per tree as the trees were altered but not removed. This total fine recommended is then $2,000 for the four trees. The reason we're recommending, again, a $500 fine is for the alteration, also the fact that these are bay laurel trees and they will re-sprout and grow back, although they won't really get the same canopy as before, but they will remain and not die given the way that they were altered. Alternatively, as mentioned, the PC, the Planning Commission, may find up to $1,000 per tree, as our code suggests, for a total of $4,000. But the staff recommendation is for $2,000, and I'm happy to take any questions you may have. |
| 01:50:34.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Mr. Manich. I have a quick question to the good faith part that you mentioned earlier. This is a project that came before us, and part of this was removal of a tree. So unlike the last one of these that we had on the hearing where somebody just altered the trees without a permit, they needed a permit to take down the tree that they took down that we granted why they so they knew that a tree permanent is needed why did they not you might not know the answer but why did they not. come forward and ask for a permit. |
| 01:51:11.95 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, you have actually, that's a great memory. I'd actually even forgotten that there was a bay laurel tree that was removed from this property in the front on Sausalito Boulevard that we did go through this process for probably about a year and a half ago now. So yes, I believe that the homeowners were aware that a permit was needed. That tree was fully removed. Perhaps there was a mistake as far as whether or not alteration or removal and what required a permit. I'm not gonna speak too much on that. I believe that the property owner is here tonight. So I'll let them answer any questions you may have on that. But yeah, that is accurate. There was a tree removal permit for this same property for a bay laurel in the front yard. |
| 01:51:48.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. At this point, we're going to have questions of staff, and then can you just enlighten me? This is a public, does the applicant provide a presentation or this is different? |
| 01:52:00.55 | Matthew Mandich | No presentation from the applicant for this. Just, I believe. Public comment. Public comment. I believe they will have 15 minutes, I think, for a discussion back and forth. |
| 01:52:12.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Director Pips. |
| 01:52:16.24 | Director Phipps | I believe that we allow the... party in question to be cited to present for fifteen minutes similar to a public hearing format |
| 01:52:26.66 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah. |
| 01:52:26.84 | Director Phipps | After they speak, if they wish, they can reserve any remaining time to rebut or respond to any public comments. So I think general public hearing structure applies here. Thank you, Director. |
| 01:52:27.36 | Matthew Mandich | I don't know. |
| 01:52:41.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. With that, questions from the commission? |
| 01:52:42.11 | David Marlatt | Sure. |
| 01:52:46.47 | David Marlatt | I've won't. |
| 01:52:46.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Merlin. |
| 01:52:48.00 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Yeah, I just one question about our policy. I take it there's nothing in our tree removal policy that specifically sanctions. In this case, I guess it's TreeMaster or the contractor that performed the work? Yeah, no. I don't expect them to understand the local laws of the community. Yes, absolutely. |
| 01:53:02.65 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, no. |
| 01:53:07.29 | Matthew Mandich | Yes, absolutely. I mean, this came up in the last hearing that we also had for 230 Santa Rosa, and there is no provision in the code to assess fines on the company that does the removal. This is a section of code that personally I'd love to try to update and maybe streamline a little bit and change some of the parameters on something for the future. But this is what we have right now. This is what we're working with. So yeah, there is no provision in the code to assess any fines to the company that does the removal. |
| 01:53:36.96 | David Marlatt | I sort of bring it up for that reason, because I think we all kind of agree that's a section of the code that we should really be looking at. Absolutely. The contractors as well as possibly the owners. Thank you. |
| 01:53:47.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. Thank you, Commissioner Marla. To that point, we may want to consider, even without a code change, some sort of letter we developed that can go out to all three people that reminds them what the code requirements are so we don't have this problem. |
| 01:53:59.30 | David Marlatt | Yeah. Well, I'm sorry. But if they are licensed, as Paul Van Hook had mentioned, citations for general contractors, if they are licensed, it might just be a policy of the department to contact the California licensing authorities and at least get on record that these licensed tree contractors have performed work without a license, without proper permits, right? |
| 01:54:00.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Um, |
| 01:54:18.59 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:54:18.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:54:18.64 | Unknown | There we go. |
