1 00:00:05,040 --> 00:00:13,679 Great. Um, I will call to uh order this uh city of Bvad Council meeting of 2 00:00:10,480 --> 00:00:16,320 Monday, May the 11th, 2026. Can I get a roll call, please? 3 00:00:15,280 --> 00:00:18,560 » Council member Cooper >> here. 4 00:00:16,720 --> 00:00:20,400 » Council member Burke >> here. 5 00:00:19,439 --> 00:00:23,119 » Mayor Wilkinson, >> present. Council member Carropet, 6 00:00:22,400 --> 00:00:27,199 » here. >> For the record, Council Member Mark will 7 00:00:24,880 --> 00:00:31,880 be joining us momentarily. >> He's right there. Perfect. 8 00:00:32,160 --> 00:00:38,920 » Okay, with with that, we're going to be moving to item two, which is the close 9 00:00:35,920 --> 00:00:38,920 session. 10 00:00:40,160 --> 00:00:43,559 » Perfect timing. 11 00:00:51,360 --> 00:00:54,360 Crazy. 12 00:01:17,680 --> 00:01:24,720 » Are we Are we live? Okay, great. Um, do I need Beth? Do I need another roll 13 00:01:22,400 --> 00:01:30,880 call? No. Okay, great. So, I'm reporting out from the close session on the uh 14 00:01:29,119 --> 00:01:35,680 conference with labor negotiator and public employee performance evaluation. 15 00:01:32,799 --> 00:01:39,280 There is nothing to report. Um, so we are now going to move on to item number 16 00:01:37,520 --> 00:01:44,079 three, which is reports and presentations. Uh, firstly starting with 17 00:01:41,920 --> 00:01:47,640 city council reports. Does any council member have an update? 18 00:01:48,000 --> 00:01:56,880 Oh, sorry. Um, so I want to report that uh Jane and I attended the wildfire 19 00:01:53,360 --> 00:02:05,360 preparedness forum on Saturday, May 2nd in San Rafale. Um, and um they there 20 00:02:01,840 --> 00:02:12,480 they presented a new Marin County Community Wildfire Protection Plan and 21 00:02:09,119 --> 00:02:18,160 the acronym is CWPP. And this evaluation outlines the seven 22 00:02:15,599 --> 00:02:24,400 areas that need an action plan. And they actually had one for the town of um 23 00:02:21,200 --> 00:02:30,800 Tibbron which included Belvadier. And um 24 00:02:27,520 --> 00:02:35,599 I've reached out to the uh Tibberon um fire department to ask how this is um 25 00:02:34,319 --> 00:02:40,400 how they're going to interact with Belvadier on this uh report. And I think 26 00:02:38,800 --> 00:02:46,000 in the future it would be good to have them come and give us a um an 27 00:02:43,200 --> 00:02:53,519 explanation and an update on their action plan. 28 00:02:48,080 --> 00:02:58,480 Um we also had a um get ready I guess I should ask Jane did you want to add 29 00:02:54,959 --> 00:03:07,040 anything to that? No. Um, we also had a get ready 9492 meeting or um I'm sorry 30 00:03:02,959 --> 00:03:14,319 uh get ready 9492 um has a class um on May 20th um at the library from 1 to 3 31 00:03:11,280 --> 00:03:19,519 if anyone's interested in attending and we had a be ready Belvadier meeting 32 00:03:17,200 --> 00:03:24,720 um where we were still focusing on our event prior to the Belvadier film 33 00:03:22,000 --> 00:03:31,200 festival on October 6 and we'll be having um more um details to follow in 34 00:03:28,080 --> 00:03:36,560 the coming months. >> Thank you, Jane. 35 00:03:33,680 --> 00:03:40,400 » More emergency preparedness. I attended the April Belvadier Chibron Emergency 36 00:03:38,879 --> 00:03:46,239 Preparation Council prep. Yes, I think that's it. 37 00:03:43,280 --> 00:03:51,440 And learned that Chief Woo, our actor and resident, and Lori Nilson are 38 00:03:49,440 --> 00:03:56,319 creating many videos focused on emergency preparedness. 39 00:03:53,680 --> 00:04:02,159 Um the first video will show how to put a go bag together and as the videos are 40 00:03:59,920 --> 00:04:06,720 finished um we'll link them to our B Ready Belvadier website section and I 41 00:04:05,040 --> 00:04:12,640 think they're supposed to be just around 30 seconds long and they'll go there 42 00:04:09,280 --> 00:04:17,359 will be a series of them and um uh different people from the community will 43 00:04:14,640 --> 00:04:21,759 get involved and and participate in making the video. So I think it'll be a 44 00:04:19,120 --> 00:04:26,320 great addition to our uh B Ready Belvadier area. people can click right 45 00:04:23,600 --> 00:04:33,040 on it and get a quick 30 second little message on how to do things. So, 46 00:04:29,360 --> 00:04:36,880 and um the in-depth training happening at the library on May 20th will be 47 00:04:34,960 --> 00:04:41,560 announced in the breeze this coming week. That's all I have. 48 00:04:42,000 --> 00:04:47,880 » Nobody else? Um okay, I will open this for public comment. 49 00:04:49,759 --> 00:04:55,440 » Mayor Wilkinson, there are no hands raised. 50 00:04:51,520 --> 00:04:58,400 » Okay. Thank you. Okay, moving on to um item 3B, which is our city manager 51 00:04:57,600 --> 00:05:02,000 report. >> Yes, thank you, Mayor Wilkinson. I do 52 00:05:00,160 --> 00:05:06,720 have a couple of updates this evening. Uh first, I'll start with Malard. Uh 53 00:05:04,000 --> 00:05:10,240 staff continues to meet uh regularly with the Malard team to work through the 54 00:05:08,400 --> 00:05:14,240 remaining items identified in the city's incomplete incompleteness letter. In 55 00:05:12,400 --> 00:05:18,000 parallel with those discussions, the city attorney has been reviewing the 56 00:05:15,759 --> 00:05:22,160 subdivision improvement agreement, affordable housing agreement, and 57 00:05:20,160 --> 00:05:25,360 regulatory agreements. Based on their current schedule, the applicant is 58 00:05:23,680 --> 00:05:29,600 working towards and still hopes to bring the final map forward to council for 59 00:05:27,440 --> 00:05:34,560 council consideration at the June for a June hearing, I should say. um on the 60 00:05:32,240 --> 00:05:38,080 relocation component for the project. Rebecca's team is working with our 61 00:05:36,080 --> 00:05:44,000 consultants to prepare the relocation benefits analysis and an action plan 62 00:05:41,520 --> 00:05:48,080 that shows practically how the relocations will occur. Our objective is 63 00:05:46,160 --> 00:05:52,320 to have that work substantially complete in the next 30 days so the city can 64 00:05:50,560 --> 00:05:56,000 ensure the process is transparent for the tenants and of course that it's 65 00:05:54,479 --> 00:06:01,199 meeting the state's tenant protection laws. Uh in parallel, staff has also 66 00:05:59,039 --> 00:06:05,039 begun the onboarding for Eric Sebrook, who will serve as the city's uh project 67 00:06:03,199 --> 00:06:09,199 coordinator. One of the immediate priorities that's been discussed was 68 00:06:06,639 --> 00:06:13,919 improving organization and public accessibility of project materials, 69 00:06:11,360 --> 00:06:18,240 particularly through the website, uh including other supporting documents. 70 00:06:16,000 --> 00:06:23,120 Uh that effort is currently underway. Rebecca is also coordinating a meet and 71 00:06:20,479 --> 00:06:27,280 greet community event with Mr. Sebrook. Uh we're trying to work that in towards 72 00:06:25,039 --> 00:06:32,720 the end end of May and we'll put some meeting details in this week's breeze 73 00:06:29,280 --> 00:06:36,479 once we have those dates ironed out. Um switching gears to the seaw wall. Last 74 00:06:34,800 --> 00:06:40,880 month city council approved the seaw wall strengthening project along Beach 75 00:06:38,960 --> 00:06:44,479 Road. They chose to award the construction contract to the lowest 76 00:06:42,240 --> 00:06:49,199 bidder Gordon NB who's a general engineering contractor. The contractor 77 00:06:47,120 --> 00:06:53,360 has completed execution of the contract documents including the submission of 78 00:06:51,039 --> 00:06:57,360 the required insurance and bonding and the project is now moving into the 79 00:06:54,800 --> 00:07:02,319 pre-construction coordination phase. Uh as part of that effort, the city 80 00:06:59,039 --> 00:07:06,400 contractor, the engineering team uh have been reviewing opportunities to refine 81 00:07:04,240 --> 00:07:10,880 portions of the design now that the actual con construction unit pricing is 82 00:07:08,880 --> 00:07:14,720 known. And fortunately, it's looking like there may be some um you know, 83 00:07:12,639 --> 00:07:20,560 minor opportunities for small tweaks to the design to save money. Um so that's 84 00:07:18,160 --> 00:07:26,240 positive news. On utilities coordination for that same project, staff recently 85 00:07:22,479 --> 00:07:31,039 met with P Gen on site, uh Comcast San District number five, Marin Water, uh 86 00:07:28,880 --> 00:07:34,479 Gordon Ball, the contractor, and the city's consultants to coordinate 87 00:07:32,400 --> 00:07:37,919 infrastructure work associated with the project. Uh and I am happy to report 88 00:07:36,319 --> 00:07:41,840 that P gen has scheduled its undergrounding utility modification 89 00:07:40,319 --> 00:07:44,960 which was an important part of the project. Uh they've asked for 90 00:07:43,440 --> 00:07:49,919 encroachment permits for the week of June 15th. Um also Marin Water has 91 00:07:48,000 --> 00:07:54,160 already begun preparatory work for the project as well. So overall uh the 92 00:07:52,160 --> 00:07:58,960 coordination with the different phases of construction appears to be on track. 