[0:05] Great. Um, I will call to uh order this uh city of Bvad Council meeting of

[0:10] Monday, May the 11th, 2026. Can I get a roll call, please?

[0:15] » Council member Cooper >> here.

[0:16] » Council member Burke >> here.

[0:19] » Mayor Wilkinson, >> present. Council member Carropet,

[0:22] » here. >> For the record, Council Member Mark will

[0:24] be joining us momentarily. >> He's right there. Perfect.

[0:32] » Okay, with with that, we're going to be moving to item two, which is the close

[0:35] session.

[0:40] » Perfect timing.

[0:51] Crazy.

[1:17] » Are we Are we live? Okay, great. Um, do I need Beth? Do I need another roll

[1:22] call? No. Okay, great. So, I'm reporting out from the close session on the uh

[1:29] conference with labor negotiator and public employee performance evaluation.

[1:32] There is nothing to report. Um, so we are now going to move on to item number

[1:37] three, which is reports and presentations. Uh, firstly starting with

[1:41] city council reports. Does any council member have an update?

[1:48] Oh, sorry. Um, so I want to report that uh Jane and I attended the wildfire

[1:53] preparedness forum on Saturday, May 2nd in San Rafale. Um, and um they there

[2:01] they presented a new Marin County Community Wildfire Protection Plan and

[2:09] the acronym is CWPP. And this evaluation outlines the seven

[2:15] areas that need an action plan. And they actually had one for the town of um

[2:21] Tibbron which included Belvadier. And um

[2:27] I've reached out to the uh Tibberon um fire department to ask how this is um

[2:34] how they're going to interact with Belvadier on this uh report. And I think

[2:38] in the future it would be good to have them come and give us a um an

[2:43] explanation and an update on their action plan.

[2:48] Um we also had a um get ready I guess I should ask Jane did you want to add

[2:54] anything to that? No. Um, we also had a get ready 9492 meeting or um I'm sorry

[3:02] uh get ready 9492 um has a class um on May 20th um at the library from 1 to 3

[3:11] if anyone's interested in attending and we had a be ready Belvadier meeting

[3:17] um where we were still focusing on our event prior to the Belvadier film

[3:22] festival on October 6 and we'll be having um more um details to follow in

[3:28] the coming months. >> Thank you, Jane.

[3:33] » More emergency preparedness. I attended the April Belvadier Chibron Emergency

[3:38] Preparation Council prep. Yes, I think that's it.

[3:43] And learned that Chief Woo, our actor and resident, and Lori Nilson are

[3:49] creating many videos focused on emergency preparedness.

[3:53] Um the first video will show how to put a go bag together and as the videos are

[3:59] finished um we'll link them to our B Ready Belvadier website section and I

[4:05] think they're supposed to be just around 30 seconds long and they'll go there

[4:09] will be a series of them and um uh different people from the community will

[4:14] get involved and and participate in making the video. So I think it'll be a

[4:19] great addition to our uh B Ready Belvadier area. people can click right

[4:23] on it and get a quick 30 second little message on how to do things. So,

[4:29] and um the in-depth training happening at the library on May 20th will be

[4:34] announced in the breeze this coming week. That's all I have.

[4:42] » Nobody else? Um okay, I will open this for public comment.

[4:49] » Mayor Wilkinson, there are no hands raised.

[4:51] » Okay. Thank you. Okay, moving on to um item 3B, which is our city manager

[4:57] report. >> Yes, thank you, Mayor Wilkinson. I do

[5:00] have a couple of updates this evening. Uh first, I'll start with Malard. Uh

[5:04] staff continues to meet uh regularly with the Malard team to work through the

[5:08] remaining items identified in the city's incomplete incompleteness letter. In

[5:12] parallel with those discussions, the city attorney has been reviewing the

[5:15] subdivision improvement agreement, affordable housing agreement, and

[5:20] regulatory agreements. Based on their current schedule, the applicant is

[5:23] working towards and still hopes to bring the final map forward to council for

[5:27] council consideration at the June for a June hearing, I should say. um on the

[5:32] relocation component for the project. Rebecca's team is working with our

[5:36] consultants to prepare the relocation benefits analysis and an action plan

[5:41] that shows practically how the relocations will occur. Our objective is

[5:46] to have that work substantially complete in the next 30 days so the city can

[5:50] ensure the process is transparent for the tenants and of course that it's

[5:54] meeting the state's tenant protection laws. Uh in parallel, staff has also

[5:59] begun the onboarding for Eric Sebrook, who will serve as the city's uh project

[6:03] coordinator. One of the immediate priorities that's been discussed was

[6:06] improving organization and public accessibility of project materials,

[6:11] particularly through the website, uh including other supporting documents.

[6:16] Uh that effort is currently underway. Rebecca is also coordinating a meet and

[6:20] greet community event with Mr. Sebrook. Uh we're trying to work that in towards

[6:25] the end end of May and we'll put some meeting details in this week's breeze

[6:29] once we have those dates ironed out. Um switching gears to the seaw wall. Last

[6:34] month city council approved the seaw wall strengthening project along Beach

[6:38] Road. They chose to award the construction contract to the lowest

[6:42] bidder Gordon NB who's a general engineering contractor. The contractor

[6:47] has completed execution of the contract documents including the submission of

[6:51] the required insurance and bonding and the project is now moving into the

[6:54] pre-construction coordination phase. Uh as part of that effort, the city

[6:59] contractor, the engineering team uh have been reviewing opportunities to refine

[7:04] portions of the design now that the actual con construction unit pricing is

[7:08] known. And fortunately, it's looking like there may be some um you know,

[7:12] minor opportunities for small tweaks to the design to save money. Um so that's

[7:18] positive news. On utilities coordination for that same project, staff recently

[7:22] met with P Gen on site, uh Comcast San District number five, Marin Water, uh

[7:28] Gordon Ball, the contractor, and the city's consultants to coordinate

[7:32] infrastructure work associated with the project. Uh and I am happy to report

[7:36] that P gen has scheduled its undergrounding utility modification

[7:40] which was an important part of the project. Uh they've asked for

[7:43] encroachment permits for the week of June 15th. Um also Marin Water has

[7:48] already begun preparatory work for the project as well. So overall uh the

[7:52] coordination with the different phases of construction appears to be on track.

[7:56] Uh again uh in terms of the permits, you may recall that all regulatory permits

[8:00] for the projects have been approved with the exception of the Army Corps of

[8:03] Engineers. Uh their process is taking longer than expected. Uh Tony and the

[8:08] city's permanent consultant are watching this closely and they're doing what they

[8:12] can to expedite that approval. Uh staff is also gearing up for public outreach.

[8:17] A focused neighborhood meeting for the directly impacted Beach Road residents

[8:21] is scheduled for May 19th and a broader community workshop is tentatively

[8:26] planned for early June to provide project information and answer questions

[8:30] from the public. In addition, staff is working on expanding the project web

[8:34] page to improve public access and project materials on on ongoing basis.

[8:41] And then finally uh we will be dividing in uh diving into some more details on

[8:44] these points with the seaw wall subcommittee. Tony reached out to the

[8:48] members today and scheduled another update uh meeting which we're hoping to

[8:52] put in place in the next couple of weeks. That's all I have for now. I'm

[8:55] happy to take questions. >> Any questions?

[8:59] » Uh thanks Robert for that. A quick quick

[9:03] one um related to Malard. Uh you mentioned the relo relocation consultant

[9:09] that you've engaged. Do you have a sense or does Rebecca have a sense of how many

[9:14] uh tenants this might apply to? >> Not not very many from what I have

[9:20] heard. Yeah. >> So two are one is confirmed um disease.

[9:25] I think the other one is also I I don't have that paperwork yet. And then there

[9:29] are two um active people who have moved out of Malard. But um I just talked to

[9:37] their both both their sons today and they are interested in pursuing the

[9:42] relocation benefits and so I they're in contact with the consultant.

[9:47] » So does that have a similar timeline that if because if they're they're no

[9:51] longer living there but but the fact that they were there at a certain point

[9:54] they they are um well I think I was I I was looking for that word eligible for

[10:01] those benefits. >> Yes. Yes. And I'm not an expert on uh

[10:05] housing relocation, but yes, they are eligible, I believe, to some of the

[10:09] benefits. >> Okay. Thank you.

[10:14] » Any other questions? Um I guess I have uh one just to be clear. If for them to

[10:21] bring um a full final map to us in June, when would um everything be filed with

[10:31] need to be filed with the city? So updated subdivision all all the

[10:36] components of the checklists and all that. How how much in advance would we

[10:42] expect that to happen before Um, unless Rebecca or Robert have

[10:48] anything else to add, I expect we would have included the regular agenda packet

[10:51] publication timeline, but if that's something the council wants to address

[10:56] with staff, I'm sure we'd be open to input.

[11:00] » Okay. >> I do recall from Maller Point for some

[11:04] previous projects, we tried to get the packet out early, you know, perhaps a

[11:07] week in advance to give the public full opportunity to review. I was wondering

[11:10] about the public having availability to see

[11:14] » all the components that are still outstanding because

[11:19] » when you look at it it appears like there's a lot and so I would assume that

[11:23] to get it on on from today that everything would have to be to you for

[11:29] your making sure everything's done >> within two or three weeks from now. I

[11:34] don't know. That's what I'm asking. Yeah, I think it's there might be a

[11:38] little bit of confusion out there because there's, you know, we're trying

[11:43] not to conflate the final map with the demo plans and the infrastructure plans,

[11:47] right? There's certainly a lot of documents that are still outstanding per

[11:52] that third um incompleteness review letter for the building permits. The

[11:57] final map has very specific um requirements that um we are we're pretty

[12:04] close to getting those those documents.

[12:08] » Okay. In in that case if they are a finite checklist so to speak from what

[12:16] you're saying is that list regardless of whether it's all in there or not is that

[12:22] something that we can see earlier? Is that something that's already published?

[12:26] Is there a list somewhere that goes into the final map that would be helpful for

[12:31] us to even know what that is? >> Yeah. So, those would be the conditions

[12:35] of approval and the tenant of map resolution. However, there is a little

[12:39] conflation with the demo and the infrastructure building permit. So, you

[12:43] just have to kind of read through it and I can we can connect this week and go

[12:47] through it if you want. >> Okay. Thanks.

[12:51] » Any other questions? No. Robert, I was just curious and I know this is coming

[12:56] to a committee, but when you talked about potential savings on the Beach

[13:00] Road project, can you give us a ballpark of what you're talking about?

[13:05] » Yeah, I wish I could. It's really, you know, Tony and I, there's a couple

[13:09] design elements that um, you know, particularly related to those gangways,

[13:13] if you recall, in front of the the waterfront properties. We may have some

[13:17] flexibility in how we design the seaw wall around those gangways to avoid some

[13:22] of that de demolition work or not demolition, I should say removal and

[13:26] replacement work of those gangways. So, that's really what's concerning and the

[13:30] contract that we were considering putting forward with Hadley. Um, I can't

[13:34] put a dollar amount on it yet, but that's something that Tony and I are

[13:37] working on. >> Okay, thank you. Um, okay. Let's open

[13:41] this for public comment. Anybody in the room? Nope. Anybody online? Beth,

[13:46] » I see none. >> Okay, great. So, we will close 3B and

[13:49] move on to item 3C, which is a presentation from Jean Dela Zoper, CEO

[13:55] and managing director of Nor Valley Refuge Service. Jean, welcome back.

[14:07] right now. Can you hear me? Awesome. Um, so the purpose of me being here today is

[14:12] uh Milvi Refuge Service is adjusting its rates through a CPI based adjustment. So

[14:17] that comes out to 2.2% and that CPI is based on uh CPI and all

[14:24] items was San Francisco, Oakland, Hayward. Now, through the last 5 years

[14:29] in terms of rate increases, we're looking at 3.64%

[14:34] as a 5-year average. So, this rate increase is slightly below that. Um, in

[14:40] terms of customer impact for a 32gallon residential, uh, the new monthly rate

[14:46] would be a monthly increase of $162. And then for 20 gallon, it's $1.31.

[14:53] Um, part of why the increase is needed is we have a collective bargaining

[14:59] agreement with all our drivers and their hourly rate is going from $44 an hour to

[15:05] $47 an hour. So, that's a 6% increase. We're also seeing a lot of uh increase

[15:10] in costs with respect to health insurance and benefits. Just for this

[15:14] year alone, we're looking at a 7% increase there. Um in terms of pension

[15:19] that also gets adjusted through uh CPI escalated contributions. Now with uh our

[15:26] disposal contracts um our garbage and compost disposal

[15:31] contract expires at the end of this year. Um so for 2027 we haven't started

[15:37] renegotiations with that yet but I am expecting increases on the composting

[15:42] side. Um, in terms of fuel, uh, there's a lot of diesel volatility going on

[15:47] right now given macro and global economic conditions, but I'm hoping that

[15:53] will get stabilized in the next quarter. Hopefully, best case scenario. We did

[15:57] get a favorable offset where our recycling dual stream processing rate

[16:02] did get adjusted from $93 to $66. So, a lot of that is through the

[16:08] effectiveness of our source separated dual stream recycling program. So our

[16:12] contamination residual rate for that is still really low at around 10%. So you

[16:18] know I commend all of our customers for source separating the papers and bottles

[16:21] and cans. Um an operational update is uh this year we're celebrating 120 years of

[16:29] being in service. Um it's very humbling to be a part of a company with that many

[16:34] years of service. But I also kind of recognize we're changing and modernizing

[16:39] with the times. So, part of our, you know, long-term strategy is going to be

[16:44] uh really a lot of capital reinvestment with our fleet. And we're still

[16:50] expanding upon our camera systems within the trucks. We're using AI for better

[16:55] safe driving habits, trying to get that data and figure out better ways to

[17:00] service our customers. And we also put field tablets in the trucks. So, we're

[17:05] starting to get more uh modernized across our operations. Um, so that's all

[17:11] I have for the presentation, but um I'm open for any questions or feedback and

[17:16] I'm happy to answer any >> any questions.

[17:21] » Uh, thanks Jean. Just real quick, you mentioned the CPI increase. Is that a

[17:25] new change in approach? Is and if so, is that going to stay consistent going

[17:28] forward? >> That's a great question. So part of our

[17:31] contracts with the city of Belvadier when we go through um a base rate

[17:35] change, that's a maximum adjustment to the rates. the following two periods in

[17:40] the Belvadier contract. It's a it basically allows us to do a CPI based

[17:44] increase but it's capped at 3%. Now part of our strategy is we have to be very

[17:49] cognitive of how rate increases work and you know during CPI based years um it

[17:56] forces us to be uh more cost-effective when it comes to analyzing operations

[18:02] trying to gauge efficiencies. Um it's it's part of our strategy where you know

[18:09] when we do base rate change the next couple years have to be CPI based

[18:14] adjustments because you know I'm I'm trying to do everything I can to keep

[18:18] the rates as low as they possibly can even dealing with you know inflation and

[18:23] other types of cost drivers. >> Yeah.

[18:28] » Any other questions? No. Um I have uh just one um which is in relation to the

[18:34] separation of food waste into green bins. What has been your experience of

[18:39] that since it's been implemented? Meaning are people uh honoring that? Are

[18:44] you actually doing searches of the other bins to see if there's contamination and

[18:48] are you imposing any fines? >> Yeah, that's that's um that's a good

[18:52] question. So part of I'll say our material stream I'd say 90% of it is

[18:58] really yard waste and then that 10% is food waste. Um we do have we do have

[19:04] participation with food waste on the commercial side that's through the food

[19:08] to energy program. So we essentially haul food waste very clean and we bring

[19:12] it over to uh REN sanitary service where it gets part of their uh food to energy

[19:18] program. they're basically using the food waste to generate electricity. Um,

[19:22] in terms of SP 1383 with route reviews, if we do find an issue where a customer

[19:28] isn't um, say that they're constantly contaminating the compost bin, we have

[19:35] uh, processes in place where, you know, we able to send them an email. We're

[19:40] able to track that data. If it's something consistently that's above what

[19:43] we'd expect, we have an outreach person with our CSR team to contact that

[19:48] person. Part of the route reviews, we are uh subcontracting it out and we work

[19:53] very closely with Zero Waste Man to just make sure that everyone is SP 1383

[19:59] compliant and then if they don't have that compliance, they have to have a

[20:03] waiver and then we go through that waiver process. So it's it's been we're

[20:08] dealing with a lot more I would say data sets in terms of who ha who has what

[20:13] kind of compost bin and why. We understand every customer has you know

[20:17] unique needs for that and we have to be able to deliver upon that service.

[20:23] » Okay. Thank you very much. Um okay let's open for public comment. Beth is there

[20:27] anybody online? >> I see none.

[20:29] » Okay. I apologize. We have Mr. Ro. >> Oh hello. Can you bring him through?

[20:34] Good evening, Dr. Hoffman. >> Uh, can you hear me?

[20:40] » We can hear you. >> Thank you very much. Um, this involves a

[20:45] Tibbron, but rather than Belvadier because we don't have uh multif family

[20:50] uh residences like they do in Tibrron up on the hill there. Uh but since you were

[20:56] discussing your practices and desirable practices with respect to recycling, I

[21:01] would like to know and there's a tremendous number of those condos and

[21:05] whatever on the hills of Tibbron. Could you tell me to what extent in those

[21:12] buildings there is the separation of uh of the different uh components of the

[21:20] composting? You know what I'm saying? the like we have the three we have the

[21:24] three bins uh we have the green and we have the uh the metal and the and the

[21:31] plastic etc. Are they able to do that in those buildings?

[21:37] » Well, hello uh Dr. Rothman. Um that's a good question. So part of the

[21:42] multifamily is I think the biggest uh constraint with having multiple compost

[21:48] bins meaning let's say if it's a 30unit building there's 30 compost bins we have

[21:53] to work with the space that's kind of limited but at the same time we offer uh

[21:58] you know the same three material streams of service so garbage mixed recycling

[22:03] and compost. We haven't fully integrated our dual stream recycling program with

[22:07] multif family. those are on dedicated recycling commercial routes. It still

[22:11] goes to the uh same MURF facility. Um but in terms of like food waste bins, it

[22:18] has like food waste bins specifically has to be requested upon the property

[22:22] manager. Um but if it is if it is something that's brought to our

[22:26] attention through Zero Marin when they do their site visits um we tend to take

[22:31] a closer look in detail and I can um terms of like I guess specific site

[22:36] numbers you know we have you know 54 sites in Tibberon for apartments and

[22:41] then with Belvadier we have eight so it still is a lot of you know units

[22:46] obviously but if there's opportunity where we can kind of improve upon that

[22:52] diversion in terms of if you want to look at like a volumetric basis um we're

[22:57] happy to look at that. >> Excuse me. Well, when they

[23:02] when when they I'm unclear about whether they have the bins for paper and uh food

[23:09] waste and uh metals and plastics. Do they do they or do they not in the

[23:15] multiple family buildings? Do they have those facilities

[23:21] or does it you just have single stream? And if you do have single stream, where

[23:25] does it go? Because Marin Sanitary is set up to deal with

[23:31] dual stream. >> Yes, it's a uh it's a it's a it's a good

[23:36] question. So, yes, they do have they do have uh you know, trash carts or a trash

[23:42] container, and they have mixed commercial recycling bins. Those are all

[23:46] blue. And then they have compost bins. And we also uh especially for uh you

[23:53] know multif family, we have done events where we've provided kitchen pales to

[23:58] just make it easier for composting within their uh apartment unit.

[24:03] » Okay. Thank you so much for the presentation and thanks for your time.

[24:07] » Awesome. Thank you guys so much. Appreciate it.