| 01:54:19.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, if we could have staff at some point research that, that would be helpful. |
| 01:54:25.34 | David Marlatt | you |
| 01:54:25.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Come to the come to the Microphone. Thank you, Mr. Van Hoef. |
| 01:54:31.55 | Paul Van Hook | Yeah, sorry about that, Charlie Luxberg. So just to answer your question, As I mentioned previously, that the tree masters had actually applied for a tree removal permit for one of the heritage trees for I believe it was a coastal live oak, and there was a bit of a delay in it and there was. a younger gentleman that, you know, had some questions as far as the interpretation of the code and exactly what it was. And he knew enough not to remove the heritage tree. However, you know, there was a little bit of a discrepancy as far as, you know, the breast diameter, height and whatnot. I feel that we've all, you know, been young before and made mistakes and whatnot. And, you know, it was very forthcoming. After the 20th, when I made contact with him, I had a meeting with Tree Masters. And, you know, he assured me that, you know, he was truly sorry for this, that, you know, that he had read the policy that they had sent out a memo to their entire company as far as our interpretation of the pruning of trees and whatnot. And it was just refreshing to have that kind of accountability and being that forthcoming with it. |
| 01:55:51.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you, Mr. Van Hook. Other questions? Mr. Mandich. |
| 01:55:52.67 | Paul Van Hook | you |
| 01:55:58.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Seeing none, we will go on to allow the applicant to have 15 minutes to a presentation. If you want to reserve some time, we will go to public comment, and that reserve time you can use to rebut anything you hear during public comment. |
| 01:56:14.60 | William Pearson | I was glad I have three minutes. So it will take 10 minutes or a little bit more. So hi, everyone. William Pearson. I'm the owner of 388 Sausalito Boulevard. Been there seven years. Longtime resident of Marin, grew up in Napa. So just love the North Bay. I passed out a presentation if the public wants a copy of this. |
| 01:56:18.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | It will take. |
| 01:56:37.52 | William Pearson | But this is going to be a story about how we got here. Frankly, I don't want to be here. I think that. The story though is worth telling. And it all starts with me getting a Marin wildlife or wildfire report in April. And you see the fire department going around Saucelieu Boulevard, jotting all these things down. They issue your report. in, As a homeowner, you get a report from some authority that says you're at high risk in a defensible space. So I'm on page three. |
| 01:57:13.95 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I just want to say for the record, we did not, can we stop the clock for just a second? That's a point of privilege. We did not receive this presentation prior. Is there an online, is there a version that we can share on the screen? No? Okay. Okay. You'll have to just speak to it since we haven't been able to review it in South Carolina Public Health. It was very unclear to... |
| 01:57:28.48 | William Pearson | Yeah, it was very unclear, too, that I should upload anything ahead of time. |
| 01:57:34.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Sorry to interrupt. |
| 01:57:35.40 | William Pearson | But the report says, as a property owner, and this is on page three, and I highlighted it, you can make changes to your landscaping and defensible space. If your location or topography are higher risk, you may need to take greater measures to mitigate the hazards you do control. So here's the authoritative body telling me, geez, Your home's at high risk and no big surprise if you turn to page four, The trees are roughly inches from the side of the building. You can see there in those pictures, the one on the left, this one, we're gonna come back to it because there's one in the photo. of that one. Page five, also showing the trees are just surrounding the building. Page six, we have neighbors down the hillside. This is a house on a 45 degree hillside. There were bay trees. literally up and down that hillside. And when I saw that, and if you look at the report, there's something called a fire ladder. in the report. And when I looked at that hillside, there's nothing more like a fire ladder than looking at that hillside. If a fire happens down below, it's gonna spread uphill. So that's the mindset that I'm in after... reviewing the report page seven talks about zones. In the report, zone zero, 0 through 5 feet. The report says zero combustibles. that tree that we saw earlier, number four, number five, is within zero to five feet of the house, all of that canopy there. Zone one. 5 to 30 feet. The report recommends lean, green, and clean. So I'm reading this, I'm like, okay, What's a homeowner to do? Well, I'm not going to. cut all these trees down. I don't have the profession. I built software. So I called Tree Master's. And people come out, they bid the job. And they said, no permit is required because these are base. We've gotten a previous permit, as mentioned before, for a Baytree out front, but that was like two feet in diameter. When I was looking at the rules here, We're talking 10 inches. And when I looked at the trees, I'm like, okay, that's within reason, you know, 10 inches, maybe they're 