93 00:07:56,479 --> 00:08:02,319 Uh again uh in terms of the permits, you may recall that all regulatory permits 94 00:08:00,720 --> 00:08:06,479 for the projects have been approved with the exception of the Army Corps of 95 00:08:03,840 --> 00:08:10,000 Engineers. Uh their process is taking longer than expected. Uh Tony and the 96 00:08:08,400 --> 00:08:14,800 city's permanent consultant are watching this closely and they're doing what they 97 00:08:12,319 --> 00:08:19,199 can to expedite that approval. Uh staff is also gearing up for public outreach. 98 00:08:17,280 --> 00:08:24,319 A focused neighborhood meeting for the directly impacted Beach Road residents 99 00:08:21,199 --> 00:08:28,319 is scheduled for May 19th and a broader community workshop is tentatively 100 00:08:26,160 --> 00:08:32,880 planned for early June to provide project information and answer questions 101 00:08:30,319 --> 00:08:37,519 from the public. In addition, staff is working on expanding the project web 102 00:08:34,880 --> 00:08:42,959 page to improve public access and project materials on on ongoing basis. 103 00:08:41,039 --> 00:08:46,640 And then finally uh we will be dividing in uh diving into some more details on 104 00:08:44,880 --> 00:08:49,760 these points with the seaw wall subcommittee. Tony reached out to the 105 00:08:48,160 --> 00:08:53,440 members today and scheduled another update uh meeting which we're hoping to 106 00:08:52,240 --> 00:08:57,040 put in place in the next couple of weeks. That's all I have for now. I'm 107 00:08:55,440 --> 00:09:01,680 happy to take questions. >> Any questions? 108 00:08:59,920 --> 00:09:07,360 » Uh thanks Robert for that. A quick quick 109 00:09:03,600 --> 00:09:11,360 one um related to Malard. Uh you mentioned the relo relocation consultant 110 00:09:09,440 --> 00:09:18,000 that you've engaged. Do you have a sense or does Rebecca have a sense of how many 111 00:09:14,080 --> 00:09:21,519 uh tenants this might apply to? >> Not not very many from what I have 112 00:09:20,080 --> 00:09:27,279 heard. Yeah. >> So two are one is confirmed um disease. 113 00:09:25,360 --> 00:09:33,279 I think the other one is also I I don't have that paperwork yet. And then there 114 00:09:29,200 --> 00:09:41,040 are two um active people who have moved out of Malard. But um I just talked to 115 00:09:37,360 --> 00:09:45,920 their both both their sons today and they are interested in pursuing the 116 00:09:42,720 --> 00:09:49,360 relocation benefits and so I they're in contact with the consultant. 117 00:09:47,440 --> 00:09:53,040 » So does that have a similar timeline that if because if they're they're no 118 00:09:51,440 --> 00:09:59,440 longer living there but but the fact that they were there at a certain point 119 00:09:54,480 --> 00:10:02,160 they they are um well I think I was I I was looking for that word eligible for 120 00:10:01,120 --> 00:10:07,200 those benefits. >> Yes. Yes. And I'm not an expert on uh 121 00:10:05,279 --> 00:10:10,959 housing relocation, but yes, they are eligible, I believe, to some of the 122 00:10:09,279 --> 00:10:17,279 benefits. >> Okay. Thank you. 123 00:10:14,000 --> 00:10:28,160 » Any other questions? Um I guess I have uh one just to be clear. If for them to 124 00:10:21,600 --> 00:10:34,640 bring um a full final map to us in June, when would um everything be filed with 125 00:10:31,760 --> 00:10:39,040 need to be filed with the city? So updated subdivision all all the 126 00:10:36,959 --> 00:10:46,399 components of the checklists and all that. How how much in advance would we 127 00:10:42,640 --> 00:10:49,839 expect that to happen before Um, unless Rebecca or Robert have 128 00:10:48,399 --> 00:10:54,720 anything else to add, I expect we would have included the regular agenda packet 129 00:10:51,760 --> 00:10:57,839 publication timeline, but if that's something the council wants to address 130 00:10:56,160 --> 00:11:02,320 with staff, I'm sure we'd be open to input. 131 00:11:00,399 --> 00:11:05,920 » Okay. >> I do recall from Maller Point for some 132 00:11:04,160 --> 00:11:09,120 previous projects, we tried to get the packet out early, you know, perhaps a 133 00:11:07,600 --> 00:11:13,120 week in advance to give the public full opportunity to review. I was wondering 134 00:11:10,720 --> 00:11:17,360 about the public having availability to see 135 00:11:14,160 --> 00:11:21,120 » all the components that are still outstanding because 136 00:11:19,519 --> 00:11:26,959 » when you look at it it appears like there's a lot and so I would assume that 137 00:11:23,519 --> 00:11:31,920 to get it on on from today that everything would have to be to you for 138 00:11:29,360 --> 00:11:36,959 your making sure everything's done >> within two or three weeks from now. I 139 00:11:34,320 --> 00:11:40,959 don't know. That's what I'm asking. Yeah, I think it's there might be a 140 00:11:38,880 --> 00:11:45,360 little bit of confusion out there because there's, you know, we're trying 141 00:11:43,120 --> 00:11:50,000 not to conflate the final map with the demo plans and the infrastructure plans, 142 00:11:47,839 --> 00:11:54,640 right? There's certainly a lot of documents that are still outstanding per 143 00:11:52,240 --> 00:12:00,480 that third um incompleteness review letter for the building permits. The 144 00:11:57,680 --> 00:12:07,120 final map has very specific um requirements that um we are we're pretty 145 00:12:04,000 --> 00:12:12,160 close to getting those those documents. 146 00:12:08,560 --> 00:12:20,880 » Okay. In in that case if they are a finite checklist so to speak from what 147 00:12:16,000 --> 00:12:25,360 you're saying is that list regardless of whether it's all in there or not is that 148 00:12:22,639 --> 00:12:28,880 something that we can see earlier? Is that something that's already published? 149 00:12:26,880 --> 00:12:33,360 Is there a list somewhere that goes into the final map that would be helpful for 150 00:12:31,519 --> 00:12:37,360 us to even know what that is? >> Yeah. So, those would be the conditions 151 00:12:35,279 --> 00:12:41,839 of approval and the tenant of map resolution. However, there is a little 152 00:12:39,600 --> 00:12:45,200 conflation with the demo and the infrastructure building permit. So, you 153 00:12:43,600 --> 00:12:48,399 just have to kind of read through it and I can we can connect this week and go 154 00:12:47,279 --> 00:12:54,480 through it if you want. >> Okay. Thanks. 155 00:12:51,519 --> 00:12:58,079 » Any other questions? No. Robert, I was just curious and I know this is coming 156 00:12:56,240 --> 00:13:03,680 to a committee, but when you talked about potential savings on the Beach 157 00:13:00,480 --> 00:13:07,040 Road project, can you give us a ballpark of what you're talking about? 