[24:09] » Okay, so we will close 3C and we're going to move on to the consent

[24:12] calendar. Um, the consent calendar consists of items that the city council

[24:16] considers to be routine or council has discussed previously and do not require

[24:20] further discussion. Unless any item is specifically removed by any member of

[24:25] the city council, the consent calendar will be adopted by one motion. Council

[24:29] will take public comment on all items on the consent calendar when the calendar

[24:33] is called. Robert, I believe there's an update you want to give us in relation

[24:37] to 4E. >> Yes, thank you, Mayor. uh item 4E which

[24:41] was TAM's measure AA expenditure plan. You may recall this topic came up during

[24:46] council reports at a previous meeting and during that discussion council

[24:50] conveyed that they wanted to make it clear that the city doesn't support any

[24:53] they would support this expenditure plan but wouldn't support any future uh

[24:58] redistribution of AA funds where they are pulled away from cities particularly

[25:03] small agencies that rely on these funds for road improvements like Belvadier.

[25:07] Um, but I did want to point out that I plan to include a letter that outlines

[25:11] this along with uh your approval of a resolution this evening. Um, but I don't

[25:16] think the resolution needs a change necessarily, but I did want to make that

[25:19] point. >> Okay. Thanks, Robert. Okay. Does any

[25:22] member of the council want to remove any items from the main consent calendar for

[25:26] A through 4G? No. In that case, can I get a motion um

[25:32] on those items? I can make a motion to approve the consent calendar items 4A

[25:38] through 4G. Do we want to say with the uh additional letter that Robert

[25:44] » I don't think there's any specific >> we don't need to. Okay, great. I do

[25:48] remember I forgot to ask for public comment on this. Can I please get public

[25:52] comment before we get a second? >> Mayor Wilkinson, there are no hands

[25:54] raised. >> Great. Can I get a second?

[25:56] » Second. >> Uh all in favor?

[25:59] » I >> I motion passes. Okay, we're now going

[26:02] to move on to the individual consent calendar items. Um, the individual

[26:06] consent calendar consists of items that the city council considers to be routine

[26:10] or council has discussed previously and do not require further discussion but

[26:13] are separately listed because a council member or members have a conflict of

[26:17] interest which require them to recuse themselves from participation in the

[26:20] decision. So we will first go to 5A >> and I will recuse myself as I live

[26:27] within the 500 foot um from uh the house on community road.

[26:34] » Thanks. Um and so does anybody have any uh questions or wish to pull this for

[26:39] discussion before a vote? >> So I'd like to pull 5A.

[26:42] » Okay. Well, we will go ahead with that. What would you like to discuss?

[26:46] So, um, as I look at this revocable license, um,

[26:53] the revocable license includes 8 ft of city property.

[26:58] Um, and that 8 ft could support a 4-ft sidewalk for pedestrian safety that

[27:05] could in the future connect to a sidewalk along community road. The

[27:10] reason why I'm doing this is I'm thinking that we need to perhaps have a

[27:15] global look at this area of the city since Community Road is facing a

[27:22] doubling of housing um with Maller doubling of housing in

[27:28] the Maller Point um section and that will increase the traffic at least four

[27:33] times more than what's there currently. And currently folks mainly walk in the

[27:39] street which will become much more hazardous

[27:43] with the development in the area. And I thought that um we should have a

[27:50] discussion and consider a um broader look at how we want the community park

[27:59] area um and its use and safety. Um since um there's 8 ft of city property that

[28:07] we're talking about on this um I know that the property on the corner had

[28:14] gotten an RL for plantings but um having a sidewalk that currently now wouldn't

[28:22] connect but hopefully in the future we might as a city council want to look at

[28:28] a sidewalk for additional um safety for um children

[28:34] um the general public are seniors um who

[28:41] work walking in the road may not become um the the correct

[28:46] path for them. So, I wanted to bring this up as a point of discussion and see

[28:52] if um we wanted to

[28:57] have that discussion and to consider um granting um a revocable license for 4T

[29:05] and then um keeping um the uh 4 foot um for the sidewalk. Um, I also reached out

[29:14] um today to our director of um

[29:20] public works to speak uh to him and of course it was um uh last minute um in

[29:28] the discussion. Nothing was determined but um it was acknowledged that you know

[29:33] the the that area of the city is going to be changing.

[29:40] » Okay. before before getting other council members to comment if it's okay.

[29:43] Um I would like to see whether either our public works director or our

[29:47] planning director would like to make any uh provide any further information in

[29:51] relation to >> Yeah, I I had the same question uh

[29:55] council member Cariet and so I reached out to engineering and um they indicated

[30:01] that it you know it's such a short amount of space and that it would really

[30:06] essentially be kind of a sidewalk to the park. Um, and I believe I just and Tony

[30:13] can um, come up and talk probably better than I can about this, but that given

[30:18] the cost of the project to the applicant that we couldn't require a sidewalk.

[30:24] » We require sidewalks to other applicants and we never question

[30:27] » based on the valuation of the work. But Tony can come speak to it if

[30:41] I don't have the exact uh valuation of the of the project but uh speaking to

[30:46] Chris so Chris Barry associate engineer um

[30:50] um looks at all uh RL's and uh his thoughts on this one um as far as a

[30:58] sidewalk uh go um were that um it was unrealistic to um to connect

[31:07] to anything there would there was nothing and this is before uh Pat

[31:11] brought this up today of course um that that he that he made these observations.

[31:16] Um but the reason that a sidewalk wasn't required for the project was because the

[31:22] valuation of the project was uh was quite low. He said it was less than

[31:26] $20,000 and and maybe planning have a or building maybe have a an exact number.

[31:32] Um so it wouldn't be um reasonable to uh request a construction of a sidewalk at

[31:40] the same time. Um but it seems to me we're talking about two different things

[31:44] here. we're talking I think you're uh discussing the RL and the space that's

[31:48] that's um being requested for the RL versus um a requirement to to build

[31:54] something but maybe um uh Council Member Carropad could clarify if you're if

[32:01] you're talking about pulling the RL back four feet for a future sidewalk um or

[32:06] requiring a sidewalk at this time. So, um, well, I guess I would be willing

[32:13] to go either way. Um, keeping the four feet for the potential for a future

[32:18] sidewalk. I think this project, while um has uh had a few um phases, um was um

[32:27] more than a $20,000 project when you add everything together that they've done to

[32:32] the property. Um, but if we are not able to ask for them to do

[32:40] the sidewalk, I I would feel keeping 4 feet from the curve over which would

[32:46] give them four feet for plantings would allow us for um future to look at a

[32:51] sidewalk because I think once um Malard Point comes in, this might become a

[32:56] critical issue and once we give the property away on an RL um it's very hard

[33:02] to gain it back. So, it's it's sort of looking forward um

[33:09] on that particular area of the city as far as the development that's going on

[33:14] with future additional developments um in other locations along Community Road

[33:19] that turn into Sanfell. So, that that was my thought that um uh

[33:26] 8t is quite a bit. I mean, we might have something like that up on the island

[33:31] because of a slope that goes down that no one has any use for the property, but

[33:36] generally around um the flat area of the city, I mean,

[33:42] I think the typical RL tends to be like four to five feet or

[33:49] less. So, I just felt that the city council

[33:54] should think about it and um consider um uh future needs that the

[34:01] city might have um going forward and um not agree to the RL where a sidewalk

[34:09] potentially could go because even though there's no sidewalk from the corner of

[34:13] Leard, um it's still an area when we have concerts in the park or other um

[34:20] projects that there's a lot of people walking around and um in the street and

[34:26] a sidewalk would um connected to another sidewalk would be beneficial.

[34:32] » Certainly I can chime in that um um you know where the city sees a future

[34:37] benefit um of of having access to that to to a piece of or an area. Um it does

[34:44] make sense to me to um uh to not allow people to have RLS for those areas

[34:50] because um you know Lagoon Road is a good example and I think I'd mentioned

[34:54] that to you uh earlier today where you have it's kind of a choppy with some

[34:59] some areas with sidewalks and some with with landscapes kind of an inconsistent

[35:03] um uh section of of road there. Um, yeah. And once an RL has been um

[35:10] provided for for a certain area, it's hard to to pull it back.

[35:15] » Kevin, I think you had a question. >> Yeah, I did. Just so I'm clear. Um, so

[35:19] what the RL would allow is for the driveway and for the walkway. No other

[35:25] building, >> nothing else would be built in that

[35:29] space. So the 8T it's not they're not proposing

[35:33] putting anything in the RL 8 feet except the driveway and the walkway.

[35:38] » Correct. >> And so I guess the question is is do we

[35:42] » Well, they're putting plantings, aren't they?

[35:44] » No, the plan Oh, according to the plan, it looks like they're on the property

[35:46] line. >> Yeah.

[35:49] » Yeah. >> Once we give the RL, then it's, you

[35:53] know, we got to revoke it. >> Well, we're giving them a revocable

[35:57] license just for two uses. One is the walkway and the driveway. So we're not

[36:01] saying you now can do anything you want in the RL.

[36:05] » Correct. >> But it covers the whole area.

[36:07] » It covers Yeah, it's shade. The whole exhibit is shaded. So essentially, we

[36:11] would be >> It's the whole shaded area. So it goes

[36:14] across the whole front. >> You know, I get the shaded area, but so

[36:17] then the RL would allow them to do whatever they want in the RL. They could

[36:20] build anything they want. >> Well, not build, but

[36:23] » No, they could put plantings there if they chose to.

[36:27] » Yes. Not without our approval. >> No, they'd have to come back through

[36:29] design review and then we would relook at the revocable license and see that

[36:33] they didn't have a revocable license for landscaping.

[36:36] » What what the RL is is is giving them is the ability to have the driveway um

[36:40] access in the sidewalk or the walkway access.

[36:43] » Yes. >> Yeah.

[36:45] » Well, I don't mind the driveway and the walkway. It's it's just, you know, in um

[36:50] I mean, if you look at the pretty picture, if you look at the pretty

[36:53] picture here, I mean, you know, they have plannings. They don't have anything

[36:58] here. So, for us to keep 4 feet here is not impacting them. They could still

[37:03] have their plantings or whatever they're going to do with their um with their

[37:08] fence. Um they have no new landscaping. They have existing landscaping. So,

[37:13] keeping allowing the walkway is fine. And I don't have an objection to that

[37:17] and I have no objection to the driveway, but I'm talking about 4 feet along the

[37:23] front of the street just to keep it um in control of the city.

[37:29] » Then don't we need to give them the RL 8T out for the driveway and 8T out for

[37:34] the walkway because they'll be going over it?

[37:36] » Yeah. >> Yes. So it would be it's really a carve

[37:40] out for that one area either. So you exclude that from the RL

[37:45] or you just put in the RL. You can't nothing else can be placed in the RL

[37:48] except the sidewalk >> and the driveway.

[37:51] » We're still questions, right? So just just just to clarify, an RL is more than

[37:54] just giving them access to that >> property. It's it's it's transferring

[37:57] liability and and maintenance obligations to the homeowner. Um so the

[38:01] reason you do the whole stretch of the property is to maintain be maintained

[38:04] both from an appearance perspective but and a liability perspective away from

[38:08] the from the city which we're not actively using. Um,

[38:12] » is is the applicant online or is it >> the architect is? Yeah.

[38:23] » I guess that's the public comment. Sorry.

[38:28] » I'm going to see whether she I think we're going to see whether we can get

[38:30] the architect first so that we can >> Hi, I I'm actually for the next

[38:35] » agenda item. Oh. >> Um, one one further before we get to

[38:40] even the applicant, but still on questions. Um, Rebecca, couldn't uh I

[38:45] understand once you issue a revocable license that it may be difficult to to

[38:50] uh improve that property without revoking the license and re and re um um

[38:55] hearing it. But couldn't you, given the fact that this area and other areas are

[39:01] uh may have a need for public sidewalks in the future, couldn't we put a

[39:06] condition that this revocable license is subject to um public works adding a

[39:10] sidewalk um should they deem it necessary? I mean, couldn't that be a

[39:13] simple inclusion in the revocable license, which would in sense, you know,

[39:18] solve this problem without necessarily adding it? Because I can't imagine we're

[39:22] going to get

[39:26] a thorough if if if it became an imperative city imperative to put in a

[39:30] sidewalk here, I can't imagine we're going to get the timing or the or the or

[39:33] the um resident buyin to do it themselves in association with with with

[39:37] renovations or significant renovations. So, if if we're going to do it, we're

[39:40] going to do it ourselves as a public works project. So, I would think that we

[39:44] should add it as a as a um line in the in the RL agreement where we have the

[39:49] right to do so. Obviously, working with their design with their design

[39:52] professionals in and around their their improvements to our to our city standard

[39:56] uh I imagine that's possible. It's a question still. So, I imagine that's

[39:59] possible. >> Is it legally possible?

[40:02] » Well, right now this revocable license, like all the revocable license that I've

[40:05] seen in my years here, say the license is fully revocable at the pleasure or

[40:09] discretion of the city council. So we can revoke these license for any reason.

[40:13] » Yeah, we've never done it and it's always

[40:14] » but certain but certainly if we want to specify that one of the reasons could be

[40:18] for to your point council member Caripad to the for the construction of public

[40:22] sidewalk. We can illustrate that. We can say specifically one such instance may

[40:26] be if the city wishes to install a public sidewalk

[40:29] » but we would have to go through revocable. Could we just not do it so

[40:33] that the >> if the sidewalk goes in

[40:36] » condition? Add a condition. I think it's Peter's I

[40:41] think what Peter's getting at is can we just add another number to the revocable

[40:45] license with some language that said should the city want to put in a

[40:48] sidewalk >> we would have the right to do so

[40:50] » we have a right >> without without altering the rest of the

[40:53] the license yeah >> and not have to revoke it but rather it

[40:56] just goes away bye-bye >> I mean either I mean I guess that they

[41:01] both saw the problem yes >> right I it's I suppose it's up to you

[41:04] whether you want to sort of revoke sort of that be a specific instance in which

[41:07] the license will be revoked or you want to have some sort of middle ground as a

[41:12] possibility. I guess I'm not quite clear where you want to land.

[41:15] » I'd rather just see if we decide to put in a sidewalk gets revoked. I mean, I

[41:19] don't think that the city should have to go through any more process than what

[41:22] we're going through right now if we're putting in a sidewalk.

[41:26] » I mean, it does feel to me that this is a bigger policy issue and while we're on

[41:29] the council, we might do this and but there if there isn't a policy outline

[41:32] for the future, um it's just hap, you know, it's just chaos. Um, and so

[41:40] we can deal with this today, but it does feel like we have to bring back a a

[41:43] broader discussion around RLS, which I'm >> Well, I think the RLS need a broader

[41:48] discussion all all over. >> Yes. Um, okay. So, if we don't have any

[41:53] other uh questions, let's bring this back for public comment just to see

[41:56] whether there's any public comment. >> We have Mr. Rothman.

[42:00] » Great. >> Hi, Dr. Rothman.

[42:05] » Yes. Thank you very much. I would caution you about putting a particular

[42:10] stipulation in this revocable license about and if we want to put a sidewalk

[42:16] then we can put one because that might suggest that in any other issue any

[42:23] other site of a revocable license where you don't have that written down

[42:28] specifically that it really isn't so revocable.

[42:34] uh because if you stipulate that one is revocable

[42:37] then the question is is one that doesn't say that you could do something in that

[42:44] is that not so revocable so I would suggest you just leave it uh as it is

[42:51] and I frankly with all the places that need sidewalks uh Belvadier Avenue etc I

[42:58] would hope that in future we would have more sidewalks

[43:02] so that people with pushing baby carriages or elderly, whatever it is,

[43:07] don't find themselves having to jump out of the way of uh of speeding pickup

[43:13] trucks. Uh so I would not I wouldn't put something special on this revocable

[43:19] license because I think it weakens your case, your legal case in other sites

[43:24] where you may want to do things but you haven't put a stipulation about the

[43:29] future. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Um, Andrew, can you comment

[43:35] on that in terms of the pros and cons of specifically spelling something out for

[43:39] this RL? >> Uh, frankly, I think it would would be

[43:43] better to specify if we have a condition in mind or an instance in mind we would

[43:47] revoke the license. I would think that's better for all parties involved.

[43:51] » But to Dr. Rothman's point, does it therefore weaken the case if we want to

[43:54] be doing that elsewhere or we haven't spelled it out? I mean, RL's RLS have

[43:59] been very consistent in saying they're all revocable at the discretion of city

[44:02] council. And so, I don't think we would change that position. And the fact that

[44:06] we added a condition or slightly different language to this one doesn't

[44:09] to me mean that the other ones are legally defective or weak or or

[44:13] something along those lines. >> Okay. Right. Let's bring this back for

[44:16] discussion. >> One followup question, but Andrew, just

[44:19] following up that same point, would it would it be uh

[44:22] » perhaps to Mr. Rothman's pum point there. Might it be as effective um if

[44:27] not more effective in a sense to uh change our policy and put a line in the

[44:31] policy with regard to revocable licenses that one of the reasons that the the the

[44:36] license would be revoked would be for a tra a pedestrian improvement project um

[44:43] adjacent to you know through the license something like that which would in a

[44:47] sense handle this case but all cases as well. Uh yeah, that would be another way

[44:51] to deal with it and I think that would be a completely legitimate way to deal

[44:54] with it as well. But I'm just not sure if our policy, if we do move to a

[44:57] revised policy, we'll frankly be able to capture all those details in all those

[45:03] specific instances going forward. Maybe we can, maybe we can't. I don't know. I

[45:06] think we're just going to start the discussion tonight,

[45:08] » but I don't I don't know if that's just one of many instances which we would

[45:12] revoke an RL or or not. >> Thank you.

[45:15] » All right, let's bring this back for discussion. Kevin.

[45:20] » Um, sure. I I totally understand the the issue that Pat raised and and I do at

[45:26] some point hope that we can deal with the sidewalk issue near the park. Um, I

[45:29] feel like the RL is already constructed in such a way that it gives us the right

[45:32] to provoke it if and when it's necessary. Um, and it, as staff said,

[45:38] uh, there's no permission being given or granted to put anything in the um, RL

[45:44] except for the driveway and the sidewalk. So, I think we're covered. We

[45:47] just revoke it when and if we need it. >> Okay. Peter.

[45:52] » Yeah. The um I don't and I'm not suggesting Pat's suggesting this. Um but

[45:56] it wasn't clear. Uh I I I would not impose or require them to put a sidewalk

[46:01] here. Um even if we could um given the scale of the project. Uh and I agree

[46:06] with Kevin that I would I think we have the language in there if not specific

[46:10] enough if if not so specific. But I would I would try to address our policy

[46:14] as our mayor talked about um specifically for this because I do think

[46:18] this is a a broader need from a pedestrian um passageway perspective

[46:22] that we should have it in our policy that that is one of the uh reasons why

[46:27] we would ro something and this could be a good opportunity to do so should we

[46:31] get the um uh further further opportunity with other properties there

[46:36] as well. So going back to Pat, are you um on the

[46:40] basis that we will bring back a broader RL discussion soon to address this on a

[46:45] on a global basis, are you comfortable moving the RL as it's currently

[46:50] described? I just think we're missing an opportunity to take this as a beginning

[46:57] and put something in saying that this is a very specific property. And I don't

[47:05] know how many other properties would fit into this kind of requirement. Um

[47:10] because the sidewalk is, you know, four feet. I mean, we have eight feet there.

[47:16] That's that's why I thought, well, we could get a sidewalk in. they still get

[47:19] four feet for what whatever plantings or development they might want to do there.

[47:24] Not that it would be a structure or anything. Um, and I just think that, you

[47:29] know, starting now for the specific property to say, you know, if we choose

[47:34] to put a sidewalk in in the future that, you know, we reserve the right for the

[47:38] first four feet of the revocable license for that purpose. Um, I think is a good

[47:43] step. I think going forward I think it's a bigger discussion and it's a global

[47:47] discussion and it needs to be vetted out better than the conversation here but I

[47:54] think this is an opportune opportunity for this specific project um

[48:00] for this specific property that it makes very clear um for a condition to go in

[48:08] um specifically for this property. Um, so that I continue to be my um,

[48:18] stance on this that I think that it's unusual enough of a a property that um,

[48:24] uh, we should carve out something for a potential for a a sidewalk.