11, who knows. I'm relying on the experts, tree masters. I didn't hire tree amateurs. I hired tree masters. So I thought that they knew what they were doing. May 20th comes along, tree masters begin to work. I have to say they're very efficient. They clean up the mess. They were up and down that hillside. They got rid of all of the dead debris. I mean, this was a hillside neglected for probably 20 or 30 years of just removing all of the dead stuff on there. So as a homeowner, I'm thinking I'm doing the right thing. I'm removing the fire danger. I'm cleaning up the hillside. I'm letting sun hit the dirt for the first time in 30 years because this has just been a shade canopy. But, the job got shut down, as mentioned. Interestingly enough on page 10, so after the job shut down, I'm thinking, well, what could have I done? And I'm being told, okay, I'm gonna be fine. I'm gonna be, have to come here to present the case, Five days later after being shut down, There was a fire on Crescent Boulevard and page 10 shows all of the smoke Coming up. from the street below me. And all I can think of As a homeowner... If this fire spreads up the hillside and I still have these trees there, Am I doomed? I tried to do the right thing ahead of time. I tried to get trimmed up down the trees. And I was just thinking, oh, wouldn't this just be icing on the cake? All right. So fast forward. to today. So for this... Meeting it. put together this presentation. looked at the certified letter, you know, that I got delivered in the mail. And I read that over. And then I noticed on that yellow card, I got the yellow card there, there was a URL. Talks about the agenda. Look at the agenda. And There's other evidence that I never got. We saw those photos. I never got delivered those photos, never got delivered the map. So, One recommend out of courtesy to homeowners. If you guys are presenting stuff here, give it to us ahead of time, because I never got it. out. David Miller, Eight hours ago I looked at what oh that's interesting so there's pictures of the trees. read the rule. Well, it's 10 inches in diameter. Are there pictures of someone holding a measuring tape against the trees? No, there aren't. So guess what I did? I went down the hillside. I put a measuring tape And keep in mind, it's DBH diameter. breast height. I'm six foot four. I'm taller than most people, so my... height is going to be a different level than maybe someone else. When I'm holding up, a measuring tape. at my level. Here's one. barely nine and three quarters. Here's another one that's probably nine inches. Here's another one that's probably eight inches of the trees that we're talking about. That's my definition of tree. Now, all of those bays were lumped together and you had different shoots and I don't know, are those five trees there all coming up or is that one tree? it's up for interpretation. But as I look at that as a homeowner, I'm like, okay, there's a bunch of trees growing up out of the ground and, Are they less than 10 inches? Yes. All right. two feet, the one out in front, I knew I had to get a permit. These ones like, yeah. Didn't think I had to get one, Tree masters didn't think so either. one tree. that is definitely wider than 10 inches. The one that we saw in the picture, That's within five feet of the house. That tree is growing horizontally. Why do trees grow horizontally? because they can't get enough sun. Over time, over the years, that tree has been, that horizontal branch was pruned back And I would argue, okay, there's a rule. You can't remove more than one quarter of the canopy. I would say that canopy still exists on that tree. Close to the house now, still there. I would recommend that we remove it. because The fire agency says so. So, Given all of this evidence, I thought I was doing the right thing. But I think that's a good thing. As a homeowner, I thought I was doing the right thing For my neighbors? clean up the hillside. We want to plant ferns in there, you know, a variety of other kind of native plants. to you know, the neighborhood. And Hopefully, you'll consider this evidence and hear my story and make the right decision. Happy to answer any questions. |
| 02:05:04.68 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. You've got six minutes, 35 seconds remaining after we do public comment. We're going to have questions from the commission. Before we do that, I have, I guess, some questions of you. So as far as more to inform the public as well. So we find out about this when you find out about it. It was posted last week on an agenda. I think you were known of this meeting and our agendas are all public and all that information was there at that time. So you had access to this ahead of the meeting at the same time we did. |
| 02:05:37.74 | William Pearson | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. |
| 02:05:38.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. So that information was out there. |
| 02:05:42.46 | William Pearson | But I was delivered a certified letter that I had to sign for. |
| 02:05:46.72 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Oh. |
| 02:05:46.90 | William Pearson | and notifying me of what was about to happen here. |
| 02:05:51.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 02:05:52.17 | William Pearson | And I would have expected that I would have gotten all the information. to then review it. not very, you know, 10 clicks of a mouse, you know, in a website. |