158 00:13:05,120 --> 00:13:11,440 » Yeah, I wish I could. It's really, you know, Tony and I, there's a couple 159 00:13:09,120 --> 00:13:15,360 design elements that um, you know, particularly related to those gangways, 160 00:13:13,279 --> 00:13:20,399 if you recall, in front of the the waterfront properties. We may have some 161 00:13:17,920 --> 00:13:24,240 flexibility in how we design the seaw wall around those gangways to avoid some 162 00:13:22,320 --> 00:13:28,160 of that de demolition work or not demolition, I should say removal and 163 00:13:26,160 --> 00:13:32,160 replacement work of those gangways. So, that's really what's concerning and the 164 00:13:30,720 --> 00:13:36,240 contract that we were considering putting forward with Hadley. Um, I can't 165 00:13:34,800 --> 00:13:38,880 put a dollar amount on it yet, but that's something that Tony and I are 166 00:13:37,440 --> 00:13:43,760 working on. >> Okay, thank you. Um, okay. Let's open 167 00:13:41,360 --> 00:13:47,279 this for public comment. Anybody in the room? Nope. Anybody online? Beth, 168 00:13:46,399 --> 00:13:51,600 » I see none. >> Okay, great. So, we will close 3B and 169 00:13:49,519 --> 00:13:57,440 move on to item 3C, which is a presentation from Jean Dela Zoper, CEO 170 00:13:55,760 --> 00:14:02,760 and managing director of Nor Valley Refuge Service. Jean, welcome back. 171 00:14:07,760 --> 00:14:14,959 right now. Can you hear me? Awesome. Um, so the purpose of me being here today is 172 00:14:12,800 --> 00:14:21,120 uh Milvi Refuge Service is adjusting its rates through a CPI based adjustment. So 173 00:14:17,600 --> 00:14:26,880 that comes out to 2.2% and that CPI is based on uh CPI and all 174 00:14:24,959 --> 00:14:31,920 items was San Francisco, Oakland, Hayward. Now, through the last 5 years 175 00:14:29,839 --> 00:14:37,040 in terms of rate increases, we're looking at 3.64% 176 00:14:34,160 --> 00:14:43,680 as a 5-year average. So, this rate increase is slightly below that. Um, in 177 00:14:40,000 --> 00:14:50,240 terms of customer impact for a 32gallon residential, uh, the new monthly rate 178 00:14:46,399 --> 00:14:56,639 would be a monthly increase of $162. And then for 20 gallon, it's $1.31. 179 00:14:53,760 --> 00:15:01,360 Um, part of why the increase is needed is we have a collective bargaining 180 00:14:59,279 --> 00:15:08,399 agreement with all our drivers and their hourly rate is going from $44 an hour to 181 00:15:05,440 --> 00:15:12,160 $47 an hour. So, that's a 6% increase. We're also seeing a lot of uh increase 182 00:15:10,480 --> 00:15:16,639 in costs with respect to health insurance and benefits. Just for this 183 00:15:14,639 --> 00:15:22,639 year alone, we're looking at a 7% increase there. Um in terms of pension 184 00:15:19,680 --> 00:15:28,160 that also gets adjusted through uh CPI escalated contributions. Now with uh our 185 00:15:26,079 --> 00:15:33,440 disposal contracts um our garbage and compost disposal 186 00:15:31,680 --> 00:15:39,920 contract expires at the end of this year. Um so for 2027 we haven't started 187 00:15:37,360 --> 00:15:45,760 renegotiations with that yet but I am expecting increases on the composting 188 00:15:42,240 --> 00:15:50,480 side. Um, in terms of fuel, uh, there's a lot of diesel volatility going on 189 00:15:47,839 --> 00:15:55,360 right now given macro and global economic conditions, but I'm hoping that 190 00:15:53,120 --> 00:16:00,000 will get stabilized in the next quarter. Hopefully, best case scenario. We did 191 00:15:57,680 --> 00:16:06,079 get a favorable offset where our recycling dual stream processing rate 192 00:16:02,000 --> 00:16:09,920 did get adjusted from $93 to $66. So, a lot of that is through the 193 00:16:08,000 --> 00:16:14,560 effectiveness of our source separated dual stream recycling program. So our 194 00:16:12,240 --> 00:16:19,920 contamination residual rate for that is still really low at around 10%. So you 195 00:16:18,079 --> 00:16:26,399 know I commend all of our customers for source separating the papers and bottles 196 00:16:21,759 --> 00:16:32,240 and cans. Um an operational update is uh this year we're celebrating 120 years of 197 00:16:29,120 --> 00:16:36,639 being in service. Um it's very humbling to be a part of a company with that many 198 00:16:34,639 --> 00:16:41,680 years of service. But I also kind of recognize we're changing and modernizing 199 00:16:39,199 --> 00:16:47,839 with the times. So, part of our, you know, long-term strategy is going to be 200 00:16:44,800 --> 00:16:53,120 uh really a lot of capital reinvestment with our fleet. And we're still 201 00:16:50,720 --> 00:16:58,720 expanding upon our camera systems within the trucks. We're using AI for better 202 00:16:55,680 --> 00:17:03,199 safe driving habits, trying to get that data and figure out better ways to 203 00:17:00,959 --> 00:17:07,760 service our customers. And we also put field tablets in the trucks. So, we're 204 00:17:05,520 --> 00:17:14,480 starting to get more uh modernized across our operations. Um, so that's all 205 00:17:11,919 --> 00:17:19,360 I have for the presentation, but um I'm open for any questions or feedback and 206 00:17:16,720 --> 00:17:23,679 I'm happy to answer any >> any questions. 207 00:17:21,919 --> 00:17:27,760 » Uh, thanks Jean. Just real quick, you mentioned the CPI increase. Is that a 208 00:17:25,360 --> 00:17:29,440 new change in approach? Is and if so, is that going to stay consistent going 209 00:17:28,960 --> 00:17:33,200 forward? >> That's a great question. So part of our 210 00:17:31,280 --> 00:17:37,520 contracts with the city of Belvadier when we go through um a base rate 211 00:17:35,520 --> 00:17:42,640 change, that's a maximum adjustment to the rates. the following two periods in 212 00:17:40,160 --> 00:17:47,760 the Belvadier contract. It's a it basically allows us to do a CPI based 213 00:17:44,880 --> 00:17:53,600 increase but it's capped at 3%. Now part of our strategy is we have to be very 214 00:17:49,440 --> 00:17:59,520 cognitive of how rate increases work and you know during CPI based years um it 215 00:17:56,720 --> 00:18:06,559 forces us to be uh more cost-effective when it comes to analyzing operations 216 00:18:02,400 --> 00:18:12,320 trying to gauge efficiencies. Um it's it's part of our strategy where you know 217 00:18:09,919 --> 00:18:16,960 when we do base rate change the next couple years have to be CPI based 218 00:18:14,320 --> 00:18:21,360 adjustments because you know I'm I'm trying to do everything I can to keep 219 00:18:18,960 --> 00:18:26,640 the rates as low as they possibly can even dealing with you know inflation and 220 00:18:23,840 --> 00:18:31,919 other types of cost drivers. >> Yeah. 221 00:18:28,400 --> 00:18:36,880 » Any other questions? No. Um I have uh just one um which is in relation to the 222 00:18:34,799 --> 00:18:41,039 separation of food waste into green bins. What has been your experience of 223 00:18:39,440 --> 00:18:46,240 that since it's been implemented? Meaning are people uh honoring that? Are 224 00:18:44,720 --> 00:18:50,320 you actually doing searches of the other bins to see if there's contamination and 225 00:18:48,320 --> 00:18:55,360 are you imposing any fines? >> Yeah, that's that's um that's a good 226 00:18:52,480 --> 00:19:01,039 question. So part of I'll say our material stream I'd say 90% of it is 227 00:18:58,559 --> 00:19:06,559 really yard waste and then that 10% is food waste. Um we do have we do have 228 00:19:04,480 --> 00:19:10,080 participation with food waste on the commercial side that's through the food 229 00:19:08,240 --> 00:19:15,600 to energy program. So we essentially haul food waste very clean and we bring 230 00:19:12,960 --> 00:19:19,679 it over to uh REN sanitary service where it gets part of their uh food to energy 231 00:19:18,320 --> 00:19:25,919 program. they're basically using the food waste to generate electricity. Um, 232 00:19:22,320 --> 00:19:31,600 in terms of SP 1383 with route reviews, if we do find an issue where a customer 233 00:19:28,880 --> 00:19:38,240 isn't um, say that they're constantly contaminating the compost bin, we have 234 00:19:35,200 --> 00:19:41,600 uh, processes in place where, you know, we able to send them an email. We're 235 00:19:40,080 --> 00:19:46,720 able to track that data. If it's something consistently that's above what 236 00:19:43,840 --> 00:19:51,039 we'd expect, we have an outreach person with our CSR team to contact that 237 00:19:48,720 --> 00:19:56,160 person. Part of the route reviews, we are uh subcontracting it out and we work 238 00:19:53,840 --> 00:20:01,039 very closely with Zero Waste Man to just make sure that everyone is SP 1383 239 00:19:59,440 --> 00:20:04,559 compliant and then if they don't have that compliance, they have to have a 240 00:20:03,039 --> 00:20:09,919 waiver and then we go through that waiver process. So it's it's been we're 241 00:20:08,160 --> 00:20:15,280 dealing with a lot more I would say data sets in terms of who ha who has what 242 00:20:13,039 --> 00:20:19,760 kind of compost bin and why. We understand every customer has you know 243 00:20:17,039 --> 00:20:25,600 unique needs for that and we have to be able to deliver upon that service. 