[48:33] » Okay. Um I think I am whilst sympathetic to the argument I think I'm more aligned

[48:39] with addressing this through a revision to the overall policy um rather than an

[48:44] individual carve out here. So um I think with that I would ask somebody to make a

[48:49] motion. >> So let me can I just ask one qu I'm

[48:54] sorry one question of um our legal council. So, if we change our global

[49:00] stance in the future on RL's that carves out something for um future sidewalks

[49:05] that we could revoke on future sidewalks, how does that affect RLS that

[49:12] have already been signed without that carveout?

[49:16] » Yeah, that's an excellent question. So I think to the extent that we are looking

[49:19] or going to make any policy changes, one of the key decision points for council

[49:24] is whether those changes will be perspective only or we are going to

[49:27] apply them across the board. >> So we can make changes across the board

[49:31] and even though it's not in their RL that it would change their RL. My

[49:35] understanding >> that's a policy question for council to

[49:38] consider and then obviously would think about how to take care of that

[49:40] implementation. >> But legally it can be done is my

[49:44] question. Legally, all these revocable licenses can be revoked at any time in

[49:48] the discretion of city council. So, if push show, we can require additional

[49:52] terms. >> All we'd be doing is is in a sense

[49:55] defining or adding adding additional um um

[49:59] » language to uh uh clarify an additional need why someone might why the city

[50:05] council might choose to revoke a license.

[50:08] » That would be one way to execute the policy. And then again, we may it would

[50:11] be I would suggest that when we get to that point, we be explicit about whether

[50:15] we're doing it going forward or again across the board.

[50:18] » But when we come to that point in time, you're not going to then say, well, we

[50:22] we don't recommend you do this retroactively. You're you're standing

[50:26] here today saying we have the ability to do that and there's not going to be a

[50:30] different legal interpretation when we bring that forward.

[50:34] » Yes, that's the question. You're not going to change your mind. We're putting

[50:37] you on the hot seat here. Um I will state that the language of our

[50:43] the city regarding these revocable licens has been very consistent on this

[50:47] point. >> Okay.

[50:47] » To the extent any individual property owners push back in that

[50:52] » I think I will just respond. The city's position has been very consistent

[50:56] » and defensible. >> Yeah, of course.

[50:59] » Okay. All right. Can I get a motion? Uh, I move to approve the revocable license

[51:05] for existing and proposed private improvements in the public right ofway

[51:08] along community road for property at three community road.

[51:12] » Second. >> All those in favor?

[51:14] » I. All those against. >> I Oh, I'm sorry. I went back backwards.

[51:20] I'm I'm going to pass the RO. I'm not saying I to the no.

[51:24] » Okay. So, we're all in favor of this. >> All in favor. Sorry. Thank you.

[51:28] » Okay. We are now moving on to item 5B, which is a motion to approve revocable

[51:33] license for existing private improvements in the public right of way

[51:37] along Belvadier Way and Belair Way Lane for the property at three Belvadier Way.

[51:42] Um, I am going to be recused from this item because I live within 500 ft of the

[51:46] property and Kevin will be leading this item.

[51:49] » I am also recused from this for the same reason. Thank you,

[51:53] » Sally. So, there is no staff report uh on this

[51:58] um given it's a consent item uh on the agenda. Uh I'm going to now turn it over

[52:04] to my colleagues. Does anyone want to pull this item?

[52:08] » I'd like to pull item 5B. >> Thank you. Um and I will turn it back

[52:15] again to my colleagues and ask what questions or comments you might have.

[52:20] » Uh yes. So my question is is that the RL that's before us includes

[52:27] a section along the lane um

[52:33] and um that was not part of

[52:40] the RL that the planning commission looked at.

[52:45] So why why are we being asked for an RL along the lane? Now

[52:52] » that portion of the RL came as a result of the planning commission discussion.

[52:58] Um there was some discussion about let's I don't know what it's called. So I'm

[53:01] going to call it the Westshore Lane portion of the city right ofway and then

[53:08] we'll call Belvadier Way the other RL exhibit that they're asking for. So at

[53:13] the planning commission hearing there was discussion about that retaining wall

[53:17] that hillside who has responsibility for it

[53:22] etc. And as a result of the planning commission hearing it was decided that

[53:26] the property owners should take on um the responsibility of all that

[53:31] landscaping because they're not changing anything down there on that portion of

[53:35] their of the property. Um and so that's why it

[53:41] is before the council. Now there was also a condition added to the planning

[53:46] commission resolution as a result of a discussion with the um parks open space

[53:53] lane. I think they're here. Char I think

[53:56] Charlie was at that planning commission hearing um and the property owner. And

[54:00] so they agreed on a condition to monitor the retaining wall during construction

[54:07] and prior to building permit final, they would reassess the structural integrity

[54:16] of that wall and then work with the city if something were to happen. I have

[54:20] that. So did that answer your question? It's a long way to

[54:24] » Yes. So um >> can I ask one clarifying comment, Pat?

[54:28] Is the retaining wall you're referring to? The wooden

[54:31] » the short wooden retaining wall. >> Yeah. Okay. Thanks.

[54:34] » I have a picture. >> You do.

[54:37] » I can bring it over. >> There was a picture in the packet.

[54:40] » We have We have the picture, too. I just want to make sure it was the same. Yeah.

[54:43] » I don't know. >> Sure. Bring it.

[54:47] So, um the staff report um talks about the original um application

[54:57] for the RL which was just along Belvadier Way.

[55:10] And so we have two exhibits A one and two. No, no, there a well two exhibit

[55:16] A's on two separate sheets of paper. So is the first exhibit which is along

[55:23] Belvadier Way where the driveway is um in front of the property, is that the

[55:29] exhibit that the planning commission looked at?

[55:32] » Yes. >> Okay. And then the second exhibit is

[55:36] something the applicant brought in as a result of um staff's

[55:43] recommendation. They should um maintain the plantings along the lane.

[55:52] » Yes. And then um

[55:59] it on the second exhibit it's a little hard to see, but are I mean are

[56:08] they taking all of the land up to that concrete

[56:15] tallish 18 in 2 in two foot concrete curb? I

[56:21] don't know what to call it. Then then there's a a pipe and then

[56:25] another little rolled curb. So they're just taking from the dirt back.

[56:32] » They're taking the landscaping only. No concrete, no wall, no curb. It's

[56:39] landscaping only. So, because I went to um well, maybe

[56:44] this might be for the applicant, but I went to visit the site and it appears

[56:48] where the wood um retention wall is was actually um

[56:55] put in because dirt was built up there. And um and that wood retention wall is

[57:05] holding back the dirt that someone not the current applicant but someone in the

[57:10] past added dirt and changed the actual natural slope of the land.

[57:18] » Um I would say that it so there's a drainage um uh ditch right beneath it.

[57:23] Um, so I don't know if the the slope was changed above the the wall, but but

[57:29] certainly it's it's very possible that it was added to uh capture debris and

[57:34] stop it from going into the into the drain. Um, it it doesn't appear to have

[57:40] been built as a um it it it's not holding the slope up or anything.

[57:46] » So if that wood wall went away, nothing would happen except debris into the

[57:51] drain. >> Yes. Yeah. that there would be there

[57:54] would be debris falling into the drain. Um and the but the slope itself is um it

[58:02] would would probably um not be affected. There would be there would continue to

[58:07] be debris uh from time to time, but um yeah, it's it's not a it doesn't appear

[58:13] to be a structural retaining wall. >> No, it's not structural.

[58:27] Do you have any other comments or questions?

[58:30] » No, not that I can take up. >> Okay,

[58:33] » thank you. Um, so, uh, I guess what I'd like to clarify is that

[58:42] they're, um, with your suggestion asking for that RL only for the plants so they

[58:48] can, is it to keep privacy? They want the plants to stay alive. They want to

[58:55] be able to trim them. Is it because they're located in in uh public

[59:00] property, they wouldn't be able to do that legally or is that sort of what it

[59:04] is? >> I I Yeah, I mean, I think it's a

[59:06] wellestablished grove of plantings that will are stabilizing that hillside and

[59:11] they're doing all these improvements above it and

[59:14] » they had just planned on not amending those that portion of it of the

[59:19] property. >> Right. I mean, I I was just trying to

[59:21] understand why what what the reason for the RL is if they're not planning on

[59:27] touching it. What why would they even ask for it?

[59:30] » I think we asked them to >> maintain it to take on the liability and

[59:34] responsibility and maintaining that plant those plantings.

[59:37] » Okay. So, you asked them to maintain those plants. Okay. So if um

[59:45] if they didn't take on those plants and the city needed to do repairs, we could

[59:51] conceivably go into that um dirt and plant area and pull some of those out or

[59:59] we could change them or we could cut them or we could do whatever we want

[1:00:03] with them. >> Yep.

[1:00:04] » And so this way it allows them to keep on top of those plants without

[1:00:10] us necessarily making changes there. I'm I just recall from the meeting that the

[1:00:16] owner was um very concerned that the plants would be there for privacy so

[1:00:21] that the public walkway people wouldn't just be looking in at them and their

[1:00:26] pool etc. So I see it as a benefit to them to be able to keep the um plants

[1:00:33] alive and you know thick in that area.

[1:00:36] » Yeah. >> Yeah.

[1:00:38] » Um Okay. And then um

[1:00:44] I I was looking at the plans and I don't have any comments about

[1:00:50] their plans. I just had one question which was um I noticed that there's a

[1:00:57] pool that's going to go in quite close to that dirt area. And in in your

[1:01:05] experience of constructing a pool and creating surrounding vegetation, which

[1:01:10] they show on their plans, would would um construct would a truck

[1:01:17] or people need to be below the pool? I mean, do you work around a whole pool

[1:01:22] that's in a location like that, create a retaining wall for it? I couldn't tell

[1:01:28] from the plans. I don't know how they're creating that pool. It just seems like

[1:01:33] they would have to do some They're demolishing the whole thing. So, I'm

[1:01:36] assuming they'd be creating a retaining wall. I'm just concerned that

[1:01:44] I I would assume trucks would have to go in near that dirt area. That's all.

[1:01:50] » Oh, I >> But I don't know.

[1:01:52] » I haven't seen a construction management plan. You know, we're not going to issue

[1:01:55] a building permit that's not structurally sound to hold up that pool

[1:01:58] on a hillside. >> Okay. Okay. Great. Um, so I think those

[1:02:03] are my only questions. >> I have a new question. Sorry.

[1:02:06] » Okay. >> So my new question is is that um

[1:02:15] who's who will be responsible for that retention wall if it fails and it needs

[1:02:21] to have some kind of replacement in its current location or a future location.

[1:02:29] if we give them the revocable license because the retention wall is in the

[1:02:34] dirt right in front of the plants. It's not on the other side of the concrete

[1:02:39] curb. I'm calling it. >> Well, I I mean, have you read the

[1:02:45] condition of approval from the planning commission approval?

[1:02:48] So it it says if the retaining wall is altered or compromised during

[1:02:52] construction, the applicant shall work with the city on an agreement to remedy

[1:02:56] the movement of the retaining wall prior to building permit final. So I think it

[1:03:02] was at the planning commission hearing that property owner didn't want to

[1:03:06] commit to building a whole new wall because he had no idea how much that was

[1:03:10] going to cost. And so the agreement was like, well, yeah, we'll we'll monitor it

[1:03:15] and see what happens and then we'll revisit it. This is all prior to their

[1:03:19] building permit final. However, the architect is online. I you know, I don't

[1:03:23] want to speak for them. Um the retaining wall is not in the revocable license

[1:03:27] that they're asking for. Um so it would be our responsibility.

[1:03:33] » So I'm not talking about con I'm talking post construction. Let's get past the

[1:03:39] construction. But let's say

[1:03:43] they finish their construction now and in two years for some reason that wall

[1:03:48] fails and some the dirt's moving and it has that has to has some kind of a

[1:03:52] retention something. >> Um yeah, I can speak in general um about

[1:03:58] what um how it would be addressed. Um if uh if the cause of the of the uh failure

[1:04:06] was something that the property owner had had done um then

[1:04:11] I think the city would approach them and and um talk about uh replacing the wall

[1:04:17] and um sh having some kind of agreement on on

[1:04:22] how that would be done. um if the wall was uh you know if it failed because the

[1:04:27] wood had rotted and um there was nothing in particular the that the owner did

[1:04:32] that um had any effect um then it would be the city's responsibility um um alone

[1:04:41] » so can can Rebecca I understand that the public benefit is is that they're

[1:04:46] maintaining the vegetation there um but um other which basically for their

[1:04:54] privacy. Um, what is the other public benefit that we're going to be getting?

[1:05:03] » Well, I mean, at least from the the city standpoint, we're

[1:05:07] they're taking on the liability and responsibility of

[1:05:11] maintaining all of that landscaping. So, it's hold which is holding the hill,

[1:05:17] you know, it's all holding that the hillside in and so it won't if

[1:05:23] the hillside won't fall into the lane >> if they're not.

[1:05:29] » If you look at the language though, Andrew, I don't think maintenance is

[1:05:32] specifically called out in the RL, our standard RL.

[1:05:38] I think it's more about indemnification versus maintaining.

[1:05:43] I mean,

[1:05:50] » are you talking about the language of the RL, Kevin?

[1:05:53] » Well, yeah. I mean, because I think the question is is that and I just want to

[1:05:56] clarify. So, that that short retaining wall that's in the RL.

[1:06:00] » No, >> it's on the prop uh the owner's

[1:06:03] property. >> No, it's in the right of way.

[1:06:06] They are not asking for an RL for that retaining wall. They're asking for

[1:06:11] license for what's behind it. Yeah.

[1:06:17] » Okay. So, my my legal question is the same. Is is there any language that

[1:06:21] actually requires So, in the case of this, there's landscaping that's

[1:06:24] currently on city land and I don't think there's anything in the RL specifically

[1:06:29] that says they need to maintain it. >> Yeah, I think that's a fair point, uh,

[1:06:33] Vice Mayor. So I think one thing if you want to make that explicit is in section

[1:06:37] three or paragraph three we we normally address you know if they're erecting or

[1:06:42] installing a building fence wall or other structure they have a duty to um

[1:06:47] maintain that in all in good condition repair. I think to your point excellent

[1:06:51] point maybe we should include um installation of landscaping to ensure

[1:06:55] that they also need maintaining landscaping as well in that area. Well

[1:06:59] » it's the current landscaping right

[1:07:02] » the existing landscaping. Yeah, >> because I think that's that's the bene

[1:07:06] or I believe I mean that's the benefit is that they would be taking

[1:07:09] responsibility for maintaining that landscaping,

[1:07:13] » right? And so I guess given the nature of the RL requested in this instance, we

[1:07:17] can include a reference to landscaping in in that section three,

[1:07:20] » right? But the wall itself is not there's nothing since it's not part of

[1:07:25] the RL. The retaining wall would be somewhat related to or it's related to

[1:07:30] the condition from the planning commission, but that's not clear as to

[1:07:34] is there really a direct responsibility on the part of the applicant that they

[1:07:38] should have to do anything if the wall fails. It's like we will discuss and

[1:07:43] then maybe agree on something or maybe we won't.

[1:07:47] » Yeah, correct. Well, I guess if we go with that

[1:07:52] thinking and looking at the photo that was in our packet and if they're taking

[1:07:59] over all the dirt literally just in front of the

[1:08:04] » little retention wall there, what is causing that retention wall to

[1:08:11] fail is the dirt behind it. So, it seems to me that no matter what

[1:08:17] we're saying here, unless, as Tony said, the wood just

[1:08:22] starts disintegrating, if there's any movement at all, it's

[1:08:26] going to be due to that dirt behind it. So, therefore, it seems to me that from

[1:08:32] day one, they're going to be responsible for that wall, whether they want to be

[1:08:36] or not, because it's the dirt that's pushing it and causing it to move. So, I

[1:08:42] I just I guess I'm confused why this is not a retaining wall. It's really just a

[1:08:50] retention wall or something like that where like you said, it's just holding

[1:08:54] the dirt back. I I I think yes to repair it or help it to be

[1:09:02] more um structurally standing up and really holding all that dirt back whe

[1:09:07] whether it was brought in more than it should have been or whatever happened in

[1:09:12] the past. Um, I I guess I don't understand and I don't have any clue how

[1:09:18] much money it would be, but it isn't really an entire retaining wall where

[1:09:22] you're putting in all kinds of huge structures 10 feet down and you know,

[1:09:27] whatever. So, it just seems to me that we're kind of cutting off our nose to

[1:09:32] spite our face with this because no matter what, this is going to wind up

[1:09:36] being attributed to them and then we're going to have to go back and have an

[1:09:40] argument with them. And it seems to me this is the time to just ask the

[1:09:44] architect knowing that it's just a retention wall and not a true retaining

[1:09:49] wall with steel, etc. if that's something that they might consider while

[1:09:55] they're doing all the construction. Anyway,

[1:10:01] » hi. Thank you. Can you hear me? >> Hi. Yes. Great. Um, I think I would like

[1:10:08] to defer to the agreement that was made um with the commission um that's written

[1:10:15] in the in the um resolution that if there was an issue with the retaining

[1:10:21] wall that we would address it at that time instead of committing the owner

[1:10:29] right now to it. I think since the owner was present at that time and that was

[1:10:33] the agreement I I would like to hold to that.

[1:10:36] » So I think that you should understand that the planning commission just makes

[1:10:40] a recommendation to city council and it's city council here is deciding on

[1:10:46] the actual revocable license and um it's I I'm not sure but it may come to the

[1:10:54] point that if you want the revocable license it may include the retention. So

[1:10:59] if it's something that you need to consult with your clients on perhaps we

[1:11:03] need to continue this. So you could consult with your clients.

[1:11:08] » So let me let me jump in here. So I think we have two options in front of

[1:11:11] us. Thank you Pat. Um is we either consider this as it's currently drafted

[1:11:16] that the wall the retain wall is excluded from the RL or we send it back

[1:11:20] and we say that the RL either is inclusive of the wall it's all or

[1:11:24] nothing. Um, right now it feels I think a bit peacemail is what I'm hearing from

[1:11:30] everyone on the the council. So, um, I mean, we can open up for a public

[1:11:36] comment in a second, but I think right now, unless you can tell us differently,

[1:11:41] there doesn't seem to be a reason to be considering this as just a portion of

[1:11:46] the RL versus like why wouldn't we just include the whole thing? So, if you want

[1:11:49] the RL, you can have it, but it includes the wall.

[1:11:56] So, why don't we open up to public comment?

[1:12:08] » October.

[1:12:11] » Hi, I'm Charlie. I'm the chair of the parks open spaces lanes committee. Um,

[1:12:16] as part of being chair, we're notified or meant to be notified when there's

[1:12:19] projects impacting lanes. This project is touching a vital artery which is

[1:12:23] called Belvadier Way. This is the only lane connecting West Shore Road to the

[1:12:27] rest of the upper end of the island. Um we were not notified when this first

[1:12:30] came up. I found out about it day of the planning commission. I sent in a letter.

[1:12:34] That's what we're hoping to pull up. I took a few photos. Um and then after the

[1:12:38] after the meeting, I was basically told that we would be contacted about the

[1:12:42] next steps. Um we were not. So this again I was surprised to learn that this

[1:12:47] was up. I was sort of waiting for that email to come through about when we're

[1:12:50] going to be talking about it next. Um, we can get that picture. This is again a

[1:12:55] critical artery. Um, and the photo I have really shows how it's bulging out.