| 02:06:04.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I see. Well, it's actually two clicks, but OK. |
| 02:06:07.79 | William Pearson | Thank you. |
| 02:06:08.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And then as far as I mean, you've heard our comments about the tree companies. We feel bad for Sausalito residents where the tree company comes in and says you don't need a permit when you do need a permit. And it's not a question. We are very cognizant of fire danger. It's not a question of whether you need to trim the tree for fire danger. The question is, you need a permit which allows it to be reviewed so that you can get the best possible result of that tree, including a public process. So it's not, the issue here tonight is, and the point for you and as well as the public, is you need to get the permits because we might have had a slightly different result. They might have been trimmed differently. I don't want anybody to get the idea we're not going to deal with fire safety. We obviously will deal with fire safety. So I just want to make you aware of that. With that, other questions? |
| 02:07:07.28 | William Pearson | So one question if the diameter is less than 10 inches, do you need a permit? |
| 02:07:12.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | If the diameter of the tree is less than 10 inches and it's not a heritage tree, then I believe you don't need a permit. But I have a feeling the question is you might be defining the definition of the diameter differently than the code requires, which is that it's a collection. it might be a collection of the various because because of the way these trees though it might be the collection of the various, because of the way these trees go, it might be the sum of all of those branches. Sure. But. |
| 02:07:44.91 | Director Phipps | If I may, just because we're on the subject, yeah, I'd like to just confirm that DBH, the term DBH or diameter at breast height, is neither a subjective nor dynamic term. It has a very objective definition, which is in our code. And I will read it out. DBH means the tree trunk's diameter as measured at four and one-half feet above the ground. For multi-trunked trees, the diameter of the two largest trunks diameter as measured at four and one half feet above the ground. For multi-trunked trees, the diameter of the two largest trunks combined is what equals and adds up to the DBH reading. So just wanted to make sure that that's on record and clear. |
| 02:08:22.30 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Director Phipps, thank you for that. That was very helpful. With that, I'm going to turn it over to other commissioners for questions. Any questions from other commissioners? Commissioner Marley. |
| 02:08:30.79 | David Marlatt | I don't know. No. Thank you. |
| 02:08:31.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:08:31.87 | David Marlatt | I had a couple questions, it would be more for staff. I'm not sure if this is the appropriate |
| 02:08:34.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you. Well, ask the question, we can figure it out. |
| 02:08:37.64 | David Marlatt | Okay, so one is just to understand what was the process to establish that these were in fact 10 inches or greater DBH. Was there a, Mr. Van Hook, did you measure formally or maybe you could walk us through? The neighbor obviously contends that these are less. |
| 02:08:53.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We can take that after. Yeah, okay. Thanks. That's fine. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. You've got 6 minutes 34 seconds remaining. At this point, we will open this up for public comment. Director Phipps, if you could look for cards or hands raised in the audience and also hands raised on Zoom. |
| 02:09:16.40 | Director Phipps | Yes, thank you, Chair. I have one speaker card from a William. All right. Oh, very good, very good. Yeah, you got much more than three minutes, but I appreciate you submitting just in case. So with that, Chair, no additional speaker cards have been submitted to me in connection with this item. I will just look to the Zoom application quickly for additional raised hands. Seeing none. Thank you. |
| 02:09:41.94 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You have six minutes and 34 seconds to make a speech. |
| 02:09:44.94 | William Pearson | Thank you. John M. One additional comment tree master yeah they under like the gentleman said, I think they recognize their mistake we've submitted for the permit for the remainder of the trees to continue this process so we're trying to you know follow the rules. |
| 02:10:00.13 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much. Thank you. |
| 02:10:01.60 | William Pearson | Um, |
| 02:10:02.14 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you With that, we will close the public hearing portion and bring it back up to the diet. Looking for direction from the commission. |
| 02:10:11.28 | Kristina Feller | I'd like to make a motion to approve the staff recommendation and levy an administrative fine on this particular code enforcement issue. |
| 02:10:22.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. Is there a second? |
| 02:10:30.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | There's no second. I'm looking for an alternative motion. |