244 00:20:23,200 --> 00:20:29,120 » Okay. Thank you very much. Um okay let's open for public comment. Beth is there 245 00:20:27,760 --> 00:20:32,400 anybody online? >> I see none. 246 00:20:29,840 --> 00:20:38,400 » Okay. I apologize. We have Mr. Ro. >> Oh hello. Can you bring him through? 247 00:20:34,880 --> 00:20:41,520 Good evening, Dr. Hoffman. >> Uh, can you hear me? 248 00:20:40,559 --> 00:20:47,600 » We can hear you. >> Thank you very much. Um, this involves a 249 00:20:45,360 --> 00:20:53,919 Tibbron, but rather than Belvadier because we don't have uh multif family 250 00:20:50,320 --> 00:20:59,120 uh residences like they do in Tibrron up on the hill there. Uh but since you were 251 00:20:56,240 --> 00:21:03,280 discussing your practices and desirable practices with respect to recycling, I 252 00:21:01,919 --> 00:21:08,799 would like to know and there's a tremendous number of those condos and 253 00:21:05,840 --> 00:21:17,440 whatever on the hills of Tibbron. Could you tell me to what extent in those 254 00:21:12,080 --> 00:21:22,000 buildings there is the separation of uh of the different uh components of the 255 00:21:20,159 --> 00:21:27,919 composting? You know what I'm saying? the like we have the three we have the 256 00:21:24,240 --> 00:21:34,720 three bins uh we have the green and we have the uh the metal and the and the 257 00:21:31,840 --> 00:21:40,559 plastic etc. Are they able to do that in those buildings? 258 00:21:37,919 --> 00:21:45,520 » Well, hello uh Dr. Rothman. Um that's a good question. So part of the 259 00:21:42,320 --> 00:21:51,200 multifamily is I think the biggest uh constraint with having multiple compost 260 00:21:48,000 --> 00:21:54,960 bins meaning let's say if it's a 30unit building there's 30 compost bins we have 261 00:21:53,520 --> 00:22:00,320 to work with the space that's kind of limited but at the same time we offer uh 262 00:21:58,159 --> 00:22:05,840 you know the same three material streams of service so garbage mixed recycling 263 00:22:03,600 --> 00:22:09,440 and compost. We haven't fully integrated our dual stream recycling program with 264 00:22:07,679 --> 00:22:14,880 multif family. those are on dedicated recycling commercial routes. It still 265 00:22:11,520 --> 00:22:20,080 goes to the uh same MURF facility. Um but in terms of like food waste bins, it 266 00:22:18,000 --> 00:22:25,280 has like food waste bins specifically has to be requested upon the property 267 00:22:22,240 --> 00:22:28,320 manager. Um but if it is if it is something that's brought to our 268 00:22:26,480 --> 00:22:34,320 attention through Zero Marin when they do their site visits um we tend to take 269 00:22:31,200 --> 00:22:39,360 a closer look in detail and I can um terms of like I guess specific site 270 00:22:36,240 --> 00:22:44,240 numbers you know we have you know 54 sites in Tibberon for apartments and 271 00:22:41,200 --> 00:22:49,360 then with Belvadier we have eight so it still is a lot of you know units 272 00:22:46,400 --> 00:22:54,480 obviously but if there's opportunity where we can kind of improve upon that 273 00:22:52,080 --> 00:22:59,520 diversion in terms of if you want to look at like a volumetric basis um we're 274 00:22:57,039 --> 00:23:05,120 happy to look at that. >> Excuse me. Well, when they 275 00:23:02,240 --> 00:23:12,480 when when they I'm unclear about whether they have the bins for paper and uh food 276 00:23:09,520 --> 00:23:17,120 waste and uh metals and plastics. Do they do they or do they not in the 277 00:23:15,120 --> 00:23:23,840 multiple family buildings? Do they have those facilities 278 00:23:21,200 --> 00:23:28,880 or does it you just have single stream? And if you do have single stream, where 279 00:23:25,919 --> 00:23:33,840 does it go? Because Marin Sanitary is set up to deal with 280 00:23:31,360 --> 00:23:39,200 dual stream. >> Yes, it's a uh it's a it's a it's a good 281 00:23:36,240 --> 00:23:44,480 question. So, yes, they do have they do have uh you know, trash carts or a trash 282 00:23:42,320 --> 00:23:49,679 container, and they have mixed commercial recycling bins. Those are all 283 00:23:46,480 --> 00:23:55,840 blue. And then they have compost bins. And we also uh especially for uh you 284 00:23:53,679 --> 00:24:00,799 know multif family, we have done events where we've provided kitchen pales to 285 00:23:58,240 --> 00:24:05,120 just make it easier for composting within their uh apartment unit. 286 00:24:03,360 --> 00:24:08,880 » Okay. Thank you so much for the presentation and thanks for your time. 287 00:24:07,039 --> 00:24:11,679 » Awesome. Thank you guys so much. Appreciate it. 288 00:24:09,600 --> 00:24:14,640 » Okay, so we will close 3C and we're going to move on to the consent 289 00:24:12,640 --> 00:24:18,880 calendar. Um, the consent calendar consists of items that the city council 290 00:24:16,480 --> 00:24:23,279 considers to be routine or council has discussed previously and do not require 291 00:24:20,640 --> 00:24:27,440 further discussion. Unless any item is specifically removed by any member of 292 00:24:25,120 --> 00:24:31,919 the city council, the consent calendar will be adopted by one motion. Council 293 00:24:29,840 --> 00:24:36,080 will take public comment on all items on the consent calendar when the calendar 294 00:24:33,840 --> 00:24:39,120 is called. Robert, I believe there's an update you want to give us in relation 295 00:24:37,679 --> 00:24:44,480 to 4E. >> Yes, thank you, Mayor. uh item 4E which 296 00:24:41,520 --> 00:24:49,039 was TAM's measure AA expenditure plan. You may recall this topic came up during 297 00:24:46,320 --> 00:24:52,080 council reports at a previous meeting and during that discussion council 298 00:24:50,880 --> 00:24:55,679 conveyed that they wanted to make it clear that the city doesn't support any 299 00:24:53,919 --> 00:25:01,520 they would support this expenditure plan but wouldn't support any future uh 300 00:24:58,720 --> 00:25:05,840 redistribution of AA funds where they are pulled away from cities particularly 301 00:25:03,840 --> 00:25:09,440 small agencies that rely on these funds for road improvements like Belvadier. 302 00:25:07,840 --> 00:25:13,919 Um, but I did want to point out that I plan to include a letter that outlines 303 00:25:11,760 --> 00:25:17,679 this along with uh your approval of a resolution this evening. Um, but I don't 304 00:25:16,400 --> 00:25:19,840 think the resolution needs a change necessarily, but I did want to make that 305 00:25:19,279 --> 00:25:24,000 point. >> Okay. Thanks, Robert. Okay. Does any 306 00:25:22,159 --> 00:25:30,240 member of the council want to remove any items from the main consent calendar for 307 00:25:26,559 --> 00:25:35,279 A through 4G? No. In that case, can I get a motion um 308 00:25:32,480 --> 00:25:42,080 on those items? I can make a motion to approve the consent calendar items 4A 309 00:25:38,159 --> 00:25:46,159 through 4G. Do we want to say with the uh additional letter that Robert 310 00:25:44,960 --> 00:25:49,760 » I don't think there's any specific >> we don't need to. Okay, great. I do 311 00:25:48,240 --> 00:25:53,440 remember I forgot to ask for public comment on this. Can I please get public 312 00:25:52,080 --> 00:25:55,200 comment before we get a second? >> Mayor Wilkinson, there are no hands 313 00:25:54,799 --> 00:25:57,840 raised. >> Great. Can I get a second? 314 00:25:56,960 --> 00:25:59,600 » Second. >> Uh all in favor? 315 00:25:59,200 --> 00:26:03,760 » I >> I motion passes. Okay, we're now going 316 00:26:02,159 --> 00:26:08,000 to move on to the individual consent calendar items. Um, the individual 317 00:26:06,320 --> 00:26:11,840 consent calendar consists of items that the city council considers to be routine 318 00:26:10,080 --> 00:26:15,360 or council has discussed previously and do not require further discussion but 319 00:26:13,520 --> 00:26:19,200 are separately listed because a council member or members have a conflict of 320 00:26:17,440 --> 00:26:24,640 interest which require them to recuse themselves from participation in the 321 00:26:20,960 --> 00:26:32,640 decision. So we will first go to 5A >> and I will recuse myself as I live 322 00:26:27,279 --> 00:26:37,600 within the 500 foot um from uh the house on community road. 323 00:26:34,159 --> 00:26:41,039 » Thanks. Um and so does anybody have any uh questions or wish to pull this for 324 00:26:39,279 --> 00:26:44,799 discussion before a vote? >> So I'd like to pull 5A. 325 00:26:42,880 --> 00:26:49,360 » Okay. Well, we will go ahead with that. What would you like to discuss? 