[1:12:59] Um, I appreciate that we're working to sort of collaborate on this and I love

[1:13:02] that we're we're thinking creatively. Um, monitoring the retaining wall. I

[1:13:07] think if if I had been talked about that, I would just have some questions

[1:13:10] about how we're going to do that. If we say that it's maybe the other one too,

[1:13:14] Sammy or um the second photo, if we're saying it's bulging out right now like

[1:13:18] 12 inches, if we look again and it's bulging out by like 13 inches, is that

[1:13:23] sufficient for them to have to repair it? My other question is if the wall was

[1:13:28] perfectly erect and it ended up in the current state that it's in now, would

[1:13:31] that be deemed sufficient for repairs? Um I think speaking to the public

[1:13:35] benefit, the vegetation as it stands right now, I think that vegetation is

[1:13:39] non-native plants. I I don't know that it's particularly beneficial to the

[1:13:44] public per se, more so than um making sure that that lane doesn't collapse and

[1:13:49] that dirt and debris and wood doesn't go off that. That's again that lane is wide

[1:13:54] enough for a car to go down. I think I remember in the report they were

[1:13:56] actually asking for the ability to drive vehicles up that lane. So this is really

[1:14:00] important. I look at this photo here and I I I think this is a good opportunity

[1:14:05] for an uh a rethinking of this uh this this issue. I this looks like an issue.

[1:14:12] It doesn't seem safe. I'm glad we're looking at it. But um you know, these

[1:14:16] trees have roots, too. These roots are going to be pushing against this and um

[1:14:20] I would love to work with whomever in the city wants to about um the thoughts

[1:14:25] of the of the parks, open spaces, and lanes committee, but this was the first

[1:14:28] I heard of it. So, I wanted to just chime in and give an update from my

[1:14:30] perspective for why I think it's really important to make sure that we look into

[1:14:34] this and also um I'm just not sure how we're going to measure impact on that.

[1:14:39] Like, how how far bulging is it right now? Is it 13? Is it 14 inches? Um and

[1:14:44] and how do we make sure that that monitoring really happens? And I'm I'm

[1:14:48] concerned about that. >> Thank you, Charlie.

[1:14:52] MA.

[1:14:58] » Hi, I'm Ma Bergson. I am on the parks open space and lanes committee, but I'm

[1:15:02] here speaking as an individual because since I am not chair and we were not

[1:15:07] notified of this, we don't have sort of a consensus, so I can't speak on behalf

[1:15:11] of the committee, but I wanted to speak up as an individual. Um, with regard to

[1:15:15] that, um, I would agree with all that has been said, um, here by the council,

[1:15:20] um, as well as by Charlie and that we are really happy that this is is coming

[1:15:24] up and being considered. He mentioned that it is the access, you know, sort of

[1:15:28] upward to the island from West Shore. It's also the only westside access from

[1:15:32] the island off the island down to the water. So, I think it's we need to

[1:15:36] acknowledge it as a really important evacuation route as well as a super

[1:15:39] commonly used lane. Um, as we could see from the photos uh that Charlie had

[1:15:45] submitted to um the city back in October, the amount of damage is much

[1:15:50] more extensive than I think is shown really by the photo that was in the

[1:15:53] packet today. Um, and that is whether it's caused by soil being, you know,

[1:15:59] pushed down or I think if you look at all of the photos, it actually is a lot

[1:16:04] by not only um roots but actually also even just the trunks. I mean, one of the

[1:16:09] photos showed that there's some sort of um you know, conifer that's sort of

[1:16:13] leaning against it. So, my concern is that if you grant an RL saying that we

[1:16:19] approve the existing landscaping when what you have is landscaping and a slope

[1:16:23] situation that has clearly already adversely impacted the city's wall

[1:16:28] there, then you're basically saying we're good with what we have and now

[1:16:33] we're having to try to measure when it's bad. And I don't think that's

[1:16:37] appropriate to be letting them sort of ex sort of acknowledging it and

[1:16:41] accepting it as it is when in fact part of those plants were clearly planted not

[1:16:46] by this applicant but that's what they they purchased. Um, and if they're

[1:16:50] looking for a a a revocable license because they want the the benefit of

[1:16:56] maintaining their privacy, then I believe that the public deserves the

[1:16:59] benefit of having it repaired, that area repaired because that public benefit is

[1:17:04] what we will get in exchange for giving them a public benefit of preserving

[1:17:09] privacy. The public benefit to the rest of the public is to ensure that the wall

[1:17:15] that is holding that stays. And not just that it's not damaged during

[1:17:19] construction, but that it extends that it stays for the long term. Um, it

[1:17:24] doesn't matter really who caused it to get to where it is now. The question is

[1:17:29] is it's being a privilege is being requested and we should be grant looking

[1:17:33] at the public benefit as well as the, you know, to the public use. To me, this

[1:17:38] is very similar to somebody who who plants a tree in their front yard and

[1:17:43] that tree damages the city's sidewalk or other city property and the city comes

[1:17:49] to them and says, >> you have a few seconds left.

[1:17:52] » The city comes to them and and says you have to address this. And so I think

[1:17:55] that is the way we should be looking at this not as an oral accepting the way it

[1:17:59] is now. Thank you. >> Great. Thanks.

[1:18:00] » One second. Other public comment.

[1:18:07] » There are no hands raised. >> Thank you. So, I'll bring it back to

[1:18:10] councel. Any additional thoughts for

[1:18:14] deliberation? >> Um, I think I think we pretty well

[1:18:18] covered it. Um I I agree with our uh public comments that um the revocable

[1:18:26] license should be granted when there is a public benefit as determined by the

[1:18:31] city council. Um and we do generally try to discourage just the benefit of

[1:18:38] private use. Um, I I get that the plants are also beneficial to the public

[1:18:44] because they um hopefully hold up that hillside and they make a nice um border

[1:18:53] for that road. Um but I think in the past we have also had

[1:19:01] uh I'm sorry that our um parks open space and lane meets

[1:19:07] unfortunately infrequently and so when these things come up it's

[1:19:12] difficult to postpone it and wait for that group because the owner wants to

[1:19:20] move forward and is on a time frame. So, I think we get that. But, um, certainly

[1:19:27] from October to now, it would have been nice to follow up on that and have had

[1:19:31] some kind of meeting with, uh, Chair Harrington on this. Um, I don't see I

[1:19:38] think that right now, yes, it would be difficult to determine unless we're very

[1:19:45] careful how we measure what it looks like now, what it might look like um,

[1:19:49] during construction. Um, I don't I think we've tried in the past whenever there's

[1:19:56] a lane next to the property and I would say that we've been very fortunate with

[1:20:03] our community and they always seem to want to help the city and help make the

[1:20:09] lane better. I don't think we've had too many people stand up and who are next to

[1:20:14] a lane and say, "I'm doing full construction, but I'm not going to even

[1:20:18] though you're asking, I'm not going to help out that lane at all." I think

[1:20:22] we've been, like I said, fortunate that most of our community is very generous

[1:20:26] that way. So, I I don't see this as being a huge expense, but again, it's

[1:20:33] not I don't know, so I can't comment on that. It is next to a lane. It's um

[1:20:39] especially important to the entire community and um I think I would uh

[1:20:46] agree with our vice mayor that without a commitment to um repair that wall that's

[1:20:55] obviously failing um that I could not support the RL.

[1:21:02] that. >> So, um

[1:21:05] I also feel that I agree with um council member Cooper. Um it's very hard to

[1:21:12] separate out an RL granting an RL when there's a component there that actually

[1:21:19] is I know it's not a structural wall, but

[1:21:25] um retains um

[1:21:29] the dirt and the plants. um from uh failure. And I think it goes the the

[1:21:37] retention wall, whatever you want to call it, uh goes with the plantings.

[1:21:42] It's um uh just part of the um

[1:21:50] area that it's in. I mean, if the retention wall was in front of the

[1:21:55] concrete curb, I'm calling it, um I wouldn't have um questioned it, but it's

[1:22:01] actually behind the curb, right in front of the plants. And obviously,

[1:22:06] it's a component of um that whole area and all the plantings. And so I would

[1:22:12] not be able to approve the RL without the so-called retention wall um being

[1:22:20] repaired or replaced whatever is necessary

[1:22:24] by the applicant. >> Thank you. Uh I agree and don't need to

[1:22:29] add anything further. Do I hear a motion?

[1:22:35] » So should we ask for continuance or just deny it or modify it?

[1:22:40] » Yeah. How do you want to handle it? >> You want to ask?

[1:22:43] » I think a continuence would be the most uh favorable. Um but we can ask the

[1:22:49] applicant if >> we should ask the applicant if they're

[1:22:52] interested in that. Otherwise, we'll deny it.

[1:22:57] » Um yes, we'd definitely like a continuence. Does that just essentially

[1:23:01] extend to the next meeting? Could you elaborate on what that means?

[1:23:07] Uh I think you'd have to say the process.

[1:23:10] » It depends on yeah if you on the conversations around based on what

[1:23:15] happened this evening and if you can revise the plans and we can get

[1:23:18] everything in time for the next agenda packet.

[1:23:21] » Got it. That sounds good. >> Yeah. And as soon as that timing is met,

[1:23:25] it will come back to the council. Um, >> and I think that if it all the

[1:23:35] conditions are met, I'm surely this could go on a consent calendar once we

[1:23:40] see everything is proper.

[1:23:45] » Thank you. And does it extend for both exhibits along Belvadier Way and

[1:23:49] Belvadier Way Lane or do those get separated out?

[1:23:53] » Well, the resolution is uh or the revocable license is written as one

[1:23:56] document. Okay. currently. Um, so you could come back with just uh one portion

[1:24:02] of it if there isn't agreement on the portion we discussed tonight.

[1:24:07] » Got it. Thank you for clarifying. >> Sure. Uh, no, sorry, Charlie. Public

[1:24:13] comments closed.

[1:24:19] » Duly duly noted. Thank you. All right. I think we are done with that item. Let's

[1:24:25] move on. We can call our other commissioners back, our other council

[1:24:28] members back into the room.

[1:24:33] » I know. >> Feels like that, doesn't it?

[1:25:00] I'm now turning it back to you, Sally. Thank you so much.

[1:25:06] » Okay, we are moving on to item number six, which is public hearing 6A. receive

[1:25:12] an annual report on the status of vacancies and staff retention to fulfill

[1:25:17] Assembly Bill 2561. Helga, thank you, Mayor Wilkinson. This hearing

[1:25:24] is being conducted in accordance with Assembly Bill 2561, which was signed

[1:25:29] into law by Governor Nuome on September 22nd, 2024, and took effect January 1st,

[1:25:36] 2025. The legislation added section 3502.3

[1:25:42] to the California government code requiring public agencies to present the

[1:25:46] status of their vacancies in a public hearing before their governing body at

[1:25:51] least once per fiscal year. The presentation must be made prior to the

[1:25:56] adoption of the final budget. This is an annual public hearing item to present

[1:26:00] the vacancies and allow the city's one bargaining unit the opportunity to make

[1:26:05] a presentation. The city has one bargaining unit, the Belvadier Police

[1:26:10] Officers Association, which includes six budgeted positions and no vacancies for

[1:26:16] fiscal year 2627. Also, under this legislation, the city

[1:26:21] must identify any modifications to policies, procedures, and recruitment

[1:26:26] practices that affect its initiatives to minimize vacancies. The city partners

[1:26:32] with much more than consultant to strengthen our recruitment efforts and

[1:26:37] we have not identified any necessary changes to our current policies,

[1:26:41] procedures or recruitment activities at this time and staff are available for

[1:26:46] questions. >> Does anybody have questions?

[1:26:50] » No. Um that's open for public comment. >> Um there's no motion on this. Is just we

[1:26:56] just have to receive it. Correct. >> Sure. Uh, excuse me, Mayor C, if I could

[1:27:01] just make one comment for the record. Um, just to slightly add to Helga

[1:27:05] statements, uh, the BOA was provided with an opportunity to pro provide a

[1:27:08] presentation tonight and they did not take us up on the offer just for the

[1:27:11] record. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you very much. Um,

[1:27:14] okay, that was nice and brief. We'll move on to um,

[1:27:18] seven other schedule items 7A, which is a preliminary review and discussion of

[1:27:23] the annual operating budget and capital improvement program for fiscal year

[1:27:27] 2627. And Hoga, this is again yours.

[1:27:52] » Thank you again, Mayor Wilkinson and council members. Before you today is the

[1:27:56] preliminary operating and capital budget for fiscal year 2627.

[1:28:06] To begin with some revenue highlights, the general fund revenues are projected

[1:28:10] to increase by 10.2% or approximately 979,000.

[1:28:16] Property tax revenues remain the primary driver with overall growth of 5.62% 62%

[1:28:22] over the current year budget or about 439,000

[1:28:27] based on the county's estimates. Other property tax revenues are expected to

[1:28:33] remain flat while fire tax revenue is projected to increase by approximately

[1:28:39] 3% pending final state data which comes out in early May.

[1:28:44] Development related fee revenues have increased due to the new user fee

[1:28:48] schedule that went into effect July 1st, 2025 and continued development activity,

[1:28:54] particularly large-scale projects and increased encroachment and road

[1:28:58] closures. Despite a slight decline in permit volume, fees are projected to

[1:29:04] recover approximately 89% of the city's cost of service. The city council also

[1:29:10] approved a CPI based adjustment for the user fees schedule which will be

[1:29:16] effective July 1st, 2026. Fee performance in the first year has

[1:29:21] largely met the 92% cost recovery target. Therefore, no additional

[1:29:27] incremental revenue is assumed in the outer years. Consistent with best

[1:29:32] practices, no revenue increases were assumed in the first year of the

[1:29:36] implementation and staff will continue to monitor cost recovery trends over

[1:29:41] time as they may fluctuate with broader economic conditions.

[1:29:47] One-time increase in building permit plan review and road impact fee revenue

[1:29:54] is anticipated in fiscal year 2728 from the Malard Point project. Based on

[1:30:00] the current timeline, timing remains uncertain and staff will refine revenue

[1:30:06] projections as the project advances. No grant funding is included in the

[1:30:11] proposed budget at this time, though staff will continue to pursue

[1:30:15] opportunities through partner agencies. Overall, revenue projections remain

[1:30:21] strong, but are intentionally conservative to support long-term fiscal

[1:30:25] stability amid the economic uncertainty.

[1:30:34] And now on the expenditure side from the general fund for fiscal year 2526 was

[1:30:40] the last year of a three-year contracts with the city's represented and

[1:30:44] non-represented groups. The city is currently engaged in labor negotiations

[1:30:51] and anticipates reaching an agreement in the coming weeks. The fiscical year 2627

[1:30:57] budget incorporates the results of a compensation study and a 2 and a.5% cost

[1:31:02] of living adjustment. A 3% salary increase has been assumed across the

[1:31:07] outer years. The fiscal year 2627 budget includes

[1:31:14] 235,000 for a temporary police officer position

[1:31:18] over a three-year period to support operations during the police department

[1:31:23] evaluation. The budget The budget includes 150,000

[1:31:29] for implementing the housing element goals, programs, and policies along with

[1:31:35] funding for general legal costs and ongoing litigation. It also allocates

[1:31:41] 50,000 for the city's 2030 climate action plan implementation.

[1:31:46] Expenditures related to the Meard Point project include 150,000 for a special

[1:31:53] project manager, 10,000 for a relocation specialist, and 45,000 for city engineer

[1:31:59] services. These costs will be reimbursed in accordance with the agreement with

[1:32:04] the developer. Timber on fire is estimating a 7 and a half% increase in

[1:32:10] our contract costs again this coming fiscal year due to increase in district

[1:32:15] expenditures related to station 10 costs from the capital fund. The budget

[1:32:21] includes 70,000 to replace an aging public works utility truck,7,000 for a

[1:32:27] police handheld radar unit, and 13,500 for replacement of several staff

[1:32:34] computers, a server, and backup power systems.

[1:32:38] from the capital improvement fund. The budget includes the beach road

[1:32:42] stabilization project scheduled from June through October 2026 with a total

[1:32:48] cost of 4.97 million. Of this 4.68 million will be funded from the critical

[1:32:55] infrastructure reserve with 345 from other sources to close the gap. An

[1:33:02] estimated 2.48 48 million will roll over from fiscal year 2526

[1:33:08] and the construction contract was approved by council on April 13th. The

[1:33:13] 5-year CIP includes ongoing annual funding of 80,000 for lane improvements

[1:33:20] and 15,000 for vegetation management and fire fuel reduction. Key projects next

[1:33:26] year include the Harry B. gallon stair repair, community park restroom

[1:33:31] renovations, redrilling of the community park well, and police department

[1:33:36] improvements. The budget also includes 60,000 to complete the infrastructure

[1:33:41] assessments will which will inform the fisc year 2728 capital budget. Several

[1:33:48] projects are expected to be partially funded through partner agencies and

[1:33:53] private donations.

[1:33:58] A large part of the city's expenditures are staffing costs. Personnel costs are

[1:34:03] projected to increase in fiscal year 2627

[1:34:07] over estimated actuals primarily due to staffing additions and compensation

[1:34:12] adjustments. Regular salaries are increasing by 21% approximately 535,000

[1:34:20] driven by higher staffing levels with 21 staff headcount in the proposed bud

[1:34:26] budget verse 18.4 actual headcount in 2526

[1:34:32] which is an increase of about 14% over estimated actuals. Implementation of the

[1:34:38] compensation study is estimated at a 4% increase or 124,000 and a 2.5% COLA or

[1:34:47] about 75,000. The compensation study amounts reflect

[1:34:52] potential adjustments which are part of the ongoing labor negotiation process.

[1:34:58] Lower fiscal year 2526 staffing and expenditures reflect vacancies in

[1:35:04] police, administration, and public works during the current fiscal year. These

[1:35:08] positions have all been filled with the latest position being filled at the end

[1:35:12] of April for the administrative technician.

[1:35:16] Health insurance costs are projected to rise by 22% reflecting a 9% increase in

[1:35:22] premiums as well as the addition of family rate coverage for the new police

[1:35:27] position. The city's unfunded acred liability contribution is increasing by

[1:35:33] 45% approximately 104,000 under over the fiscal year 26 actuals

[1:35:40] consistent with fluctuations driven by CalPER's investment performance actuary

[1:35:46] assumptions and retiree experience.

[1:35:51] Other personnel costs are also increasing, primarily due to the

[1:35:56] addition of the one and a half positions in the police department impacting costs

[1:36:01] such as holiday pay, shift differential, and education incentive pay.

[1:36:10] This next slide highlights the city's required pension related payments to

[1:36:14] Kalpers, including contributions toward the unfunded acred liability and

[1:36:19] payments associated with the pension obligation lease lease back debt. The

[1:36:25] fiscal year 2627 UAL payment is based on the most recent Kalpers actuarial

[1:36:31] valuation as of June 30th, 2024, which reflected an investment return of 9.3%.

[1:36:39] However, prior years continue to impact current and future contribution

[1:36:44] requirements, including a negative 6.1% return for the period June 30th, 2022,

[1:36:51] and a 5.8% 8% return for the period ending June 30th, 2023,

[1:36:57] both of which fell below the Kalpers's assumed rate of 6.8%.

[1:37:02] As a result, UL contributions are projected to remain elevated over the

[1:37:07] 5-year forecast period. Again, UL costs may fluctuate annually based on

[1:37:13] investment performance, changes in actuary assumptions, and retiree

[1:37:18] experience. The pension related debt obligation will have a final payment of

[1:37:24] 123,000 in fiscal year 3132. We are also planning a re review of the

[1:37:30] city's pension funding strategy for this coming December, including whether some

[1:37:35] section 115 assets should be transferred to Kalpers.