| 02:10:36.44 | Andrew Junius | Well, maybe there's no motion yet, but you know, I'm usually the guy that's really upset when trees get pruned and, and, and abused, but, I mean, I think the owner here has made an interesting case. I think the definition that staff read is interesting. It's a little complex, and given some of the photos we saw, it seems, you know, it does seem like this was, could have been an honest mistake. I'm not that interested in this, but, well, I guess if I ask the question, maybe I am interested. I don't suppose the removal of the trees improves view. It doesn't look like that's a situation where a view is being improved. And in terms of, I mean, the bays are going to grow right back. So any fern plantings or other plantings on the side of the hill are going to be shaded pretty quickly. I've got some bay trees in my property and they do grow like weeds. I don't know. I'm a little more agnostic about this one. I very much, you know, going back to Commissioner Feller's comments with respect to just code enforcement in general, there's no question that this is an incredibly important issue for the city and for the planning commission and for the staff. The rules need to be followed, but sometimes mistakes get made, so I'm a little conflicted on this one. |
| 02:12:01.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | to Can we get an answer to Commissioner Marlott's question so that may help inform what we should do? |
| 02:12:07.97 | David Marlatt | Yeah, thank you. And that segues, I mean, that dovetails well with Commissioner Junius because it's my due process, really. |
| 02:12:12.19 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah. Happy. Yeah, happy to answer the question there. So clearly the two trees in trees one and two were well over a 10 inch diameter. The other trees that I think the homeowner was pointing to were part of large root balls of trees. And clearly, if you're getting nine and a half and eight off some of those, you combine the two largest ones, you're over 10 dBH at four and a half. I mean, really, the end of the day, this comes down to, sure, if there's fire danger, that's something that that would be a quick approval for a tree removal permit when it comes to you in end of the day this comes down to sure if there's fire danger that's something that that would be a quick approval for a tree removal permit when it comes to you in front of the commission doesn't mean it doesn't need a permit Um, and you know, permit was sought for the tree in front of us pointed out as well. So, um, I'll just leave it at that. So I I'm very confident that the trees that were cut were heritage base. |
| 02:12:56.30 | David Marlatt | I appreciate that. But as a matter of process, is it on a checklist or something? Does Paul go out and measure and take a picture so that we have a document that says this is more... Because sometimes it's perfectly obvious, no question, but sometimes it can be contended. I have no idea if it's nine and three quarters or 10 and a quarter. It's four and foot six off the ground, but sometimes the ground is going like this. So is that the high side or the low side? Yeah. It's more about process and that we're... |
| 02:13:20.28 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah. I don't believe he was able to get up to the tops of where the trees were severed to get a diameter. You can't really take a diameter from the side of a tree very well. It's usually where it's cut. So you're more taking a radius if you're wrapping it around. I don't know if Paul, if you want to add anything on that or. |
| 02:13:40.80 | David Marlatt | I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm really just asking about what is your process? |
| 02:13:48.35 | Paul Van Hook | Thank you for your question. It was, it was air apparent to me that the trees one and two were, were well over the, the 10 inch press diameter height. And staff really was generous as far as just counting two trees for, you know, the 10 shoots that were coming out of there. So that was, the process was followed. There was no way possible for me to scale up the tree and actually measure the diameter of it there. However, if it was taken at the four and a half mark, it is well over the 10 inch president Brown. |
| 02:14:20.14 | Director Phipps | Okay. And if I may, Commissioner, One thing that would have really helped staff get an objective measurement of the size of the trees would be to have a permit to review. One of the processes that we conduct internally when we receive a tree removal permit is answer question number one. Is this tree eligible for an emergency removal based on health and safety concerns? if the applicant had submitted for a permit and provided the letter that he had opined on and, you know, clarified kind of detailed to us during his allotted time, that would have been really helpful for staff to know. And it would have helped to, I think, support a potential emergency removal. In the case that an emergency removal is not identified during that process and the emergency review is is generally, review is generally conducted by DPW, then the non-emergency removal would be allocated to CDD and we would go through the process that the Commission's familiar with via public hearing. |
| 02:15:17.61 | David Marlatt | Just to be clear, this is not a tree removal. We're talking about a tree alteration. Same process as the process. |
| 02:15:20.75 | Director Phipps | Same process applies, I think, and there's emergency alteration procedures, and they follow the same procedure. |
| 02:15:29.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I ask you, I think you answered this earlier, there was a complaint, that's how you got, how did you get |