326 00:26:46,799 --> 00:26:56,240 So, um, as I look at this revocable license, um, 327 00:26:53,200 --> 00:27:01,919 the revocable license includes 8 ft of city property. 328 00:26:58,400 --> 00:27:06,799 Um, and that 8 ft could support a 4-ft sidewalk for pedestrian safety that 329 00:27:05,039 --> 00:27:12,320 could in the future connect to a sidewalk along community road. The 330 00:27:10,000 --> 00:27:19,520 reason why I'm doing this is I'm thinking that we need to perhaps have a 331 00:27:15,360 --> 00:27:24,880 global look at this area of the city since Community Road is facing a 332 00:27:22,000 --> 00:27:31,200 doubling of housing um with Maller doubling of housing in 333 00:27:28,000 --> 00:27:36,880 the Maller Point um section and that will increase the traffic at least four 334 00:27:33,440 --> 00:27:41,120 times more than what's there currently. And currently folks mainly walk in the 335 00:27:39,520 --> 00:27:46,480 street which will become much more hazardous 336 00:27:43,200 --> 00:27:55,279 with the development in the area. And I thought that um we should have a 337 00:27:50,640 --> 00:28:05,279 discussion and consider a um broader look at how we want the community park 338 00:27:59,279 --> 00:28:11,360 area um and its use and safety. Um since um there's 8 ft of city property that 339 00:28:07,919 --> 00:28:18,960 we're talking about on this um I know that the property on the corner had 340 00:28:14,159 --> 00:28:25,760 gotten an RL for plantings but um having a sidewalk that currently now wouldn't 341 00:28:22,880 --> 00:28:32,559 connect but hopefully in the future we might as a city council want to look at 342 00:28:28,159 --> 00:28:39,120 a sidewalk for additional um safety for um children 343 00:28:34,640 --> 00:28:43,919 um the general public are seniors um who 344 00:28:41,440 --> 00:28:49,360 work walking in the road may not become um the the correct 345 00:28:46,720 --> 00:28:55,520 path for them. So, I wanted to bring this up as a point of discussion and see 346 00:28:52,399 --> 00:29:00,960 if um we wanted to 347 00:28:57,440 --> 00:29:10,240 have that discussion and to consider um granting um a revocable license for 4T 348 00:29:05,440 --> 00:29:17,039 and then um keeping um the uh 4 foot um for the sidewalk. Um, I also reached out 349 00:29:14,559 --> 00:29:23,840 um today to our director of um 350 00:29:20,159 --> 00:29:30,159 public works to speak uh to him and of course it was um uh last minute um in 351 00:29:28,320 --> 00:29:35,919 the discussion. Nothing was determined but um it was acknowledged that you know 352 00:29:33,440 --> 00:29:39,240 the the that area of the city is going to be changing. 353 00:29:40,080 --> 00:29:45,919 » Okay. before before getting other council members to comment if it's okay. 354 00:29:43,760 --> 00:29:49,679 Um I would like to see whether either our public works director or our 355 00:29:47,279 --> 00:29:52,880 planning director would like to make any uh provide any further information in 356 00:29:51,600 --> 00:29:57,919 relation to >> Yeah, I I had the same question uh 357 00:29:55,919 --> 00:30:03,760 council member Cariet and so I reached out to engineering and um they indicated 358 00:30:01,520 --> 00:30:09,600 that it you know it's such a short amount of space and that it would really 359 00:30:06,640 --> 00:30:16,399 essentially be kind of a sidewalk to the park. Um, and I believe I just and Tony 360 00:30:13,760 --> 00:30:20,640 can um, come up and talk probably better than I can about this, but that given 361 00:30:18,559 --> 00:30:26,480 the cost of the project to the applicant that we couldn't require a sidewalk. 362 00:30:24,480 --> 00:30:29,520 » We require sidewalks to other applicants and we never question 363 00:30:27,760 --> 00:30:35,240 » based on the valuation of the work. But Tony can come speak to it if 364 00:30:41,440 --> 00:30:48,880 I don't have the exact uh valuation of the of the project but uh speaking to 365 00:30:46,320 --> 00:30:54,880 Chris so Chris Barry associate engineer um 366 00:30:50,480 --> 00:31:02,799 um looks at all uh RL's and uh his thoughts on this one um as far as a 367 00:30:58,240 --> 00:31:09,440 sidewalk uh go um were that um it was unrealistic to um to connect 368 00:31:07,520 --> 00:31:13,760 to anything there would there was nothing and this is before uh Pat 369 00:31:11,200 --> 00:31:20,559 brought this up today of course um that that he that he made these observations. 370 00:31:16,799 --> 00:31:24,480 Um but the reason that a sidewalk wasn't required for the project was because the 371 00:31:22,399 --> 00:31:29,600 valuation of the project was uh was quite low. He said it was less than 372 00:31:26,000 --> 00:31:38,000 $20,000 and and maybe planning have a or building maybe have a an exact number. 373 00:31:32,799 --> 00:31:43,440 Um so it wouldn't be um reasonable to uh request a construction of a sidewalk at 374 00:31:40,640 --> 00:31:46,799 the same time. Um but it seems to me we're talking about two different things 375 00:31:44,720 --> 00:31:51,440 here. we're talking I think you're uh discussing the RL and the space that's 376 00:31:48,640 --> 00:31:58,480 that's um being requested for the RL versus um a requirement to to build 377 00:31:54,240 --> 00:32:02,960 something but maybe um uh Council Member Carropad could clarify if you're if 378 00:32:01,279 --> 00:32:09,760 you're talking about pulling the RL back four feet for a future sidewalk um or 379 00:32:06,240 --> 00:32:15,919 requiring a sidewalk at this time. So, um, well, I guess I would be willing 380 00:32:13,120 --> 00:32:21,919 to go either way. Um, keeping the four feet for the potential for a future 381 00:32:18,080 --> 00:32:30,000 sidewalk. I think this project, while um has uh had a few um phases, um was um 382 00:32:27,440 --> 00:32:37,360 more than a $20,000 project when you add everything together that they've done to 383 00:32:32,080 --> 00:32:44,399 the property. Um, but if we are not able to ask for them to do 384 00:32:40,399 --> 00:32:49,360 the sidewalk, I I would feel keeping 4 feet from the curve over which would 385 00:32:46,799 --> 00:32:54,720 give them four feet for plantings would allow us for um future to look at a 386 00:32:51,760 --> 00:32:59,279 sidewalk because I think once um Malard Point comes in, this might become a 387 00:32:56,559 --> 00:33:06,159 critical issue and once we give the property away on an RL um it's very hard 388 00:33:02,799 --> 00:33:12,000 to gain it back. So, it's it's sort of looking forward um 389 00:33:09,200 --> 00:33:16,720 on that particular area of the city as far as the development that's going on 390 00:33:14,080 --> 00:33:22,559 with future additional developments um in other locations along Community Road 391 00:33:19,279 --> 00:33:29,919 that turn into Sanfell. So, that that was my thought that um uh 392 00:33:26,799 --> 00:33:33,360 8t is quite a bit. I mean, we might have something like that up on the island 393 00:33:31,279 --> 00:33:39,679 because of a slope that goes down that no one has any use for the property, but 394 00:33:36,240 --> 00:33:45,679 generally around um the flat area of the city, I mean, 395 00:33:42,720 --> 00:33:51,519 I think the typical RL tends to be like four to five feet or 396 00:33:49,919 --> 00:33:58,559 less. So, I just felt that the city council 397 00:33:54,080 --> 00:34:06,960 should think about it and um consider um uh future needs that the 398 00:34:01,360 --> 00:34:11,760 city might have um going forward and um not agree to the RL where a sidewalk 399 00:34:09,520 --> 00:34:17,440 potentially could go because even though there's no sidewalk from the corner of 400 00:34:13,919 --> 00:34:21,919 Leard, um it's still an area when we have concerts in the park or other um 401 00:34:20,240 --> 00:34:30,000 projects that there's a lot of people walking around and um in the street and 402 00:34:26,240 --> 00:34:35,359 a sidewalk would um connected to another sidewalk would be beneficial. 