[1:37:44] And this slide shows the anticipated transfers from the general fund that are

[1:37:49] part of the budget. FIRE is 1.42 million, the pension 115 trust fund, the

[1:37:56] 300,000, pension related debt, 237,000. The budget includes a 100,000 transfer

[1:38:03] to the insurance and legal reserve fund to cover ongoing uninsured legal

[1:38:08] expenses with a reduction in transfer amount reflecting an anticipated

[1:38:13] decrease in legal costs and bringing the fund to its minimum required balance.

[1:38:19] The capital improvement fund 184,000 and a 705 transfer to the critical

[1:38:26] infrastructure reserve was budgeted in 2526 to support the beach road

[1:38:32] stabilization project. The fund will also be renamed the long-term capital

[1:38:37] planning fund and receive a 1.1 million transfer to support future capital needs

[1:38:44] identified through the upcoming infrastructure assessments. And finally,

[1:38:49] the equipment replacement fund transfer of 89,500.

[1:38:58] And this brings us to a summary of the proposed budget. The proposed budget

[1:39:03] anticipates total operating revenues of 11.86 million and total operating

[1:39:08] expenditures of 11.16 million, resulting in an operating surplus of just over

[1:39:15] 700,000. Capital revenues are estimated at

[1:39:19] 545,000 while capital expenditures are projected

[1:39:23] to be 3.31 million leading to a capital fund deficit of 2.77 million primarily

[1:39:31] due to the 2.23 million in expenditures for the Beach Road stabilization project

[1:39:36] next year. In summary, revenues are projected at 12.41 million and

[1:39:42] expenditures at 14.48 48 million resulting in a 2.07 million deficit.

[1:39:50] This is primarily due to one-time costs for the beach road stabilization project

[1:39:55] largely funded by the critical infrastructure reserve. Following this

[1:39:59] one-time expense, the budget is expected to return to more typical operating

[1:40:04] levels.

[1:40:07] And this slide shows projected fund balance as of June

[1:40:12] 30th, 2027. The general fund begins fiscal year 2627 at 7.21 million above

[1:40:20] the reserve target and after plan transfers for fire capital pensions and

[1:40:25] reserve is projected to end the year at 5.63 million. The critical

[1:40:30] infrastructure reserve fle reflects a 2.49 million transfer out and a 705

[1:40:37] transfer in resulting in a remaining balance of 1.1 million. As mentioned

[1:40:43] previously, the fund will be renamed the long-term capital planning fund to

[1:40:47] support future capital needs through the infrastructure assessments.

[1:40:53] The budget, as submitted, anticipates returning to a more normal state,

[1:40:57] allowing the city to replenish the newly renamed long-term capital planning fund

[1:41:01] to over 1.85 million by the end of the forecast period.

[1:41:08] And this brings us to the general fund reserve. The reserve policy is to

[1:41:12] maintain a reserve equal to 50% of the projected general fund expense plus fire

[1:41:17] transfer plus pension debt service. This budget incorporates the policy with the

[1:41:23] reserve goal at 50% of fiscal year 2728 projected general fund expense plus fire

[1:41:30] transfer plus debt service which is 5.21 million. The projected general fund

[1:41:35] balance at the end of next fiscal year is 5.63 million. The projected general

[1:41:41] fund balance is over the policy goal by 417,000

[1:41:45] or 54%.

[1:41:49] And this slide shows the history of the general fund's actual ending balance.

[1:41:53] The fiscal year 2526 estimated general fund balance of 7.21 million and it

[1:42:00] shows the 5-year projections. The green line reflects the council's reserve

[1:42:04] policy goal. As you can see, the budget reflects that it does meet the reserve

[1:42:09] policy goal for the next five years. And in conclusion, a few highlights of

[1:42:14] this budget are that the general fund reserve policy is met over the 5-year

[1:42:19] forecast period. We continue with annual contributions to our 115 trust fund. We

[1:42:24] contribute to the critical infrastructure reserve to fund the beach

[1:42:28] road stabilization construction with plans to replenish the fund in future

[1:42:33] years. And the budget reflects a fiscally conservative approach that

[1:42:38] prioritizes maintaining staffing levels and supporting the city's operational

[1:42:43] needs.

[1:42:46] So tonight, we are asking you for your input and we'll take your suggestions

[1:42:50] into consideration while we continue to refine our budget projections and we

[1:42:55] will bring the budget back to council for adoption on June 8th after we

[1:42:59] conduct the public hearing. And with that, I'd be happy to answer

[1:43:04] any questions.

[1:43:09] » Helga, thank you very much for the detailed presentation. Um, let me open

[1:43:13] this to the city council first for questions for Helga.

[1:43:18] » Of course, Brian. >> Well, Helga, that was masterful. Thank

[1:43:23] you very much. I know it was a lot of work for you. It was a lot of work for

[1:43:28] me to read it, too. So, so well done. Um,

[1:43:35] basically I guess the first question I'm going to ask is should the public be

[1:43:40] worried about the 2 million plus deficit that you highlighted?

[1:43:45] » Uh, no. Because the majority of that is covered by the transfers from the

[1:43:51] critical infrastructure reserve fund to cover.

[1:43:54] » So the reserve fund is not included in your math. And so that comes in and

[1:44:00] essentially takes care of that deficit. >> It does. Yes.

[1:44:04] » Okay, great. I just wanted to clarify that. Um,

[1:44:09] so on page four, I was just curious and I I may be off on this, so that's what

[1:44:16] I'm going to ask is I noticed that in chart three it said

[1:44:21] over-the-counter revenue trends. So why would um 26 27

[1:44:30] why why would you anticipate that to be what looks to me to be lower than what

[1:44:36] was even in 2425 which was before we had the new fee

[1:44:44] structure. Is is this have something to do with the fee structure or not?

[1:44:53] So,

[1:44:57] so in the proposed budget, it does reflect the new fee schedule. However,

[1:45:03] » we only have like a half a year's worth of

[1:45:08] » data on the new fee schedule revenue. So, I didn't want to overestimate the

[1:45:14] revenues in this first year. And once we have

[1:45:19] better historical data on the revenues under the new fee schedule, then we can

[1:45:26] um have a better >> little Yeah. realistic number. Okay.

[1:45:32] » Okay. It just seemed like it was a little bit low because it was even under

[1:45:36] two years ago. >> Yeah.

[1:45:38] » Anyway, if that that was a question I had. So, let

[1:45:43] me see. Um,

[1:45:49] I I did notice there was a $7,000 um expenditure for coyote and rat

[1:45:57] mitigation, but um I don't know. I really don't know

[1:46:02] anything about the rat mitigation. So, is that something we're going to discuss

[1:46:06] at some point or how how does that happen? Yeah, that's uh something that

[1:46:12] the mayor and I are looking into currently and we'll have a proposal that

[1:46:16] we'll bring to city council in the future. Um we're not quite sure where

[1:46:20] that's going to land yet. We're still gathering our facts, but um we did want

[1:46:24] to make sure that something was in the budget in case it goes the direction we

[1:46:27] think it might. >> Okay. And then,

[1:46:30] and I may be wrong, but um do you recall what our um coyote uh contract is with

[1:46:39] Marin Humane? >> Uh I want to say it's 2500 a quarter.

[1:46:45] » That's is that >> Yeah.

[1:46:47] » Okay. So that's more than 7,000. So this doesn't

[1:46:53] count. This is separate from our contract with Marine Humane. This 7,000

[1:46:59] is a separate. >> Isn't that under the

[1:47:06] That's sep I believe that's separate. Okay. From min Yeah, the animal control

[1:47:10] is >> right

[1:47:12] » under the non-dep departmental. So >> Oh, okay.

[1:47:16] » It's a separate line item. >> Oh, okay. Great. I wasn't sure. I

[1:47:20] thought maybe we were saving money. That's really been nice. Um,

[1:47:25] let's see.

[1:47:32] I know you brought up um pensions and the change in

[1:47:38] in those figures and I I was looking in the list of unfunded expenditures on

[1:47:45] page 13 and would would pension issues be considered an unfunded expenditure or

[1:47:54] they again a separate >> um that's separate because um you know

[1:48:00] we have our required contribution that Kalpers says that we have to pay each

[1:48:05] year and then the um the unfunded acred liability is

[1:48:10] something that is determined on an annual basis from Kalpers through their

[1:48:16] valuation and that's and our section 115 fund is

[1:48:22] is there to offset that. >> Okay. Thank you.

[1:48:27] Um, okay. That's all I have. Kevin,

[1:48:32] » sure. Um, thank you, Helga. Helga. Uh, it's a great presentation, very thorough

[1:48:35] as always. Um, just three questions for you. On page five, it's uh somewhat

[1:48:40] related to Jane's question. Is the revenue that you're projecting for

[1:48:44] licenses and permits um for this coming fiscal 785 785,000?

[1:48:52] Um and my question was is so the 265 for malad's included in that 765, right?

[1:49:00] » Um no >> it is. So that's separate.

[1:49:02] » It's separate because the malard is in fiscal year 2728.

[1:49:08] » Oh, so it's the year forward. Okay, thank you. That actually helps quite a

[1:49:11] bit. So my question was the same as Jane's is just it seemed low compared to

[1:49:15] especially last year. But again, it's just mainly because of a conservative

[1:49:19] approach. >> Yes. So, if we were to trend in the same

[1:49:23] level, how much higher would that be, do you think?

[1:49:27] » Um, I I don't really know at this time, but you know, once

[1:49:32] » 25% I mean it could be 25 to 30% more than

[1:49:36] » Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. We could come close to maybe

[1:49:39] what we did last year. >> We would theoretically theoretically

[1:49:42] » it's just good to know. Can I just jump in there because isn't it also the case

[1:49:46] that we've seen just a lot of unusually large projects and so we're normalizing

[1:49:50] for that as well in terms of your forecasting?

[1:49:52] » Yes, that's true. >> Thank you.

[1:49:55] » True. >> Well, if you walk around town, you're

[1:49:58] still seeing a lot of unusually >> so I'm not sure it's a

[1:50:04] » Yeah, it's a conservative number for sure.

[1:50:06] » It is. Yes. >> Okay, great.

[1:50:08] » I I just didn't want to overestimate. >> Yeah. No, I appreciate that. I think

[1:50:11] that's actually kept us in good standing, that type of approach. Um, on

[1:50:15] page eight and nine, um, just in terms of capital expenditures or operating

[1:50:20] expenditures, I'm sorry. What are your thoughts in terms of contingency

[1:50:24] planning, especially as it relates to Beach Road? Like what's baked in here?

[1:50:34] » 11%. >> Oh, yes. In

[1:50:39] » Yeah. Yeah. That's 11%. I'm getting the nod from Tony.

[1:50:43] » And you're feeling good about that. >> Yeah,

[1:50:49] I'll take that answer. I'll take that and run. Um, okay. Last question.

[1:50:55] » It'll read better in the in the minutes than the audio.

[1:50:59] » Um, on page 13, last question is just the unfunded expenditures. any sense of

[1:51:04] what this could be from a ballpark standpoint, like what our potential

[1:51:08] exposure is here?

[1:51:12] » That's for Tony, I think. >> Um, yeah, I I wouldn't guess. I I think

[1:51:17] Robert or Tony could answer that. >> I'll take it from anyone.

[1:51:24] » Just a ballpark. million dollars projects from

[1:51:38] » you'll have to give me a minute to just uh take a look.

[1:51:40] » We can come back to why don't you think for a moment and we can go on to other

[1:51:43] council members. >> Great.

[1:51:44] » Thank you. >> Uh Peter, any questions?

[1:51:49] » Uh just just a quick um clarification. you were talking about the uh the

[1:51:54] reserve for for the um 2627 fiscal year and you talked about the 56 over the 52

[1:52:02] um calculation with $400,000 some odd the 56 it was you know a slide a few ago

[1:52:09] that's the the year ending projections right

[1:52:12] » I think I think you had it as July of 26 >> oh

[1:52:16] » I think I'm just just I don't know whether I read that wrong or but it

[1:52:20] should be the year ending >> it should be the

[1:52:23] Um, just two things I mentioned in the finance committee meeting. Uh, I do

[1:52:29] think and I know Kevin brought this up. I do think we should strive going

[1:52:34] forward and it may even need to be done somewhat retroactively layer on a

[1:52:39] separate P&L for Malard because I think there's tentacles in a lot of different

[1:52:44] places. You've got costs for uh the consultant. You've got costs for legal

[1:52:49] work. You've got costs for um cost recover cost for for a number of things

[1:52:53] that we assume we're going to be paid for. Uh and we're actually are are have

[1:52:58] already collected fees with no no real benefit go into some of the fees that

[1:53:02] we've already identified. So they are in there in from an actual perspective

[1:53:05] going backwards and they will be in this year you know assuming that that there

[1:53:09] are some projects for this year. So I would hope and think that at some point

[1:53:14] we build a standalone um fee structure, standalone expense structure including

[1:53:20] potentially staff costs and so forth so that it all feeds into over budget but

[1:53:23] you can look at it in it in its isolation. Um I know we talked about it

[1:53:27] before. Um second thing is uh I do also think that

[1:53:32] 25 26 permit fees were augmented by the um um permit renewals as we talked

[1:53:39] about. um >> yes,

[1:53:41] » which which aren't really accounted for going

[1:53:44] forward either. So, I think that might need to be layered out or broken out as

[1:53:48] a separate line item in the future because it doesn't take, you know, more

[1:53:52] than three or four or five permit renewals to be a decent number.

[1:53:56] » Yes. >> In relation to $700,000 total line item,

[1:53:59] » right? I am planning to work with planning and building on the Malard to

[1:54:03] have a better schedule for that. And then I have worked with um the building

[1:54:08] official for those building extension fees. I do

[1:54:13] have a list for those and I'm planning to break those out. There's it's about

[1:54:17] 28,000 that we've >> collected in this current fiscal year so

[1:54:23] far to date. And so I am going to break those out so that they will have a

[1:54:27] separate line item going forward. >> Wonderful. Thank you,

[1:54:33] Pat.

[1:54:36] Nice thing about being fourth in line is all my questions were answered.

[1:54:41] » Thank you. >> Thank you, Helga. I appreciate um a lot

[1:54:45] of my questions were answered in advance by multiple emails from um Helga and uh

[1:54:51] which I greatly appreciate and thank you for all your work. You're welcome.

[1:54:56] » Um I do not have questions. I attended the finance committee meeting and asked

[1:55:00] my questions then. So um let's open this for public comment. Is there anybody in

[1:55:05] the audience who would like to make a public comment? Okay, let's go to um

[1:55:10] online >> there are no hands raised.

[1:55:14] » Great. Okay, so let's bring this back for discussion or a motion or actually

[1:55:19] we don't need a motion. This is justformational.

[1:55:22] Um would anybody like to give any specific direction um that isn't already

[1:55:29] included in this memo? I'd like us to make more money and spend less money.

[1:55:35] » Okay. And let's let's actually go back to Tony in terms of the question that

[1:55:38] was asked about the potential very large number in terms of our capital

[1:55:42] expenditure needs. >> Um yeah,

[1:55:46] » can you hear me? Yep. There we go. Um yeah, it's it's really hard to say

[1:55:51] without looking into these more more closely. Um and I just checked with

[1:55:56] Robert on one of them, the as far as the undergrounding goes. Um and you know so

[1:56:02] going back going up uh the the list here starting with undergrounding um about 5

[1:56:08] million um sustainability plan implementation which would be

[1:56:12] sustainable fleet LED lighting and so on. Um my guess would be uh between half

[1:56:19] a million and 1 million. um critical infrastructure project, earthquake and

[1:56:23] utility protection for levies. Um I'd say um between 5 and 10 million and then

[1:56:30] roadway adjustments related to emergency evacuation planning. Um I I have not

[1:56:36] seen any of those uh proposed uh changes. So, um it depends if we're

[1:56:41] talking about big retaining walls or if we're uh just talking uh smaller

[1:56:46] projects, but uh anything from uh 3 to 5 million, I'd say. So, um I'd say between

[1:56:52] 10 and 15, uh million in total. >> This this is in this is part of your

[1:57:00] capital needs assessments that you're currently uh going through or is

[1:57:05] » No. Uh so those are all uh those assessments are all for existing

[1:57:09] infrastructure. Um these are uh proposed new uh infrastructure items.

[1:57:16] » Okay. Does that answer your question? Were you looking for the bigger number

[1:57:18] of the all-in >> No, no. I I think that does um I think

[1:57:23] I'm sure it's something you're already talking about at the finance committee.

[1:57:26] I mean those are big numbers obviously and how we think of those in addition to

[1:57:30] the infrastructure project. I mean the numbers get even bigger and you know

[1:57:35] obviously we have a very modest budget. So

[1:57:39] yeah it's just it's a lot of exposure if those things ever become critical.

[1:57:42] » Yeah. I mean my understanding is that once we have a better idea of the

[1:57:47] numbers we then need to think about how we might be planning for that

[1:57:50] financially over the next 30 years or whatever those however long those

[1:57:54] assessments go out. But but you're still planning to bring that back to us next

[1:57:58] fiscal year. You'll have completed all the assessments. Is that right?

[1:58:01] » Correct. >> Yes. Yeah.

[1:58:02] » All right. Thank you. So, unless there's any other comments or questions from

[1:58:06] council members, we're going to close this item um and move on to

[1:58:16] item 7B, which is a review and discussion of revocable license policy

[1:58:21] and application to the beach road strip. Um who is put this Rebecca? Is this your

[1:58:28] item? >> Yes.

[1:58:29] » Okay, go ahead. >> Thank you. Good evening, mayor, council

[1:58:31] members. This item um includes a discussion of how the city manages

[1:58:36] revocable licenses, also known as RL's on the beach road parcels known as the

[1:58:42] strip. The goal of this discussion is whether the current public benefit

[1:58:46] framework is sufficient or if a more structured approach is required. Under

[1:58:52] um our current administrative policy manual, the council grants RLS based on

[1:58:56] public safety and infrastructure protection, aesthetic improvements,

[1:59:00] validation of long-standing existing encroachments.

[1:59:04] Um as we discussed previously, they are discretionary in nature and can be

[1:59:08] revoked at any time by the council. Uh the staff reviewed the 21 residential uh

[1:59:15] parcels along the strip. Um, it is a highly utilized area of the 21 parcels,

[1:59:22] 17 hold RLS. These types of encroachments include stairs, retaining

[1:59:27] walls, fences, decks, landscaping, and elevators. These improvements mostly

[1:59:32] exist solely to facilitate private access to the 17 peers and docks from

[1:59:37] those residential homes. Um, while these public while these benefit the

[1:59:42] homeowner, the public benefit is is often indirect, which include things

[1:59:47] like the owner stabilizing a hill the city would otherwise have to manage and

[1:59:51] improved landscaping in some cases. Uh, recent shoreline cleanup efforts

[1:59:57] mandated by regulatory agencies underscores the city's obligations and

[2:00:01] costs for maintenance of the strip. This development provides good reason to

[2:00:05] consider whether the current framework should be more clear should more clearly

[2:00:08] align private use of public land with a measurable public benefit. A few general

[2:00:14] approaches for the council to consider are one expanded maintenance.

[2:00:19] So this would include licences maintaining their improvement plus the

[2:00:24] adjacent public strip including vegetation management, debris removal

[2:00:28] and general upkeep. Secondly, an annual fee structure is

[2:00:33] something to consider. This would include changing a recurring charging a

[2:00:37] recurring fee while the RL primarily um benefits private interests. This fee

[2:00:42] would create a dedicated fund for shoreline maintenance and regulatory

[2:00:46] cleanup costs. A third approach would be to continue with the current approach

[2:00:51] but undergo a closer examination of the revocable licenses standard provisions

[2:00:56] and or addition of provisions specific to the strip. The city um has used the

[2:01:02] current revocable license for several years and staff could examine other uh

[2:01:08] similar approaches taken by other jurisdictions in the area.