| 02:15:35.18 | Paul Van Hook | Yes, sir. It was phoned in to me that there was tree work. They were inquiring whether the property owner had received permits to alter the trees over the allotted 25% to cut the canopy. |
| 02:15:47.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | in whoever But if I gave that phone call, they haven't sent any letters in or no. |
| 02:15:52.85 | Paul Van Hook | No, not at all. And unfortunately, Chair Luxembourg, it was a telephone call that was received by me. |
| 02:15:59.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much. |
| 02:16:02.33 | Kristina Feller | I appreciate the questions and the thoughts about this, but this is an applicant or an owner who knows that we issue tree permits. It is not as though there's no precedent here for a tree permit. This commission has certainly seen a lot of these issues come in front of us, and we have done everything we can to help direct staff to websites. We've requested that notices be put in sausage occurrence. We're not just sitting here as some judge and jury trying to smack everyone over the head about this, but we also have to be fair to... to everybody equally and transparent about that here in Sausalito. Trees are a very important part, particularly when they are they are altered or removed in mass, meaning multiple, not massive amounts, but multiple, because you're really impacting the environment for bees, birds, squirrels, other insects, whatever it might be. And that is a real issue that we do think about when we're talking about tree alterations, tree removal, what have you. You know, I think Director Phipps made a good point about, you know, we have many different types of tree removal permits or tree alteration permits. It's not a very black and white thing. This community development department is here to assist the community with issues that are related to public safety. If it's a fire hazard, we've dealt with landslide issues, mudslide issues, all sorts of things. So no one's trying to hold anybody up. There are many mechanisms. If one just engages with the community or the city to find out what those options are. So I think we have to be fair and equitable to all the applicants or issues with code enforcement that come in front of us. I don't see a real excuse why a question was not pursued about this or a tree permit was not pursued about this. I know, sir, but we're in deliberation. Sir, we're in deliberation now. I understand this might be frustrating. for you, but this is our process. So those are my thoughts. There's not a new person to Sausalito, it's not a new homeowner, someone who's gone through this before. I, everyone sure makes mistakes, but like didn't even pull those levers that they know to pull. So that's sort of where I'm falling on this. I'll reiterate my motion that I would move to approve the recommendation of staff on this particular matter. |
| 02:19:10.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Fowler. |
| 02:19:11.40 | Andrew Junius | you Did we wanna, I think the gentleman still has some time to continue, does he get to her button? It's over, it's done, okay. |
| 02:19:16.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | it's over. We could have the commission vote to reopen. |
| 02:19:20.08 | Andrew Junius | I'm going to say that. No, no, no, I'm not going to do that, and I think we know what the facts are. I'll second the motion at this point. The code's complicated. There's too many tree companies out there that are doing too much work without permits. It's unfortunate. I think a lot of this stuff needs to get cleaned up, and I really do wish we could start fin the companies and not just the owners. But I think there might be a problem with, you know, I don't know yet. I want to think about that. But in terms of, you know, revising the code, we just have to get a handle on this. I agree with Commissioner Feller. The tree, the mature tree canopy in a city like Sausalito is very, very important. I mean it for my experience, the only reason I was somewhat sympathetic is, in some respects, the bay trees, I think, are a special case. They really do grow back fast. And so if this was a heritage oak, I'd feel very, very differently. So I do think maybe the code needs to be reviewed a bit, and I'd be happy to work with staff i've actually got there i think there are a lot of different tree issues that probably should just be gathered into one giant tree chapter of the municipal code so that everything's in one place with respect to views and trimming and removal and fines and the whole thing but i will second the motion Thank you. |
| 02:20:45.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Junius. I'm at least heartened by the fact that I'm hearing that the three masters know that they made a mistake. And in the company wide have put out the word. So hopefully three masters won't make this mistake again. Hopefully there's some way to notify all three people that they know that you know what the rules are and we don't have this problem and maybe we're gonna come up with it. |
| 02:21:08.65 | Paul Van Hook | And if I may to chair Luxenberg, |
| 02:21:09.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:21:12.53 | Paul Van Hook | They did respond. It wasn't just the individual that had bid the job, Will, that was the younger gentleman. There also was another arborist there, and there also was a crew leader. There was three of them there that met me there, and they had relayed to me, I don't know if it's still the case, that they were willing to split the fine with the homeowner. |