403 00:34:32,240 --> 00:34:40,720 » Certainly I can chime in that um um you know where the city sees a future 404 00:34:37,280 --> 00:34:48,320 benefit um of of having access to that to to a piece of or an area. Um it does 405 00:34:44,240 --> 00:34:52,639 make sense to me to um uh to not allow people to have RLS for those areas 406 00:34:50,000 --> 00:34:56,879 because um you know Lagoon Road is a good example and I think I'd mentioned 407 00:34:54,320 --> 00:35:01,119 that to you uh earlier today where you have it's kind of a choppy with some 408 00:34:59,200 --> 00:35:08,400 some areas with sidewalks and some with with landscapes kind of an inconsistent 409 00:35:03,839 --> 00:35:12,560 um uh section of of road there. Um, yeah. And once an RL has been um 410 00:35:10,880 --> 00:35:17,200 provided for for a certain area, it's hard to to pull it back. 411 00:35:15,839 --> 00:35:22,800 » Kevin, I think you had a question. >> Yeah, I did. Just so I'm clear. Um, so 412 00:35:19,920 --> 00:35:28,240 what the RL would allow is for the driveway and for the walkway. No other 413 00:35:25,680 --> 00:35:31,200 building, >> nothing else would be built in that 414 00:35:29,520 --> 00:35:37,200 space. So the 8T it's not they're not proposing 415 00:35:33,920 --> 00:35:39,680 putting anything in the RL 8 feet except the driveway and the walkway. 416 00:35:38,960 --> 00:35:43,599 » Correct. >> And so I guess the question is is do we 417 00:35:42,160 --> 00:35:45,760 » Well, they're putting plantings, aren't they? 418 00:35:44,320 --> 00:35:48,000 » No, the plan Oh, according to the plan, it looks like they're on the property 419 00:35:46,960 --> 00:35:51,359 line. >> Yeah. 420 00:35:49,760 --> 00:35:55,839 » Yeah. >> Once we give the RL, then it's, you 421 00:35:53,520 --> 00:35:59,680 know, we got to revoke it. >> Well, we're giving them a revocable 422 00:35:57,680 --> 00:36:03,440 license just for two uses. One is the walkway and the driveway. So we're not 423 00:36:01,839 --> 00:36:06,160 saying you now can do anything you want in the RL. 424 00:36:05,599 --> 00:36:09,200 » Correct. >> But it covers the whole area. 425 00:36:07,440 --> 00:36:12,480 » It covers Yeah, it's shade. The whole exhibit is shaded. So essentially, we 426 00:36:11,520 --> 00:36:15,760 would be >> It's the whole shaded area. So it goes 427 00:36:14,560 --> 00:36:18,960 across the whole front. >> You know, I get the shaded area, but so 428 00:36:17,359 --> 00:36:22,160 then the RL would allow them to do whatever they want in the RL. They could 429 00:36:20,640 --> 00:36:26,000 build anything they want. >> Well, not build, but 430 00:36:23,599 --> 00:36:28,560 » No, they could put plantings there if they chose to. 431 00:36:27,359 --> 00:36:31,839 » Yes. Not without our approval. >> No, they'd have to come back through 432 00:36:29,760 --> 00:36:35,200 design review and then we would relook at the revocable license and see that 433 00:36:33,599 --> 00:36:38,160 they didn't have a revocable license for landscaping. 434 00:36:36,000 --> 00:36:42,960 » What what the RL is is is giving them is the ability to have the driveway um 435 00:36:40,800 --> 00:36:44,480 access in the sidewalk or the walkway access. 436 00:36:43,839 --> 00:36:46,720 » Yes. >> Yeah. 437 00:36:45,040 --> 00:36:52,000 » Well, I don't mind the driveway and the walkway. It's it's just, you know, in um 438 00:36:50,480 --> 00:36:56,480 I mean, if you look at the pretty picture, if you look at the pretty 439 00:36:53,599 --> 00:37:01,520 picture here, I mean, you know, they have plannings. They don't have anything 440 00:36:58,079 --> 00:37:06,240 here. So, for us to keep 4 feet here is not impacting them. They could still 441 00:37:03,839 --> 00:37:11,839 have their plantings or whatever they're going to do with their um with their 442 00:37:08,240 --> 00:37:16,640 fence. Um they have no new landscaping. They have existing landscaping. So, 443 00:37:13,680 --> 00:37:20,400 keeping allowing the walkway is fine. And I don't have an objection to that 444 00:37:17,920 --> 00:37:28,480 and I have no objection to the driveway, but I'm talking about 4 feet along the 445 00:37:23,680 --> 00:37:32,160 front of the street just to keep it um in control of the city. 446 00:37:29,760 --> 00:37:36,000 » Then don't we need to give them the RL 8T out for the driveway and 8T out for 447 00:37:34,480 --> 00:37:37,040 the walkway because they'll be going over it? 448 00:37:36,480 --> 00:37:43,839 » Yeah. >> Yes. So it would be it's really a carve 449 00:37:40,000 --> 00:37:47,280 out for that one area either. So you exclude that from the RL 450 00:37:45,839 --> 00:37:50,320 or you just put in the RL. You can't nothing else can be placed in the RL 451 00:37:48,800 --> 00:37:52,560 except the sidewalk >> and the driveway. 452 00:37:51,119 --> 00:37:56,480 » We're still questions, right? So just just just to clarify, an RL is more than 453 00:37:54,640 --> 00:37:59,280 just giving them access to that >> property. It's it's it's transferring 454 00:37:57,839 --> 00:38:02,640 liability and and maintenance obligations to the homeowner. Um so the 455 00:38:01,440 --> 00:38:06,560 reason you do the whole stretch of the property is to maintain be maintained 456 00:38:04,640 --> 00:38:09,760 both from an appearance perspective but and a liability perspective away from 457 00:38:08,240 --> 00:38:16,160 the from the city which we're not actively using. Um, 458 00:38:12,560 --> 00:38:20,119 » is is the applicant online or is it >> the architect is? Yeah. 459 00:38:23,680 --> 00:38:28,440 » I guess that's the public comment. Sorry. 460 00:38:28,880 --> 00:38:33,040 » I'm going to see whether she I think we're going to see whether we can get 461 00:38:30,960 --> 00:38:37,760 the architect first so that we can >> Hi, I I'm actually for the next 462 00:38:35,920 --> 00:38:42,079 » agenda item. Oh. >> Um, one one further before we get to 463 00:38:40,880 --> 00:38:47,359 even the applicant, but still on questions. Um, Rebecca, couldn't uh I 464 00:38:45,760 --> 00:38:52,240 understand once you issue a revocable license that it may be difficult to to 465 00:38:50,480 --> 00:38:58,560 uh improve that property without revoking the license and re and re um um 466 00:38:55,119 --> 00:39:04,400 hearing it. But couldn't you, given the fact that this area and other areas are 467 00:39:01,359 --> 00:39:07,760 uh may have a need for public sidewalks in the future, couldn't we put a 468 00:39:06,079 --> 00:39:12,000 condition that this revocable license is subject to um public works adding a 469 00:39:10,320 --> 00:39:14,960 sidewalk um should they deem it necessary? I mean, couldn't that be a 470 00:39:13,280 --> 00:39:20,560 simple inclusion in the revocable license, which would in sense, you know, 471 00:39:18,160 --> 00:39:25,880 solve this problem without necessarily adding it? Because I can't imagine we're 472 00:39:22,720 --> 00:39:25,880 going to get 473 00:39:26,240 --> 00:39:31,599 a thorough if if if it became an imperative city imperative to put in a 474 00:39:30,400 --> 00:39:35,040 sidewalk here, I can't imagine we're going to get the timing or the or the or 475 00:39:33,040 --> 00:39:39,280 the um resident buyin to do it themselves in association with with with 476 00:39:37,440 --> 00:39:41,920 renovations or significant renovations. So, if if we're going to do it, we're 477 00:39:40,640 --> 00:39:47,119 going to do it ourselves as a public works project. So, I would think that we 478 00:39:44,560 --> 00:39:51,119 should add it as a as a um line in the in the RL agreement where we have the 479 00:39:49,440 --> 00:39:53,520 right to do so. Obviously, working with their design with their design 480 00:39:52,240 --> 00:39:58,400 professionals in and around their their improvements to our to our city standard 481 00:39:56,160 --> 00:40:00,560 uh I imagine that's possible. It's a question still. So, I imagine that's 482 00:39:59,920 --> 00:40:04,000 possible. >> Is it legally possible? 483 00:40:02,160 --> 00:40:07,760 » Well, right now this revocable license, like all the revocable license that I've 484 00:40:05,680 --> 00:40:11,359 seen in my years here, say the license is fully revocable at the pleasure or 485 00:40:09,599 --> 00:40:14,640 discretion of the city council. So we can revoke these license for any reason. 