[2:01:12] The fourth approach would be to stop issuing RLS in the strip where the

[2:01:16] primary aim of the improvements is to provide access to private peers and

[2:01:20] docks. The council could decide in its discretion that this provides little to

[2:01:24] no public benefit. Um the fifth approach could be to revoke

[2:01:29] all RLS for the strip where the primary aim of the improvements is to provide

[2:01:33] access to private peers and docks due to the potential lack of public benefit. a

[2:01:39] lease agreement arrangement could be considered as an alternative in that

[2:01:43] case. Uh tonight we are seeking uh direction on whether to pursu pursue

[2:01:48] further analysis and potential amendments to the administrative policy

[2:01:52] manual 11.7 um to address these issues identified

[2:01:57] and I am available for questions should you have any.

[2:02:02] » Thank you Rebecca. Um, who would like to uh start with questions if there are

[2:02:08] any? >> Okay, Jane, go ahead.

[2:02:12] » Thanks, Rebecca. I really enjoyed reading this report and I especially

[2:02:17] liked having a lot of choices. It was a really thorough analysis of

[2:02:23] seemingly so of what our options are. Um, so

[2:02:30] one of the things that was mentioned was the doc lease payments. Do have we been

[2:02:35] collecting those every five years? Okay. And so that goes up and you just collect

[2:02:40] it and the nod was fine.

[2:02:45] » Yeah, but we do send out the notices for payment each year and then we increase

[2:02:50] them every five years. >> Oh, oh, each year. Okay, thanks. Good to

[2:02:54] know. Um

[2:02:58] if if we were to decide to create a lease situation for those uh that strip

[2:03:04] area, how would that affect or impact the open space and

[2:03:11] public access requirement of the open space? Do you see that the lease would

[2:03:17] have an impact on that? >> Yeah. So I think one potential advantage

[2:03:23] of the lease approach is frankly that I would have a more defined term for how

[2:03:27] long the you know arrangement is in place. I don't think it I don't see it

[2:03:31] as necessarily although certainly if Robert Rebecca or others have thoughts

[2:03:35] I'm not sure if it necessarily impacts the nature of the open space access

[2:03:38] requirements or principles that the city has followed. But I think the the

[2:03:43] principal difference between a lease and a license is that as you know the

[2:03:46] licenses or at least a revocable license I've seen since being attorney don't

[2:03:50] have any defined end date or term whereas leases obviously do.

[2:03:55] So you don't anticipate you're saying you could write into the lease whatever

[2:03:59] you wanted to to cover the public access and

[2:04:04] » yeah similarly I think in approach in terms of you know what our ask could be

[2:04:09] so to speak um I think in either instance a lease or license it would be

[2:04:13] pretty much the same because at the end of the day it is public property right

[2:04:16] and obviously the public agency to decide what it wants to do with it own

[2:04:19] public property. >> Okay. Um

[2:04:28] so again um unfortunately parks open space and lanes was not brought into

[2:04:35] this discussion. I I think because the item came at a time when between their

[2:04:41] meetings, but certainly um I think in it would be great to keep them involved

[2:04:48] going forward with any discussions or any anything that goes on. Um, I think

[2:04:54] this uh this is our group that oversees all those areas and uh so I'm hopeful

[2:05:00] that we pay attention to that and not um continue to kind of ignore it. So that's

[2:05:08] all the questions I have.

[2:05:13] » Just one is uh so some have everyone has an RL and some have leases or does

[2:05:18] everyone have an RL and a lease? I think some all have RLS,

[2:05:26] » some have leases. Most have those who have docks have leases as well.

[2:05:31] » So why why both? Because you were just saying, Andrew, you could just solve

[2:05:35] this with one. >> Well, the Yeah, the dock leases are for

[2:05:40] the overwater structures. Got it. >> The RLS are for um improvements on the

[2:05:46] strip. >> Got it. Okay. Thank you.

[2:05:51] Thanks, Rebecca. Um, of the 19 and this is relating to our conversation just

[2:05:56] just an hour ago at this point, two hours ago maybe. Uh, of the 19 L leases

[2:06:02] that ex RLS that exist, are they for the entire um, property beneath

[2:06:11] property line or property line on the strip or just for the improvements

[2:06:13] within that area? >> I'd say the majority are for the

[2:06:17] improvements within the area. >> Okay. So, so unlike what we do normally

[2:06:22] on community road in that case or whatever the case might have been, um we

[2:06:26] license that in like the whole grade out area of their of the um city right away

[2:06:31] adjacent to their property property line to property line. We don't do that here.

[2:06:34] We do it just for the area that they're specifically looking to improve.

[2:06:38] » Correct. >> Got it. Thank you.

[2:06:40] » I I would I would say that I think it you'd have to go back and look at them.

[2:06:44] Some of them actually the RLS are quite large and they do take over. Um if you

[2:06:50] go if you look at Cliff Lane at the bottom there, well that whole lane is

[2:06:55] between three RLS, three different homes and the one at the bottom has an

[2:07:01] actually quite large all the way covering the beach as well as um part of

[2:07:06] the pier and the bottom of the lane versus another one that has the lane and

[2:07:11] the other one that has. No, it is it's confusing

[2:07:15] » the lane. Well, the lanes I've seen the RL covers the whole lane, but in terms

[2:07:19] of the strip, I don't know. >> Yeah, I'm just talking about these

[2:07:22] particular on the strip that we're addressing right now.

[2:07:26] » I think

[2:07:32] » so Rebecca, great report, very thorough. So the question is is that as we as I

[2:07:41] look at some of the options that you gave us um to have them take over

[2:07:47] maintenance obligation of as Peter described from lot to lot

[2:07:54] um and to either have an annual fee or a lease

[2:08:01] it seems and with the maintenance. So the

[2:08:06] question is is and you may not have done that and that might be something we need

[2:08:11] to do is is there one approach that has a greater benefit to the city

[2:08:21] as as far as

[2:08:26] like the maintenance would cover quite a bit. I don't know if we would ever be

[2:08:30] able to get a lease that would cover all the

[2:08:35] benefit of the maintenance of the entire parcel.

[2:08:40] » Yeah. While Rebecca's looking, I would say if

[2:08:44] you're if the objective is to try and get the maximum benefit,

[2:08:49] if we are to give an RL, then yeah, it would be I would say a combination of

[2:08:53] both. It' be a maintenance agreement for the entire slopes and it also be a

[2:08:58] either a fee in Luffy or it' be a lease for for the square footage of the actual

[2:09:04] improvements whether that be a hill elevator or a staircase or whatever.

[2:09:08] » And so then my next question I guess goes to our legal counsel.

[2:09:14] So the question is is that um we all know these license are revokable.

[2:09:20] Um, do you see legally one, and I I'm not I'm sure

[2:09:26] you're aware of all the five options, but is there an option there that

[2:09:31] either legally is more advantageous or one that is definitely

[2:09:39] more a disadvantage for the city to um

[2:09:43] pursue, >> one that might be fraught with issues.

[2:09:48] Uh so let me let me try to answer this way. I would say legally the one that

[2:09:53] would require the most homework so to speak, the most preparation would be the

[2:09:56] fee. um as noted in the staff report and as you know from other other fee

[2:10:01] discussions in terms of user fees and regulatory fees and all those sort of

[2:10:04] stuff you know that does require some sort of study

[2:10:08] um exactly how you get to the cost to the city in terms of staff time or

[2:10:12] otherwise and then figure figure out how much to pass on to you know private

[2:10:17] residents within the city that are participating you know are partaking

[2:10:21] that particular benefit. So I would say to the extent that we want to go down

[2:10:25] that road, it requires more again sort of homework or leg work to put put

[2:10:30] ourselves on a good legal footing. >> So that's one consideration perhaps for

[2:10:34] council. >> Okay. So, and if we revoke the license

[2:10:40] and come up with a new plan, whatever that plan is, um, and someone doesn't

[2:10:46] want doesn't agree with what our new plan is, we just revoke it and they

[2:10:51] can't gain access to their doc. >> Well, I again, revocable licenses

[2:10:59] adopted and approved by city councils deep into the histories of Belvadier say

[2:11:04] what they say. Um, but I think that certainly you could expect some push

[2:11:08] back as a speaking as a practical matter depending on the length of which they've

[2:11:13] had that revocable license and to the extent of what we are taking away and

[2:11:18] perhaps how much they've invested in that property as well.

[2:11:22] So again, I certainly understand the city's position. I believe the council

[2:11:26] does as well. We will obviously maintain that position, but you know, there could

[2:11:30] be some disputes along the way. >> Okay. Thank you,

[2:11:38] » Andrew. Can I just follow up on that? Because

[2:11:41] if I'm an existing homeowner with one of these RLS and now I'm being asked to um

[2:11:48] maintain the entire lot to lot um

[2:11:55] RL >> that could be a significant expense to

[2:12:00] the homeowner. Um,

[2:12:04] and our only they can say no, we're not doing that. But the only recourse is to

[2:12:08] just say, well, you can't actually cross that piece of land to access your dock

[2:12:12] anymore. That's where we'd be stuck. Is that

[2:12:16] right? >> Well, they can cross they can cross a

[2:12:19] piece of land like any other member of the public could cross the land,

[2:12:22] » right? >> But under our revocable licenses, we can

[2:12:25] request that they remove the improvements on those the private

[2:12:29] property. I mean, they can still walk down there,

[2:12:32] » but it's all the other stairs and elevators and all the other stuff that

[2:12:36] they use. That's what is creating, I I assume in the initial instance, the need

[2:12:40] for the RL. If they simply walked down to their docks,

[2:12:46] that's fine. Access the dock. It just may be more

[2:12:51] difficult to do so. >> I mean, are are we potentially burdening

[2:12:57] them with a big expense here? I have no idea what that looks like in terms of

[2:13:00] maintaining all of these different areas. I don't know how disrepaired

[2:13:03] there they are. I don't >> sorry.

[2:13:08] » Do we spend any money? Does anyone spend any money maintaining it? Does the city

[2:13:15] » 310 312 beach as an example? We asked them, you know, they're asking for that

[2:13:19] elevator. It's not before council. And we said, well, you might be, you know,

[2:13:23] council might ask you to maintain the entirety if you draw those imaginary

[2:13:27] property lines down. and they were fine with it. So, I don't know, you know, if

[2:13:31] it's going to add if there's certain properties, sure that have had slides

[2:13:34] and um you know, that are very steep and you know, maybe if that were to happen

[2:13:40] that then yeah, they would it would be a high cost at that point.

[2:13:48] Yeah, I I would just add on to what Rebecca mentioned then uh to the point

[2:13:53] uh we have had some we don't we don't proactively maintain the hill hillside

[2:13:56] or the slope along the along the strip. Um we have had recent instances where we

[2:14:03] had material that fell down and BCDC enforcement action with this which the

[2:14:07] city is um most likely on the hook for. Um, and there's other areas along Beach

[2:14:11] Road that fall in that same category since some of the structures on there

[2:14:15] are very old and not covered in an RL exclusively. So, that's one thing to

[2:14:20] consider. Um, also I just want to mention too that oftent times the

[2:14:24] problems that happen on the slope uh they're the result of the improvements

[2:14:29] along the uh from the property above. you know, if there's drainage that comes

[2:14:33] disconnected or some other feature that wasn't maintained, that causes a slide

[2:14:38] that's in city property. And sometimes, you know, certainly in an emergency

[2:14:42] situation, it's public works getting out there, the city identifying the problem

[2:14:47] and trying to, you know, during poor weather trying to get out there and

[2:14:50] cover the slide until they can figure out who's responsible for it. Um, and

[2:14:54] then the recovery aspect of that can be challenging, too, because people argue,

[2:14:58] okay, what came first, the chicken or the egg here? Is it was it the water uh

[2:15:03] problem that caused the slide or was the slope instable to begin with? So yeah, a

[2:15:08] more clearly defined, you know, ownership or I should say maintenance uh

[2:15:13] responsibility would be beneficial. >> Can I follow up real quick and and

[2:15:19] Rebecca, correct me if I'm wrong. uh you I think highlighted this item well

[2:15:24] initially by identifying that this came up as a real question

[2:15:29] about the public benefit that uh clearly when you're talking about a revocable

[2:15:36] license for a property pretty much anywhere else in the city for city

[2:15:39] rightway the appearance the the um the improvements the um uh uh maintenance is

[2:15:46] the public benefit um there's very little public benefit for these

[2:15:50] properties um city property behind someone's

[2:15:52] property other than their access and someone occasionally walking by it even

[2:15:56] if they're able to. So I think our planning commission in u making

[2:15:59] recommendations city council for these licenses have had a hard time justifying

[2:16:04] the public benefit for that license. So I I think the question I guess I'll keep

[2:16:09] it as a question. Am I phrasing it correctly? Is is I mean is is that

[2:16:14] really the issue? The issue is is is is how we can rationalize the lack of

[2:16:20] public benefit for these licenses. >> Yes. You what is the public benefit of

[2:16:26] private improvements to access your own personal peer doc?

[2:16:29] » And so I think and similar to maybe our other discussion maybe it's a policy

[2:16:33] level >> I'll still keep it as a question. Maybe

[2:16:36] it's a policy level uh uh discussion because arguably

[2:16:41] the public benefit is the question here. And if we can if if if if a broader

[2:16:45] maintenance agreement or one of these options is added to it on a policy on a

[2:16:50] policy level to the to to these type of licenses on this in this area, it

[2:16:54] justifies that benefit somewhat more so than it is now because I I think the

[2:16:57] planning commission has a hard time and justifiably so. I used to have the same

[2:17:01] question down there. Why are we granting this this license for someone? Let's do

[2:17:05] it in in another form. We just never got around to doing it. Um because you can't

[2:17:09] really articulate a public benefit um versus, you know, the maintaining

[2:17:13] maintenance responsibilities, improve landscaping, you know, hill

[2:17:16] stabilization, reduce liability. That's hard to justify, you know, for the

[2:17:20] benefit that that individual gets by having that particular improvement. We

[2:17:25] haven't even got into the definition of structure, right, which is a another

[2:17:28] issue on this. Um so I I I think that that's the gist of

[2:17:32] the the issue is is how we need to describe what the public benefit is. And

[2:17:37] if we can rationalize it within the same um um um bag that we see licenses,

[2:17:44] that's that's I think why we thought about some other form lease or something

[2:17:48] because you you don't need the public benefit for a lease.

[2:17:52] » Yeah, I think it's um I mean because pretty much every house has uh or I

[2:17:57] would guess most houses have an RL most homes and and and we should be they

[2:18:02] should all be treated the same way. I mean, this the strip shouldn't be, you

[2:18:05] know, um, pulled out and treated differently, good, bad, or or or

[2:18:11] neutral. Um, but I guess my question is why now? Um, I mean, the leases don't

[2:18:16] expire till 2039. So, that's another 13 years,

[2:18:20] » but they're different. They're docks. >> Those are the docks.

[2:18:22] » Well, but I mean, yes, yes and no. But, I mean, if you're a homeowner, I mean,

[2:18:26] that's you're the RL's only so you can use the dock. I mean, so it's

[2:18:32] it feels like why are we I mean, maybe are we trying to figure

[2:18:38] this out for people who may be coming before the council in the near future?

[2:18:44] Um or well, I guess you're asking or do we want to step back and think of it

[2:18:49] holistically? I just feel um well, I guess I'm starting to deliberate which

[2:18:53] I'll just stop there. So, the the one thing is is I'm sorry, but the one thing

[2:18:57] is is not everyone that has a revocable license has a dock. Some people just

[2:19:03] have some retaining walls or

[2:19:09] decks or plants or something. So, they're very few, but there are a few

[2:19:14] that don't have the dogs. >> And Rebecca, the impetus for this right

[2:19:18] now is because we have a potential RL coming before us in the strip. Correct.

[2:19:24] Yes. And as Peter mentioned, it's something that we've discussed

[2:19:27] historically. It's just >> So that's that's why it's coming now.

[2:19:32] Okay. >> Um All right. Let's open it for public

[2:19:34] comment before we bring it back for discussion. Ra,

[2:19:39] » there are no hands raised. >> Oh, I'm sorry.

[2:19:44] » We actually have someone here in person. Um, hi, I'm Ma Bergson and I

[2:19:52] am speaking again as an individual. Although I do want to acknowledge that

[2:19:56] um, I am a member of the parks, open space and lane committee. So I speak

[2:20:00] through that lens and also mentioned that unfortunately Charlie could not

[2:20:03] stay. So I am sort of although I'm not the chairperson, I'm also sharing um

[2:20:09] somewhat of his input as well. So I say that in that this context. Um I want to

[2:20:14] start by saying um that unfortunately we were not given notice of this item at

[2:20:19] all in advance. So we for saw it um when it came up in the agenda um uh for the

[2:20:25] city council meeting. So none of us have been included and I think first and

[2:20:29] foremost we wanted to acknowledge I want to acknowledge and Charlie I know it

[2:20:32] feels the same way that we are very happy to have be having this discussion

[2:20:38] um because we think it's really really important and really really valuable and

[2:20:41] we do hope that um that the parks open space and lane can be included in it. Um

[2:20:47] the strip is actually open space. So this is actually directly in our um in

[2:20:52] our area and um we would be happy to have a subcommittee which is what we do

[2:20:57] um in order to participate you know in a sort of a ongoing basis outside of the

[2:21:02] meetings um and bring things to meetings. So I just encourage I hope

[2:21:06] that you will uh make that request and that direction because we'd like to be a

[2:21:11] part of it. Um the other piece that I wanted to mention is that um we um have

[2:21:16] as you know I believe from Charlie been working on a survey. We did a big survey

[2:21:21] of the lanes last year and this year um part of our goal is to do the same thing

[2:21:26] for the open space. So of course actually the strip and this area has

[2:21:30] been part of what we are looking at and ironically we are looking at have been

[2:21:35] looking at the revocable licenses which impact basically all along there and so

[2:21:40] this was something we were already looking at and as such we have looked at

[2:21:43] quite a few of them just sort of spot looking at them looking them up and spot

[2:21:47] looking at them. Um and we want to call attention to the fact that they are all

[2:21:51] very different. For one they have been brought about at very different times.

[2:21:55] Some of them are large, some of them are small. I mean, we have the one at uh

[2:21:59] whatever it is 270 covers like the whole basically the whole property. They have

[2:22:04] taken over the whole tide lot. Um and then versus the one that's at 310 to 312

[2:22:09] are looking at um this elevator and then some stairs. So I think one of the

[2:22:14] things that we request is that as you we look at all of these suggestions, we

[2:22:19] really need to sort of get a do a really good job and be part and really look at

[2:22:24] what exists there. Um oversight has not been been being done. That just has not

[2:22:30] been part of the city's priority. Um and I think it's because they are all very

[2:22:34] different. So you know there's been no direction. There are things that fall

[2:22:39] into the onto the beach. And the number one thing here is that the policy 11.8.2

[2:22:46] is for um the public to have um free it to be a public park and for the public

[2:22:51] to have free passage along the beach. And I want to note that a lot of these

[2:22:56] including accessing either their dock or the ones that don't have a dock, they

[2:22:59] might have a shared dock. They also include steps to get down to the beach.

[2:23:04] They're not just crossing to their dock. They all want to get to the beach. And

[2:23:08] the idea is that this open space area and the way these docks and these

[2:23:13] various RLS sort of connect to the beach and their docks not be done in a way or

[2:23:19] their maintenance of the hillside is done in a way that adversely impacts the

[2:23:24] ability of the city to fulfill this important policy of public access. We

[2:23:30] want everybody to be able to have free passage. And if you haven't ever done

[2:23:33] it, um I I know Charlie and I would be happy to show you what an amazing trip

[2:23:38] it is to go down. Right now we can go down the Harry Bell Allen steps and to

[2:23:43] walk along there and we would both love to give anyone that uh that option. So I

[2:23:49] will retire. That's sort of all of my questions. Thank you.