| 02:21:27.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | find one. |
| 02:21:29.24 | Paul Van Hook | However, I can't speak on that. |
| 02:21:32.29 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:21:32.32 | Paul Van Hook | Thank you. |
| 02:21:32.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Other comments? Thank you. Marla. |
| 02:21:36.61 | David Marlatt | Yeah, and I actually appreciate the comment that there was perhaps an offer to split the fine, although that's a civil matter and not our business. But I just also want to clarify that I don't disagree at all with Commissioner Feller. It's every citizen's responsibility to know and respect the law, and even if it doesn't quite work out the way we should in a perfect way, it is what it is. My concern was more about process so that whatever decision we take, we're not leaving ourselves open to appeal fundamentally. Do we, is the case solid? So the staff can't climb up high enough on a tree, but certainly a pair of calipers must be in the budget of the CDD. So I think there are ways to measure trees. There's ways to document this thing rigorously, mostly to protect ourselves. and make sure that we apply things in a fair way. I don't disagree at all, though, with the... principle. It's the responsibility of the homeowner to know and respect the law. |
| 02:22:34.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I mean, I think to that point, the applicant has even acknowledged that the one tree was no question. No, no, sure, sure. So, you know, had he applied, we might have had better results for the rest of them. So it's clear from the staff that these are all greater, significantly greater than the minimum standard. Vice Chair, I'm sorry. |
| 02:22:40.36 | David Marlatt | No, no, sure, sure. |
| 02:22:48.51 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 02:22:58.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. I was listening because I too had some sympathetic feelings. I still do. I think the intent was not in ill will. And I think to receive a letter like that from fire, it was in It can be concerning. I am going to go ahead and also support the motion because I think staff was generous with their reduction. The fine could have been higher. So with that, I think being fair and equitable, we've had other cases before. It's not the right time to start making changes. But I just want to, on record, say that I do sympathize with where you are coming from in your decision but now knowing the case and and thank you for getting the permits moving forward but I'll go ahead and support that motion do I make one last comment though I don't think our code is terribly complicated when it comes to measuring diameter breast height I it's explicitly clear, and as Director Phipps said, it's a finite thing. So the concept around finding another company is open to discussion, but I don't see any, nuance to math and measurements. So I respectfully disagree with my colleagues. But all that being said, I'm happy to move us forward. |
| 02:24:20.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Vice Chair Saad. I concur with the need to be consistent, so I understand what's being put forward. I mean, we do appreciate that you want to protect against fire. The question is not about whether the trees could be trimmed. The question is about the process and getting the proper permits, and there might have been something that came out of that process and it might have been trimmed differently. So with that, if there's no more comments or questions, Director Phipps, if you'd call the roll. |
| 02:24:54.55 | Director Phipps | Happy to, Chair. Thank you. Commissioner Merlot. Yes. Commissioner Junius. Yes. Commissioner Filler. Yes. Vice-Chair Saad. |
| 02:25:00.31 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:25:00.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 02:25:02.72 | Director Phipps | Chair Luxenberg. |
| 02:25:03.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:25:03.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:25:03.72 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:25:03.75 | Director Phipps | Yes. |
| 02:25:04.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. With that, we'll move on to item number two. |
| 02:25:08.69 | Director Phipps | And Chair, excuse me, I don't want to interrupt. I see Kylie Otto has joined us, Attorney Otto. Please go ahead. |
| 02:25:16.76 | Kylie Otto | I apologize. I was having technical difficulties. Couldn't get up before the motion or before the vote. I just want to make sure for the record, did we have a second on that motion? So I heard a motion, but I don't believe I heard a second. Thank you. |
| 02:25:28.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Oh, Commissioner Juniors had seconded the motion. |
| 02:25:33.59 | Kylie Otto | Perfect. Thank you. |
| 02:25:36.98 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Attorney Otto. Back to you, Chair. |
| 02:25:38.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, item nine is adjournment. Is there a motion? |
| 02:25:43.54 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'll move. Second. |
| 02:25:44.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All in favor. All right. Thank you all. We will see you September 11th. |
| 02:25:49.75 | Director Phipps | Thank you, commissioners. Thank you, staff. Thank you, members of the public. Have a great evening. |