486 00:40:13,200 --> 00:40:16,640 » Yeah, we've never done it and it's always 487 00:40:14,960 --> 00:40:20,800 » but certain but certainly if we want to specify that one of the reasons could be 488 00:40:18,400 --> 00:40:23,599 for to your point council member Caripad to the for the construction of public 489 00:40:22,079 --> 00:40:28,160 sidewalk. We can illustrate that. We can say specifically one such instance may 490 00:40:26,000 --> 00:40:30,960 be if the city wishes to install a public sidewalk 491 00:40:29,680 --> 00:40:35,280 » but we would have to go through revocable. Could we just not do it so 492 00:40:33,200 --> 00:40:38,240 that the >> if the sidewalk goes in 493 00:40:36,720 --> 00:40:42,960 » condition? Add a condition. I think it's Peter's I 494 00:40:41,520 --> 00:40:46,800 think what Peter's getting at is can we just add another number to the revocable 495 00:40:45,359 --> 00:40:49,520 license with some language that said should the city want to put in a 496 00:40:48,560 --> 00:40:51,119 sidewalk >> we would have the right to do so 497 00:40:50,560 --> 00:40:54,240 » we have a right >> without without altering the rest of the 498 00:40:53,040 --> 00:40:59,200 the license yeah >> and not have to revoke it but rather it 499 00:40:56,319 --> 00:41:02,880 just goes away bye-bye >> I mean either I mean I guess that they 500 00:41:01,520 --> 00:41:06,079 both saw the problem yes >> right I it's I suppose it's up to you 501 00:41:04,480 --> 00:41:10,640 whether you want to sort of revoke sort of that be a specific instance in which 502 00:41:07,920 --> 00:41:14,079 the license will be revoked or you want to have some sort of middle ground as a 503 00:41:12,319 --> 00:41:17,520 possibility. I guess I'm not quite clear where you want to land. 504 00:41:15,760 --> 00:41:21,040 » I'd rather just see if we decide to put in a sidewalk gets revoked. I mean, I 505 00:41:19,599 --> 00:41:25,200 don't think that the city should have to go through any more process than what 506 00:41:22,560 --> 00:41:27,440 we're going through right now if we're putting in a sidewalk. 507 00:41:26,160 --> 00:41:31,200 » I mean, it does feel to me that this is a bigger policy issue and while we're on 508 00:41:29,680 --> 00:41:36,240 the council, we might do this and but there if there isn't a policy outline 509 00:41:32,960 --> 00:41:42,319 for the future, um it's just hap, you know, it's just chaos. Um, and so 510 00:41:40,800 --> 00:41:46,319 we can deal with this today, but it does feel like we have to bring back a a 511 00:41:43,839 --> 00:41:50,000 broader discussion around RLS, which I'm >> Well, I think the RLS need a broader 512 00:41:48,240 --> 00:41:55,359 discussion all all over. >> Yes. Um, okay. So, if we don't have any 513 00:41:53,839 --> 00:41:59,200 other uh questions, let's bring this back for public comment just to see 514 00:41:56,960 --> 00:42:02,800 whether there's any public comment. >> We have Mr. Rothman. 515 00:42:00,480 --> 00:42:07,599 » Great. >> Hi, Dr. Rothman. 516 00:42:05,280 --> 00:42:14,400 » Yes. Thank you very much. I would caution you about putting a particular 517 00:42:10,560 --> 00:42:19,680 stipulation in this revocable license about and if we want to put a sidewalk 518 00:42:16,960 --> 00:42:26,960 then we can put one because that might suggest that in any other issue any 519 00:42:23,839 --> 00:42:30,160 other site of a revocable license where you don't have that written down 520 00:42:28,560 --> 00:42:36,400 specifically that it really isn't so revocable. 521 00:42:34,000 --> 00:42:40,400 uh because if you stipulate that one is revocable 522 00:42:37,920 --> 00:42:46,800 then the question is is one that doesn't say that you could do something in that 523 00:42:44,000 --> 00:42:54,240 is that not so revocable so I would suggest you just leave it uh as it is 524 00:42:51,040 --> 00:43:00,800 and I frankly with all the places that need sidewalks uh Belvadier Avenue etc I 525 00:42:58,079 --> 00:43:05,280 would hope that in future we would have more sidewalks 526 00:43:02,800 --> 00:43:09,920 so that people with pushing baby carriages or elderly, whatever it is, 527 00:43:07,920 --> 00:43:17,839 don't find themselves having to jump out of the way of uh of speeding pickup 528 00:43:13,280 --> 00:43:21,839 trucks. Uh so I would not I wouldn't put something special on this revocable 529 00:43:19,680 --> 00:43:27,280 license because I think it weakens your case, your legal case in other sites 530 00:43:24,960 --> 00:43:31,839 where you may want to do things but you haven't put a stipulation about the 531 00:43:29,599 --> 00:43:37,680 future. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Um, Andrew, can you comment 532 00:43:35,440 --> 00:43:41,839 on that in terms of the pros and cons of specifically spelling something out for 533 00:43:39,680 --> 00:43:46,000 this RL? >> Uh, frankly, I think it would would be 534 00:43:43,520 --> 00:43:50,160 better to specify if we have a condition in mind or an instance in mind we would 535 00:43:47,839 --> 00:43:52,720 revoke the license. I would think that's better for all parties involved. 536 00:43:51,280 --> 00:43:56,720 » But to Dr. Rothman's point, does it therefore weaken the case if we want to 537 00:43:54,560 --> 00:44:01,280 be doing that elsewhere or we haven't spelled it out? I mean, RL's RLS have 538 00:43:59,920 --> 00:44:04,720 been very consistent in saying they're all revocable at the discretion of city 539 00:44:02,960 --> 00:44:08,240 council. And so, I don't think we would change that position. And the fact that 540 00:44:06,720 --> 00:44:12,160 we added a condition or slightly different language to this one doesn't 541 00:44:09,920 --> 00:44:15,119 to me mean that the other ones are legally defective or weak or or 542 00:44:13,920 --> 00:44:17,200 something along those lines. >> Okay. Right. Let's bring this back for 543 00:44:16,640 --> 00:44:20,319 discussion. >> One followup question, but Andrew, just 544 00:44:19,119 --> 00:44:24,560 following up that same point, would it would it be uh 545 00:44:22,079 --> 00:44:29,839 » perhaps to Mr. Rothman's pum point there. Might it be as effective um if 546 00:44:27,119 --> 00:44:34,560 not more effective in a sense to uh change our policy and put a line in the 547 00:44:31,599 --> 00:44:40,240 policy with regard to revocable licenses that one of the reasons that the the the 548 00:44:36,480 --> 00:44:45,920 license would be revoked would be for a tra a pedestrian improvement project um 549 00:44:43,280 --> 00:44:49,599 adjacent to you know through the license something like that which would in a 550 00:44:47,280 --> 00:44:52,880 sense handle this case but all cases as well. Uh yeah, that would be another way 551 00:44:51,680 --> 00:44:55,839 to deal with it and I think that would be a completely legitimate way to deal 552 00:44:54,480 --> 00:45:00,400 with it as well. But I'm just not sure if our policy, if we do move to a 553 00:44:57,760 --> 00:45:04,480 revised policy, we'll frankly be able to capture all those details in all those 554 00:45:03,040 --> 00:45:07,359 specific instances going forward. Maybe we can, maybe we can't. I don't know. I 555 00:45:06,319 --> 00:45:10,319 think we're just going to start the discussion tonight, 556 00:45:08,720 --> 00:45:14,560 » but I don't I don't know if that's just one of many instances which we would 557 00:45:12,000 --> 00:45:16,800 revoke an RL or or not. >> Thank you. 558 00:45:15,119 --> 00:45:23,280 » All right, let's bring this back for discussion. Kevin. 559 00:45:20,079 --> 00:45:27,200 » Um, sure. I I totally understand the the issue that Pat raised and and I do at 560 00:45:26,000 --> 00:45:31,440 some point hope that we can deal with the sidewalk issue near the park. Um, I 561 00:45:29,920 --> 00:45:34,480 feel like the RL is already constructed in such a way that it gives us the right 562 00:45:32,800 --> 00:45:41,119 to provoke it if and when it's necessary. Um, and it, as staff said, 563 00:45:38,640 --> 00:45:46,079 uh, there's no permission being given or granted to put anything in the um, RL 564 00:45:44,720 --> 00:45:50,079 except for the driveway and the sidewalk. So, I think we're covered. We 565 00:45:47,680 --> 00:45:54,400 just revoke it when and if we need it. >> Okay. Peter. 