[2:23:54] » Thank you very much. Ma, um Bethy said nobody online. Correct.

[2:23:59] » Correct. Oh, I apologize Mr. Rothman. Okay, he's back. Bring him in.

[2:24:05] Hi, Dr. Rothman. >> Hi, thank you very much. U could you

[2:24:09] tell me whether the city has a similar strip

[2:24:13] of its own land on the side of the island that looks out

[2:24:19] towards Saucelo? >> No, we don't.

[2:24:24] » In other words, it goes from private property to what? To state

[2:24:28] » state property.

[2:24:33] Is that right? It just goes from property to state.

[2:24:37] » Thank you very much for for that information.

[2:24:39] » Yeah, I'm looking right now. Um, it's the it's the state from the end of the

[2:24:43] island working eastward, sorry, northward, westward. Um, and then around

[2:24:50] before it gets to cliff, it becomes county property.

[2:24:54] » Oh, but it's never city property. >> Never city property.

[2:24:57] » Thank you very much for that information. Thank you. Um,

[2:25:02] okay, this is getting more complicated, but um, let's bring this back for

[2:25:06] discussion. Um, who wants to Peter, do you want to kick off? Yeah, I'll just

[2:25:10] touch again on what I mentioned before that uh

[2:25:15] uh

[2:25:19] I believe it was Don brought it up in the last planning commission meeting in

[2:25:23] reference to the hiller that he was talking about the discrepancy or the the

[2:25:30] hypocrisy almost between uh public benefit and and you know when you're

[2:25:35] looking at a at a revable license anywhere else on the island, you you

[2:25:39] don't allow private privatization of the property. You can't put a fence there.

[2:25:42] You can't even put a garbage enclosure. And there's all these guid guidelines

[2:25:47] that we've um uh pushed out over over the years to make sure that there really

[2:25:53] is a public benefit to that, you know, 6 foot by 20 foot 200t stretch along the

[2:25:58] front of their property. and those all seem to go out the window when you're

[2:26:01] addressing um significant private improvements and private benefits and

[2:26:06] private exclusive use of this revocable license area on the strip. So he was

[2:26:11] having a hard time with that and I think it brought it to everyone's attention

[2:26:14] that uh

[2:26:19] is an RL the best form of this you know do we want to keep it in the same

[2:26:24] structure because it's not necessarily apples to apples when you when you look

[2:26:27] at what um that private benefit versus public benefit is for that property

[2:26:32] behind them versus something somewhere else. Uh and I think I think that was

[2:26:36] the impetus for this discussion. uh and I think to the parks and open

[2:26:40] space committee um comments broadly about uniformity is we don't have it

[2:26:45] there and it might be an opportunity to design it going forward so that we can

[2:26:50] we can use it going forward and make an attempt to retroactively try to improve

[2:26:53] it. Uh and certainly we have leverage going forward to get broader maintenance

[2:26:59] agreements either with a a a specific revoke license which has a different

[2:27:05] calculation between public and private benefit or at least that doesn't even

[2:27:08] contemplate that uh and have uh a better understanding of of those licenses and

[2:27:16] then seek to to to get them all aligned which isn't that unreasonable and I

[2:27:20] don't know that we would need to go as far as to require someone to cover their

[2:27:23] whole property if they haven't covered with the whole property before. We

[2:27:25] obviously want to um have as much as a status quo as possible, just have it be

[2:27:30] a more consistent approach um where we can. So, I'm open to a lot of ideas. I I

[2:27:36] I just recognized um as Rebecca presented this uh the the the

[2:27:43] differences that that the planning commission has to face when they when

[2:27:46] they try to recommend these licenses to us.

[2:27:51] » Kevin? >> Yeah, sure. I mean, I I guess I I'm

[2:27:55] still struggling with just RLS in general across the community. Um, I

[2:28:00] think it's always been a very thin argument to say that they are delivering

[2:28:05] true public benefit. I mean, for many, at least when I was on planning and even

[2:28:10] since I've been on council, um, I mean, they're not really. I mean, we say, "Oh,

[2:28:16] well, the this is going to get a street a car off the street." Well, you know,

[2:28:19] or, you know, this is going to they're not things that are truly creating

[2:28:24] community benefits where people are going to congregate or, you know, play

[2:28:28] in the park in front of their house or whatever it might be. And so, I know

[2:28:31] even at our home, um, I think, you know, we bought it this way, but there's a

[2:28:35] wall and a gate and so forth. I mean, nobody's getting the benefit of that

[2:28:38] except for us. And so, I think that's probably true of many RLS around the

[2:28:42] island for whatever reason. And I don't know why um the city was planned in this

[2:28:46] way many many many many years ago. So that's one piece is I think that it's a

[2:28:50] holistic question about RLS and I think we have to be careful not to um try and

[2:28:55] apply a different discipline to this particular part of the city um over RLS

[2:29:01] that are have been approved throughout the city. So that would be one. And then

[2:29:05] the second is is I also feel very uncomfortable about um anything that

[2:29:10] might be retroactive or would be affecting people who are currently for

[2:29:17] whatever reason uh have the benefit of these RLS and leases through to 2039. I

[2:29:22] mean, that's the only sort of event that's in the future where, you know,

[2:29:26] there's a moment where these these uses will be reconsidered and have

[2:29:32] to be renegotiated, I would imagine. Um, and so I would rather we be thinking

[2:29:38] about how to make it co-terminous with the lease. like if this is something

[2:29:42] we're going to tackle, that feels like the most appropriate time so we don't

[2:29:47] sort of dilute or diminish something that's already been promised or given to

[2:29:52] um residents,

[2:29:59] » James. >> Okay. Sure. Um well I guess trying to

[2:30:05] comment on some of the others I I don't I think I do see the strip RLS as

[2:30:12] different in some ways from the rest of the city because every house on there or

[2:30:19] at least everyone with access is has to cross open space not just city land but

[2:30:26] o designated open space to be able to get to their

[2:30:32] um doc or peer, however you want to call it. And in a way, there might be some

[2:30:39] similarities in that we we give RLS for people to get to their stairs to get to

[2:30:46] their front door. This is them getting an RL getting to their property of some

[2:30:52] sort. I think um I think it would be you know it it would be hard to balance

[2:31:00] the logic of taking away access to the docs that

[2:31:06] exists and have a lease until 2039 by saying um you know we're not going to

[2:31:13] give you an RL unless you do this that and the other thing and take take

[2:31:18] whatever five was take we're just revoking all of them that that doesn't

[2:31:22] seem logical or make any sense to me at all. Um

[2:31:27] so I think because it's open space and

[2:31:32] because along this particular um open space and strip area, we do have

[2:31:41] I think four lanes that are also involved in this. So it isn't just you

[2:31:46] know where where do these come in? A lot of the RLS are um like I said, one lane

[2:31:53] has three RLs from three different houses that connect with it. And so, you

[2:31:59] know, I think we'd be opening can of worms if we

[2:32:03] if we try to make it um the same as other areas in the city where those RLS

[2:32:10] really are specific to every single home. There there's not a lot of

[2:32:15] overlap. In this in this case we do it they are different. I I do see the open

[2:32:20] space and the strip as being different. um how we handle those differences. You

[2:32:26] know, again, I think um I would hate I I think it would be no matter whether we

[2:32:33] decide to do research with the lease idea or if we um amend the RL

[2:32:41] specifically for the strip because it is so different and it doesn't have

[2:32:46] anything else anywhere that that matches it. Um, I think we just have to be

[2:32:51] really careful about public access because that's one of the main things

[2:32:55] for our open spaces. And, um, as far as public benefits,

[2:33:02] um, I've taken that walk with MA once, the whole strip and once um, just

[2:33:10] part part of it. And um the p the public benefit is that you can get along our

[2:33:20] whole all our open space by having access provided by these homeowners that

[2:33:28] connect to their peers and allow um stairs to go over huge boulders that you

[2:33:35] normally would have to scramble over or um and and it's not just low tide. Low

[2:33:42] tide you can get a get through with anything, but it's um in case of

[2:33:47] emergencies, if it's a moderate tide, high tide would be tough anyway, but

[2:33:52] there are a lot of tides in between. And these um uh additions to the peers

[2:34:00] really do help with that access. So, um I I think we need to get parks, open

[2:34:06] space, and lane involved going forward. definitely even if it's just a

[2:34:10] subcommittee so they can meet at the time that is more convenient for the

[2:34:15] rest of the city and then I think we have to from my perspective I do see the

[2:34:20] strip is um requiring some additional thought and differences from what goes

[2:34:25] on in the rest of the city.

[2:34:31] So, um, the RLS in the strip are totally

[2:34:37] different than most other RLS that the city uses. And I

[2:34:44] think the first off the I don't want to call it generic, but the revocable

[2:34:49] license um that we use

[2:34:54] for the strip is doesn't fit in with what the strip is

[2:35:00] all about. So I think at least the very least we should be or initially looking

[2:35:07] at that revocable license for the strip and

[2:35:11] how it's worded and what it's included. Um,

[2:35:16] I I I look at the strip as city property and um and we're we're giving away a

[2:35:26] portion of the city property for the benefit

[2:35:30] of the people that own those homes. And it was done

[2:35:35] me many many many years ago. And um and probably there were times that

[2:35:44] um people just put in the staircase and didn't realize it was open space. Um but

[2:35:50] I think it's time the city take a look at it and figure out the best way to go.

[2:35:57] Um you know I I remember a prior attorney

[2:36:03] saying that we shouldn't be giving away our city land. we should be collecting a

[2:36:08] fee for what we give away. Um, which I find hard as Kevin says, you know, a lot

[2:36:14] of properties, you know, your gate, your driveway. I mean, of course, people have

[2:36:18] to have that. Um, well, maybe not your gate. You wouldn't get that now, but

[2:36:22] your driveway you definitely need. Um, but the strip is totally different and I

[2:36:28] think it needs to be handled different and the right process to go through. I

[2:36:33] mean, you know, there's a a balance there between the city benefit

[2:36:40] and the individual benefit that I think we have to weigh. And I think this is

[2:36:45] also a greater community discussion. Um it may be that we need to schedule this

[2:36:55] discussion again and maybe hear back from some of the people that have the

[2:36:59] RLS um just to hear their input um so we can balance everything out. Um but I

[2:37:06] think we should investigate um you know some of the suggestions here. I'm not

[2:37:12] calling to spend a lot of money. Um but I would say um we should look at you

[2:37:19] know um is a fee schedule better than a lease and or you know do we maybe not

[2:37:27] say you have to pay for the whole area of your the strip that you're using

[2:37:33] but you're going to have to share in some of the costs. I I don't know what

[2:37:37] the right balance is, but I definitely think that this is something we're going

[2:37:41] to have to um investigate and um

[2:37:47] probably a task force would be a good idea just to get some

[2:37:55] parameters and and hopefully we can hear from some of those RL people um to get

[2:38:01] their their feedback.

[2:38:06] Thank you, Pat. Um,

[2:38:11] Rebecca, part of the reason this is coming forwards now is that time crunch

[2:38:14] associated with a couple of one property or two properties that's looking that

[2:38:18] are looking to get an RL on the strip. Right now,

[2:38:21] » it's two properties, one RL. >> Okay.

[2:38:25] » Well, it could be two RLs, but it's the same improvements. They're looking for a

[2:38:29] shared elevator.

[2:38:33] And if we um I mean I agree with Pat that this you're not going to want to

[2:38:38] hear this Rebecca, but this needs more thought and some form of uh a couple of

[2:38:44] council members working with uh parks and urban spaces um might make

[2:38:51] sense, but how far can we push back these homeowners because that isn't

[2:38:57] going to happen overnight. >> Yeah, they were a little frustrated.

[2:39:00] They were originally going to be agendaized tonight. Um, we've pushed it

[2:39:05] back twice now. I think it would >> Is it part of a bigger project that

[2:39:10] they're doing? >> No.

[2:39:12] » No. Andrew, do you have any comment on that in terms of our obligations?

[2:39:20] » Legally, I think you can you can seek more time to ponder this issue and

[2:39:24] figure out the best way forward. Uh I don't know if they have any legal

[2:39:29] expectation to have their application decided by certain day one or the other.

[2:39:33] I'm not aware of any. I I don't think that we that we um

[2:39:38] uh I think we have a responsibility to to act in a timely fashion with with any

[2:39:43] applicant, let alone these applicants who've already been put off. Uh I would,

[2:39:48] as Pat pointed out, this has been going on for a long time. I'm not sure we we

[2:39:51] we are making a huge mistake um hearing and granting ultimately um upon review a

[2:39:58] a license for them even if we have to say you know this this as as an

[2:40:02] additional condition of that license that we're we're we're going to look at

[2:40:05] the ultimate form and it could be revoked if if the change if the item is

[2:40:09] changed which we have the right to do anyway but I I can't imagine that that

[2:40:12] this process should hold them up because if this process takes on the type of

[2:40:16] scope that we've just contemplated tonight they're not going to come up

[2:40:18] before us for a year um And I don't I don't think that's that's appropriate

[2:40:23] for them. >> Can I agree with Peter? I mean, I think

[2:40:26] it's our best practice. >> Well, but just going back, I mean, when

[2:40:29] this was initially um worked on, it took 24 public hearings in five years.

[2:40:35] » Um and so, you know, >> no, no, no.

[2:40:40] » I think it was the dock leases. >> The dock leases took took that long. And

[2:40:43] so, I mean, it's it's >> it took 5 years and 24 public hearings.

[2:40:49] It took the council 24 public hearings over a period of five years to resolve

[2:40:52] all the issues and concerns that were raised by the dock owner, city attorney,

[2:40:55] and other members of the city staff. >> It was before the internet. That's why.

[2:41:00] » Right. Right. AI could get that down to 22 meetings in four years. Um but uh but

[2:41:06] again, I think to your point, I would say we should proceed with 310 and 312.

[2:41:12] um because this is going to we shouldn't hold them hostage to um a policy um

[2:41:17] evolution desire by the city. Uh which could take quite a while. Um and I think

[2:41:23] it's yeah similar to the sidewalk issue that you raised earlier today, Pat. It's

[2:41:26] like I mean yes, we probably should have a sidewalk policy and we probably should

[2:41:30] have sidewalks along the park, but we can't hold up that homeowner until we

[2:41:35] get our policy work done. So that do you have a comment on that or does that make

[2:41:39] sense just to we'll bring them forward and we are going to do a broader review?

[2:41:43] » Okay on that one specifically um they've also agreed to maintaining the entirety

[2:41:49] of the strip. So, that's one thing. We've also walked with Ma and Charlie um

[2:41:54] with the homeowner, one of the property owners, and they've agreed to do some um

[2:42:00] raising of a platform so that people can pass through that to give it the public

[2:42:06] better access. >> Okay. So, it feels like that'll just

[2:42:09] come forward as as planned next month. Um, but I have a question for for Jane

[2:42:13] in relations because it sounds like um, Parks Neighbor Spaces is looking to sort

[2:42:17] of revitalize the strip and so that's part of what's playing into this

[2:42:21] discussion. Correct. Well, I think it's important to realize that they are a

[2:42:26] very active parks open space and lanes committee and I would say lucky for us

[2:42:32] because they're really doing a phenomenal job of um documenting every

[2:42:37] lane and next the next um focus area is going to be on the open space and with

[2:42:44] that documentation and database I really see and I think Tony has mentioned

[2:42:48] before that it's a great asset because We don't have um the ability in our

[2:42:55] staff to be looking uh on a regular basis at what's needed for every single

[2:43:01] piece of lane and open space. But they have the ability to do that and that

[2:43:06] could be easily given to them as an annual job to go along and document are

[2:43:13] people um are are the ladders falling apart?

[2:43:17] Can you still walk down a lane? Can you get to the strip as uh stated in their

[2:43:23] uh revocable license? Are they keeping it up? And that is something that would

[2:43:28] be doable um as an enforcing um issue that we always struggle for. So

[2:43:34] I I think the parks open space and lane because they have renewed energy and

[2:43:40] focus and um they're really tackling what they're supposed to be doing and

[2:43:46] yeah so I think that is a part of it but I think it's a great benefit.

[2:43:50] » Okay. So it sounds like there's broad consensus that the strip is different

[2:43:54] from other RLS except for Kevin who dis disagrees with that. So it does feel

[2:44:00] like there is more work to do and then the question is really how do we do that

[2:44:04] work and not take five years and however many meetings. Um so I if people have

[2:44:10] specific suggestions and it's I know Pat suggested a task force if it's very

[2:44:14] narrow I would certainly support that. I don't know how other council members

[2:44:18] feel.

[2:44:25] I think if if if you reread number one, uh it's pretty it's almost an exact

[2:44:33] model of what Rebecca is proposing for >> 310 312.

[2:44:37] » Okay. >> Which is our existing license and you're

[2:44:41] threading the needle by having increased responsibility over the whole stretch

[2:44:46] and the um increased um obligation for maintenance. that can provide the

[2:44:53] planning commission and ultimately us with a greater sense of public benefit

[2:44:56] that works well within our our our existing licensing structure. Um because

[2:45:02] uh you know you read our policy with the vocal licenses not specific to the strip

[2:45:07] or anywhere else. It talks very extensively about a significant public

[2:45:10] benefit. Uh so I think that approach going forward meaning guidance from us

[2:45:15] in in a conversation just like this um solves decent part of the problem as far

[2:45:21] as um giving the planning commission clear guidance as far as how they can um

[2:45:26] recommend these licenses in this area for us going forward which might be not

[2:45:30] too many going forward but nonetheless gives them that guidance which liberates

[2:45:33] us I believe to think about this more holistically and maybe we push that back

[2:45:37] to the parks and open space committee to think about it as um in in in concert of

[2:45:42] their survey of the open spaces going forward, in particular this area, what

[2:45:45] recommendations would they make to the city council uh in further licensing

[2:45:51] this this area? What's the what's the um periodic uh review um survey updates and

[2:45:57] then contact home owners how they need to maintain it and so forth. I mean,

[2:46:00] there could be a whole schedule they could put together um that could go

[2:46:03] forward. I mean, I don't know that this is something we need to invest a

[2:46:07] subcommittee beyond what's already in place in the parks committee. If we if

[2:46:11] if we go with a general direction that these ongoing maintenance obligations um

[2:46:16] for the broader um borderto border responsibility and take out the going

[2:46:21] backwards, we're not going to necessarily look at that right now. that

[2:46:24] that'll become become a recommendation of of how out of sync we might be with

[2:46:29] with older licenses as you look through those or as parks look looks at them one

[2:46:33] by one across the total property. >> I'm a bit confused. So you're saying

[2:46:38] going forwards we should impose broader requirements but in terms of the the

[2:46:41] existing licenses you're saying leave them be?

[2:46:44] » Leave them be. I think parks open space part of their open space survey is not

[2:46:49] only to look at the physical um um um condition of the of the strip, but

[2:46:53] examine the licenses to see how they how how they correspond into the maintenance

[2:46:57] that that exists on the strip and come back to us and say these these six

[2:47:00] licenses are in good shape. These six licenses are in bad shape. Here's how

[2:47:03] you could potentially improve them. >> They're in good shape or bad shape.

[2:47:05] Meaning that they're not maintaining the whole the whole

[2:47:08] » they're either not they're not they're not they're not maintaining as they're

[2:47:10] supposed to maintaining it or the license doesn't cover the area that

[2:47:12] needs to be maintained. You know, if I were to do it, I I would look at the the

[2:47:17] three or four three properties that exist there and have a good

[2:47:20] understanding of all the licenses and have a database that identifies uh where

[2:47:25] the problems are. Are they covered by licenses? And if they are, um then the

[2:47:30] the homeowner is not living up to their obligation as a LE. And if if if if an

[2:47:34] area that's neglected or needs needs some some attention is not covered by a

[2:47:37] license, either the city needs to address that problem short of a

[2:47:40] landslide or something like that or we need to go to that homeowner, talk to

[2:47:44] them about broadening their their responsibility, revoke the license, or

[2:47:47] if we don't see that as a plausible option, we need to, you know, step in

[2:47:50] and and and recognize that is a a an obligation or a liability, you know, for

[2:47:56] our further assessment of our property. So the only thing I would say there is

[2:47:59] this sounds like it gets into a little bit of the Milzac stuff where you don't

[2:48:04] actually see the annual uh reviews taking place or or it just falling

[2:48:10] apart. And so to me, you have to cover if you're going to do it forward

[2:48:14] looking, you do it backward looking to you issue everybody with with the new

[2:48:17] requirements and then park and then parks and urban space can come and say

[2:48:20] when those on they're not honoring those agreements. I'm just responding to to

[2:48:25] both Jane and and and and the parks open space based committee wanting

[2:48:30] a a seat at this table to to to continue the assessment process just as they do

[2:48:36] the lanes um that these open space including the strip becomes part of

[2:48:40] their ongoing um active review of of city property.

[2:48:44] » But does that answer the full question that we're being asked tonight? I mean,

[2:48:48] that's talking about maintenance. And I think we're sitting here saying, you

[2:48:53] know, we have private development on public land that

[2:48:59] we've given RLS to, and are those RLS the correct vehicle we should be using?

[2:49:07] And if they are the correct vehicle, does it cover everything that needs to

[2:49:13] be covered? Because the R the the strip is different. So, I think there's, you

[2:49:18] know, I mean, I think it's great park and open space wants to go out and take

[2:49:22] a look and see, you know, who's maintaining, who's not maintaining, who

[2:49:26] needs to do this, who needs to do that. But I think that we're at a higher level

[2:49:30] here asking the question, you know, how how are we going to address this private

[2:49:36] development on public land and, you know, a a greater question of, you know,

[2:49:43] who's responsible for what. And I think that no offense to anybody, but I think

[2:49:48] it goes beyond park and open lane for that discussion. So I just thought that

[2:49:54] if there was a task force, we could look at you know what could a lease look

[2:49:58] like? What you know how how are we going to come up with the FIA? There's

[2:50:03] somebody else out there that, you know, we can look at how they have it

[2:50:06] structured. I think we're very unique in what we have. So I I I don't know if

[2:50:11] we'll find somebody that has the same situation, but I think it just takes a a

[2:50:16] broader look to see the potential of what we can and can't do. And you know,

[2:50:21] with alongside respecting our community and the members who have their RL and

[2:50:27] how we're going to mesh this all together so that we can all get the

[2:50:31] greatest benefit. They get the great benefit, we get a great benefit.

[2:50:36] The only thing I would add to that though is that the city has already

[2:50:39] decided assuming that these structures comply with what was approved by the

[2:50:43] city. I mean the city has already decided that these people can build what

[2:50:47] they've built. So I mean I would just be cautious about reopening decisions that

[2:50:54] have been made and settled for many many years. I mean, if there are things that

[2:50:58] we want to do on a going forward basis that addresses some of these issues that

[2:51:02] were raised tonight, um I can understand that, but but I don't think that we want

[2:51:07] to create a narrative that we're going to um at least in my opinion um

[2:51:12] re-examine what we've already decided. That would be like someone coming and

[2:51:16] saying, "Hey, you know, we've changed our mind and you can't have your second

[2:51:19] story if it was approved or whatever." It's like that's that's settled. That's

[2:51:23] settled. I I can see where you're coming from, but I'm also thinking, okay, so

[2:51:27] someone has had a revocable license for 15 years, and you know, somebody, you

[2:51:34] know, I mean, I don't want to pick on any single property.

[2:51:37] » Don't, >> but I mean, you know, we had this

[2:51:41] arrangement, it no longer is working. Now we want this new arrangement. Well,

[2:51:45] okay, they had a revocable license, but that revocable license they had, they

[2:51:51] don't want anymore. So now we got to give them a different revocable license

[2:51:54] because they're doing reconstruction or changing the whatever. That is when we

[2:51:59] could go to someone and say, "Okay, you know, this is how we're going to

[2:52:02] structure it, >> right?" But that's different. I mean,

[2:52:04] like a catalyst for change like at 310 and 312 to me is different because

[2:52:08] they're coming to the city saying, >> "Pard me,

[2:52:11] » no properties mentioned." >> Well, no, no. I mean, but that one we we

[2:52:14] have because it's the one that we said we should bring forward. But that's to

[2:52:18] me uh it's a catalyst for change and so therefore it's required to go through

[2:52:22] this process. It's being you know they're saying hey we'd like the city to

[2:52:26] actually give us something. Um and so I think it's a fair thing to discuss um

[2:52:31] you know what's the best and most balanced approach to that. I just again

[2:52:34] I'm just cautioning about you know being very careful about navigating decisions

[2:52:38] that have been made made for many many years. um experiences people are relying

[2:52:44] on and counting on because the city's granted those experiences and so we ne

[2:52:48] we should just be very careful and I would be very respectful of those

[2:52:51] settled decisions. Yeah. And I I recommended that approach or just

[2:52:56] throughout that approach number one without the retroactive element um just

[2:53:01] doing my informal headcount um I didn't see a great will to among I guess at

[2:53:06] least the four of us to to change much of the methodology uh leases fees um

[2:53:13] structure- wise um other than trying to improve the maintenance um

[2:53:18] liability and potentially the public benefit um And

[2:53:23] then to consider that what what what what Pat and Rico talked about is is

[2:53:27] having um the parks and space committee sort of continue their their their

[2:53:31] broader oversight of this of these of this space just like they do the um the

[2:53:36] lanes and everything else. >> But then maybe that would be helpful if

[2:53:40] we're going to have folks think about this. Maybe we need to be clear on the

[2:53:44] parameters like I mean is this screen space uh or is this you know here are

[2:53:50] some parameters to operate within or to ideulate within. Um again I I'm maybe

[2:53:56] there aren't but I I think we we haven't I don't think aligned on that tonight.

[2:54:00] Um and maybe that's worth coming back

[2:54:06] and agreeing to it might make it a more productive all

[2:54:10] over the place. Um as Peter said, do we mostly have

[2:54:14] agreement that that before discussing whether it's just uh

[2:54:19] going forward or retroactively an an idea of it's the maintenance obligations

[2:54:23] that we want to uh pass over is that is a broad agreement that that's the core

[2:54:28] issue that we have here.

[2:54:33] Well, I mean, I think the maintenance is part of it and then it's um

[2:54:40] uh I mean, I don't want to take anything away from anybody that has anything. Um

[2:54:45] I'm not, you know, advocating for that. Um but a lot of it is is just, you know,

[2:54:52] um uh when people redo their staircase um down to the dock, sometimes they

[2:55:00] change it. Sometimes it was like a direct, you know, like kill her down and

[2:55:04] now they want to kind of do a meandering thing. Well, that's kind of a new

[2:55:07] revocable license and that's where we can open up the discussion. So, um I'm

[2:55:12] not advocating that we take anything away from anybody, but I'm just thinking

[2:55:16] that we need to think of this in a longer term how we're going to um look

[2:55:23] at maintenance and and and you know, is is the revocable license the right term

[2:55:30] we should use or should the revocable license switch to something else? I

[2:55:34] don't know. I wonder if we've had task force before

[2:55:38] that have had um finite dates on them and I don't know if that's a possibility

[2:55:46] just to get a little bit more information from the community greater

[2:55:51] community as well as having parks open space and lane representatives

[2:55:56] there and maybe you know so that it doesn't take five years

[2:56:01] make it a three month >> meeting schedule kind of like the seaw

[2:56:05] wall is not going on forever and they have a a small subcommi committee that's

[2:56:11] meeting as needed and getting through whatever it is they need to get done and

[2:56:16] perhaps we can use that as a model for something

[2:56:19] more finite in time. >> Rebecca, I feel like we're giving you no

[2:56:23] direction here whatsoever because we're all over the map. I think I think what

[2:56:27] some things I'm hearing are I think parks open space lanes committee would

[2:56:32] you know they have the energy they have the momentum it would be great if they

[2:56:35] could assess each revocable license and like Jane and Pat were saying that some

[2:56:41] of them cover the entirety of the strips some of them only cover the stairs right

[2:56:46] so then that can give us sort of a basis of what we're looking at right and I

[2:56:50] don't think I think we're looking at ways is to

[2:56:57] move forward with these revocable licenses. You have to remember we have

[2:57:00] all those 21 properties. There's 19 RLS already. So the chances of a new RL

[2:57:06] coming back are pretty rare, >> right? Unless somebody sells a property,

[2:57:10] demos a house, and red does it. Those, you know, that you know that's probably

[2:57:14] going to happen. It's happened once in the 10 years I've worked here. So I

[2:57:18] think we could move forward with pars space

[2:57:23] lane doing an assessment and then coming back and reporting on that and seeing if

[2:57:27] there's anything that we can do to sort of you know improve getting more

[2:57:31] maintenance out there. I also think that keeping the existing RL might be a road

[2:57:40] we want to go down and enter into and enter new language for RL's in the strip

[2:57:47] that discusses maintenance moving forward,

[2:57:50] » right? similar to what might be coming next month,

[2:57:54] which to me seems pretty clean, but I don't know if it goes as far in depth as

[2:57:59] Pat is suggesting, but it seems like it would sort of help

[2:58:04] us move move forward, >> right? Um, so I guess the only question

[2:58:09] is in terms of asking parks and open spaces to do that, obviously Jane would

[2:58:13] be working with them on that. Is there any reason to include any other council

[2:58:18] member in this in that part of this or not? Meaning do you feel like you're do

[2:58:23] you do would that be helpful? >> No, I I think it's fine unless someone

[2:58:29] wants to do it. I don't think it's necessary.

[2:58:31] » Okay. So does that seem like a good approach that first parks and open

[2:58:35] spaces does that assessment and at the same time as they're providing that

[2:58:39] information we really start to think about what the policy will be around

[2:58:43] whether we're just requiring maintenance obligations or

[2:58:47] whether we have to open this up more more broadly. Well, I guess yeah, the

[2:58:50] question, you know, the question is po. What is the point of them doing that? We

[2:58:53] already have they already exist. These RLS, we're not we're not going to go

[2:58:56] retroactively back. So, I don't know. No, maybe that's not the best use of

[2:59:01] their time. >> Well, sorry, not helpful. But now that

[2:59:05] I'm thinking about it, we don't want to waste their time on

[2:59:08] » I believe the way forward is to do a a a slightly modified uh uh robo license

[2:59:13] addressing the the the the additional uh stabilization landscaping maintenance

[2:59:18] aspects of this particular pieces of piece pieces of property. Um which which

[2:59:24] gives gives this the city the more the security relative to stabilization but

[2:59:27] also helps thread that needle which I talked about relative to the public

[2:59:30] benefit. That seems the right approach going forward. I'm responding to parks

[2:59:35] open space um existing and already planned survey of open spaces in the

[2:59:40] next year whenever they decided to do that whenever they hope to do that. And

[2:59:43] it wouldn't be that difficult in that survey of these open spaces to um

[2:59:49] include information about whether it's licensed or not, whether there's whether

[2:59:52] there's full full coverage of the property, whether there's um landscaping

[2:59:56] um um responsibilities to the homeowner. whatever three or four or five questions

[3:00:00] they come up with to identify where there's additional risks relative to

[3:00:04] that public space um as it relates to the the public's use of that space. And

[3:00:09] if and if one one property doesn't have a license on it covering anything more

[3:00:12] than just the stairway up the up the hill and there's a lot of loose loose

[3:00:15] soil with no with no vegetation there, I might say in that survey, this is this

[3:00:20] poses some risk of of slide in the future and maybe maybe that gets rolled

[3:00:25] over to Tony and then and they do a more sophisticated assessment because that

[3:00:28] could become the same situation where we had with BCDC, you know, this past year.

[3:00:31] But but the issue I have with that is that while we have an active parks and

[3:00:34] open spaces right now, we might not do in five or 10 years time and then

[3:00:37] nobody's doing those assessments. >> But I think it's a onetime survey just

[3:00:40] like your like your lane survey. I don't know that it needs to be readressed that

[3:00:43] often. >> But but that would be a peacemeal

[3:00:45] approach. So you're saying some we would apply this retroactively to some

[3:00:49] depending on the circumstances and not all.

[3:00:52] » No, it's just a it's just an assessment. It just it just tells you where we are

[3:00:56] because that that way you file it not only in the in in the parks archives but

[3:01:00] Rebecca has it so she knows the history of where everything is

[3:01:05] » but we're not expanding their obligations retroactively under your

[3:01:09] model with Kevin on that. I don't think we we

[3:01:12] can or should necessarily sort of impose new requirements on people imposing new

[3:01:17] requirements but within the RL it does talk about maintaining. So if they have

[3:01:23] an RL and the maintenance is not occurring then it would give the city

[3:01:28] leverage to be able to say we've noticed that the stairs are crumbling and you

[3:01:34] haven't kept them up and this is now dangerous for the public. You know what

[3:01:38] » it would also provide a good basis if they did come back for a new RL for new

[3:01:43] improvements we could say well we have this study and here's what you know

[3:01:46] » and could could we ask MA if this seems okay

[3:01:50] » ma come back up. >> So, she's right there.

[3:01:54] » We're sort of telling her what she's doing.

[3:01:57] » Yeah. So, I I would Yes. >> Oh, it's green. Is it Is it on? Yeah.

[3:02:01] Okay. Um Yeah. I think so what we were looking to do is as part of this open

[3:02:07] space that we did commit to work on this year because we did the lanes one last

[3:02:11] year. So, we're heading into fiscal year whatever July 1. um is to and so we've

[3:02:17] already started is to look at all of the open space not just the strip but all

[3:02:21] the open space and to do a similar survey that we did with the lanes um

[3:02:25] which is looking at sort of all the different aspects to create this sort of

[3:02:29] catalog for the city and sort of a baseline you know look into what they

[3:02:34] have and one of the big things that has come up for us was of course these uh

[3:02:39] RLS particularly in the strip and so what we realized is we did look at a

[3:02:44] handful of them and I will say recent projects encouraged us to do that. So we

[3:02:49] did look at a couple and they are the ones that are there are very different

[3:02:53] and there are bits that one um would I believe the city give the city if the

[3:03:00] city had that survey they would know what the existing obligation is under

[3:03:04] existing RLS and whether they're being fulfilled and so I think that is a

[3:03:09] benefit and it's not retroactively creating anything it's really looking at

[3:03:13] what exists and you know are they doing it an example is you know giant giant

[3:03:19] trees that have fallen down and now are blocking the beach. And the question is,

[3:03:24] uh, it came up earlier, you know, is that the city's maintenance obligation

[3:03:27] or is this happen to be one of the RL's that's bigger and it actually should be

[3:03:32] the homeowners and and I don't think anybody knows because they're not easy

[3:03:36] to find. Um, that's, you know, they're they're buried and they're not easy to

[3:03:40] find. Um, and so, uh, I mean, I looked at them up at the county assessor's

[3:03:44] office because I was there waiting for my jury duty. So um so that's the one

[3:03:50] thing. The other piece that I just want to bring up um that this has been a big

[3:03:55] focus on maintenance at the core of this and a big piece as to why we are you

[3:04:02] know looking at this and why we're looking at open space and lanes is about

[3:04:06] public access. And so to the extent that the city has allowed um has given RLS

[3:04:13] where there are stairs to get to to get to the beach and to get up and over the

[3:04:17] dock and we've and people have put in docks or developments that block

[3:04:22] people's access their walkway across the public area. Um and there are places

[3:04:29] where stairs that were there are no longer there. This is an example and I'm

[3:04:33] not, you know, I don't I couldn't even tell you the numbers, but there are

[3:04:36] stairs that were clearly there that would have given people passage that

[3:04:41] were probably part of the original development in RL and now they're gone.

[3:04:47] And so that at certain tides that prevents the public from having public

[3:04:51] access across that land because it's not just that they're maintaining an unsafe

[3:04:56] land area, it's that they're not protecting public access across the city

[3:05:03] city's land, which is part of all RL's. So I I didn't want us to lose track of

[3:05:07] that in this focus on maintenance. Um because there's a ton of different

[3:05:13] things down there. There's decks, there's steps, there's doc connections

[3:05:17] to doc that are up high, there's connections to docs that are down low,

[3:05:20] and the down low ones block access. Um, we did mention the proposals for the

[3:05:25] upcoming one. Well, we met with them. We had a great meeting with them and

[3:05:28] realized if they um what they're proposing, if they raised sort of did

[3:05:33] some sort of an adjustment of how they laid out the stairs, you could easily go

[3:05:37] behind it. So that's an example of not changing the obligation of existing RLS

[3:05:43] but really looking at what was the obligation to start out with and are

[3:05:47] they still fulfilling it both for maintenance as well as for access. Okay,

[3:05:50] » Ra that was very helpful. So thank thank you for that. So does the approach seem

[3:05:56] to be that we going forwards we're going to do what we do with this with the this

[3:06:01] new property that we're going to require them to cover the whole lot. Um that's

[3:06:07] all that we're going to do right now in relation to RLS, but we are going to

[3:06:10] have parks and open spaces do a review of everything existing and come back to

[3:06:15] us. Do you have an idea in terms of time horizon? Do you want to bring that back

[3:06:19] to the city council directly or how would you want to approach that?

[3:06:24] » I will say this is brand is a new sort of a timeframed assignment. So I think

[3:06:29] you know we would be happy to you know get the direction from you. um it it

[3:06:34] will take a while so we don't want to delay. We're very eager to do it and we

[3:06:38] had given ourselves this year to sort of do it. You know that was and we've

[3:06:43] already you know gotten started so we will be on it and so you give us the

[3:06:48] direction if you gave us a a timeline we would look forward to meeting it because

[3:06:51] this is our top priority one of our top priorities for the year. I think this is

[3:06:55] and as you can see even just from today's meeting um and and recent events

[3:06:59] it's it's very critical and we want to be a partner. So what's the shortest

[3:07:03] timeline you feel is realistic? I guess that's a question. I

[3:07:05] » I think the summer is very difficult because everybody, you know, all of our

[3:07:09] members are coming and going. So I would say that to expect us to come back um at

[3:07:14] some time in the fall, I'd have to even I have to look at our meeting schedule

[3:07:17] because the other thing is we only have so many meetings. So I would need to

[3:07:20] look at the meeting schedule that I don't have um at hand. Maybe

[3:07:25] » maybe Tony does. So by the end of the year

[3:07:27] » or or at your next meeting, why don't you um

[3:07:30] » you know come up with come up with a date and have a meeting in June.

[3:07:34] Yeah, we have a meeting. We do have a meeting in coming up in June. So we

[3:07:38] could do that and and Jane could report back.

[3:07:40] » Perfect. And you always have the option for special meetings if you need more

[3:07:43] meetings as you know. >> Absolutely. And we do have um just so

[3:07:46] you know this whole project is being done by a subcommittee, you know. So we

[3:07:51] have a subcommittee who who are working on this and working on it in between the

[3:07:54] meetings. >> Okay. Great. Okay. Do do we we don't

[3:07:57] you're just looking for feedback here. We don't need any specific motion on

[3:07:59] this. No. >> Correct. Did I take public comment? I

[3:08:04] can't remember. >> I did. So, okay. I think we are done

[3:08:09] with that item. Moving on quickly to our last item which is open forum. Um I'm

[3:08:14] not going to read the whole verbiage. Um is there anybody here for public comment

[3:08:17] for the open forum? >> Uh Mayor Wilgson, there are no hands

[3:08:19] raised >> and I see nobody in the audience. So

[3:08:21] with that, I think we can adjourn. Thank you to everybody.

[3:08:24] » Thank you. Thank you.

City Council Meeting: May 11, 2026

Agenda

Transcript