566 00:45:52,160 --> 00:45:59,040 » Yeah. The um I don't and I'm not suggesting Pat's suggesting this. Um but 567 00:45:56,560 --> 00:46:04,319 it wasn't clear. Uh I I I would not impose or require them to put a sidewalk 568 00:46:01,680 --> 00:46:08,800 here. Um even if we could um given the scale of the project. Uh and I agree 569 00:46:06,319 --> 00:46:12,640 with Kevin that I would I think we have the language in there if not specific 570 00:46:10,640 --> 00:46:17,040 enough if if not so specific. But I would I would try to address our policy 571 00:46:14,319 --> 00:46:20,640 as our mayor talked about um specifically for this because I do think 572 00:46:18,560 --> 00:46:24,880 this is a a broader need from a pedestrian um passageway perspective 573 00:46:22,880 --> 00:46:30,319 that we should have it in our policy that that is one of the uh reasons why 574 00:46:27,280 --> 00:46:35,280 we would ro something and this could be a good opportunity to do so should we 575 00:46:31,520 --> 00:46:38,160 get the um uh further further opportunity with other properties there 576 00:46:36,720 --> 00:46:42,640 as well. So going back to Pat, are you um on the 577 00:46:40,880 --> 00:46:47,760 basis that we will bring back a broader RL discussion soon to address this on a 578 00:46:45,920 --> 00:46:52,240 on a global basis, are you comfortable moving the RL as it's currently 579 00:46:50,319 --> 00:47:02,000 described? I just think we're missing an opportunity to take this as a beginning 580 00:46:57,680 --> 00:47:07,280 and put something in saying that this is a very specific property. And I don't 581 00:47:05,440 --> 00:47:14,319 know how many other properties would fit into this kind of requirement. Um 582 00:47:10,400 --> 00:47:17,760 because the sidewalk is, you know, four feet. I mean, we have eight feet there. 583 00:47:16,240 --> 00:47:22,000 That's that's why I thought, well, we could get a sidewalk in. they still get 584 00:47:19,520 --> 00:47:26,240 four feet for what whatever plantings or development they might want to do there. 585 00:47:24,640 --> 00:47:32,160 Not that it would be a structure or anything. Um, and I just think that, you 586 00:47:29,280 --> 00:47:37,359 know, starting now for the specific property to say, you know, if we choose 587 00:47:34,720 --> 00:47:40,720 to put a sidewalk in in the future that, you know, we reserve the right for the 588 00:47:38,880 --> 00:47:45,599 first four feet of the revocable license for that purpose. Um, I think is a good 589 00:47:43,520 --> 00:47:51,359 step. I think going forward I think it's a bigger discussion and it's a global 590 00:47:47,359 --> 00:47:57,599 discussion and it needs to be vetted out better than the conversation here but I 591 00:47:54,240 --> 00:48:03,359 think this is an opportune opportunity for this specific project um 592 00:48:00,640 --> 00:48:12,000 for this specific property that it makes very clear um for a condition to go in 593 00:48:08,560 --> 00:48:20,720 um specifically for this property. Um, so that I continue to be my um, 594 00:48:18,079 --> 00:48:27,119 stance on this that I think that it's unusual enough of a a property that um, 595 00:48:24,960 --> 00:48:32,280 uh, we should carve out something for a potential for a a sidewalk. 596 00:48:33,680 --> 00:48:41,359 » Okay. Um I think I am whilst sympathetic to the argument I think I'm more aligned 597 00:48:39,839 --> 00:48:47,359 with addressing this through a revision to the overall policy um rather than an 598 00:48:44,079 --> 00:48:52,480 individual carve out here. So um I think with that I would ask somebody to make a 599 00:48:49,920 --> 00:48:57,359 motion. >> So let me can I just ask one qu I'm 600 00:48:54,240 --> 00:49:02,960 sorry one question of um our legal council. So, if we change our global 601 00:49:00,160 --> 00:49:08,960 stance in the future on RL's that carves out something for um future sidewalks 602 00:49:05,839 --> 00:49:14,960 that we could revoke on future sidewalks, how does that affect RLS that 603 00:49:12,720 --> 00:49:18,240 have already been signed without that carveout? 604 00:49:16,640 --> 00:49:22,480 » Yeah, that's an excellent question. So I think to the extent that we are looking 605 00:49:19,920 --> 00:49:25,520 or going to make any policy changes, one of the key decision points for council 606 00:49:24,079 --> 00:49:29,359 is whether those changes will be perspective only or we are going to 607 00:49:27,760 --> 00:49:33,359 apply them across the board. >> So we can make changes across the board 608 00:49:31,359 --> 00:49:36,400 and even though it's not in their RL that it would change their RL. My 609 00:49:35,520 --> 00:49:39,359 understanding >> that's a policy question for council to 610 00:49:38,000 --> 00:49:42,160 consider and then obviously would think about how to take care of that 611 00:49:40,960 --> 00:49:46,640 implementation. >> But legally it can be done is my 612 00:49:44,160 --> 00:49:50,240 question. Legally, all these revocable licenses can be revoked at any time in 613 00:49:48,319 --> 00:49:54,079 the discretion of city council. So, if push show, we can require additional 614 00:49:52,880 --> 00:49:58,480 terms. >> All we'd be doing is is in a sense 615 00:49:55,680 --> 00:50:03,200 defining or adding adding additional um um 616 00:49:59,839 --> 00:50:06,240 » language to uh uh clarify an additional need why someone might why the city 617 00:50:05,040 --> 00:50:09,680 council might choose to revoke a license. 618 00:50:08,319 --> 00:50:13,119 » That would be one way to execute the policy. And then again, we may it would 619 00:50:11,599 --> 00:50:17,920 be I would suggest that when we get to that point, we be explicit about whether 620 00:50:15,280 --> 00:50:20,240 we're doing it going forward or again across the board. 621 00:50:18,880 --> 00:50:24,079 » But when we come to that point in time, you're not going to then say, well, we 622 00:50:22,240 --> 00:50:28,800 we don't recommend you do this retroactively. You're you're standing 623 00:50:26,240 --> 00:50:32,480 here today saying we have the ability to do that and there's not going to be a 624 00:50:30,880 --> 00:50:35,920 different legal interpretation when we bring that forward. 625 00:50:34,079 --> 00:50:40,160 » Yes, that's the question. You're not going to change your mind. We're putting 626 00:50:37,520 --> 00:50:45,440 you on the hot seat here. Um I will state that the language of our 627 00:50:43,440 --> 00:50:47,599 the city regarding these revocable licens has been very consistent on this 628 00:50:47,119 --> 00:50:49,280 point. >> Okay. 629 00:50:47,920 --> 00:50:53,920 » To the extent any individual property owners push back in that 630 00:50:52,160 --> 00:50:58,240 » I think I will just respond. The city's position has been very consistent 631 00:50:56,400 --> 00:51:03,680 » and defensible. >> Yeah, of course. 632 00:50:59,599 --> 00:51:07,200 » Okay. All right. Can I get a motion? Uh, I move to approve the revocable license 633 00:51:05,760 --> 00:51:10,480 for existing and proposed private improvements in the public right ofway 634 00:51:08,640 --> 00:51:13,119 along community road for property at three community road. 635 00:51:12,400 --> 00:51:16,880 » Second. >> All those in favor? 636 00:51:14,400 --> 00:51:23,440 » I. All those against. >> I Oh, I'm sorry. I went back backwards. 637 00:51:20,800 --> 00:51:26,400 I'm I'm going to pass the RO. I'm not saying I to the no. 638 00:51:24,720 --> 00:51:31,280 » Okay. So, we're all in favor of this. >> All in favor. Sorry. Thank you. 639 00:51:28,400 --> 00:51:35,280 » Okay. We are now moving on to item 5B, which is a motion to approve revocable 640 00:51:33,520 --> 00:51:40,079 license for existing private improvements in the public right of way 641 00:51:37,280 --> 00:51:44,319 along Belvadier Way and Belair Way Lane for the property at three Belvadier Way. 642 00:51:42,559 --> 00:51:48,720 Um, I am going to be recused from this item because I live within 500 ft of the 643 00:51:46,559 --> 00:51:51,440 property and Kevin will be leading this item. 644 00:51:49,839 --> 00:51:55,280 » I am also recused from this for the same reason. Thank you, 645 00:51:53,839 --> 00:52:00,880 » Sally. So, there is no staff report uh on this 646 00:51:58,559 --> 00:52:07,440 um given it's a consent item uh on the agenda. Uh I'm going to now turn it over 647 00:52:04,559 --> 00:52:11,599 to my colleagues. Does anyone want to pull this item? 648 00:52:08,640 --> 00:52:17,280 » I'd like to pull item 5B. >> Thank you. Um and I will turn it back 649 00:52:15,200 --> 00:52:24,400 again to my colleagues and ask what questions or comments you might have. 650 00:52:20,800 --> 00:52:31,680 » Uh yes. So my question is is that the RL that's before us includes 651 00:52:27,119 --> 00:52:36,480 a section along the lane um 652 00:52:33,760 --> 00:52:43,040 and um that was not part of 653 00:52:40,000 --> 00:52:48,000 the RL that the planning commission looked at. 654 00:52:45,440 --> 00:52:51,720 So why why are we being asked for an RL along the lane? Now 655 00:52:52,319 --> 00:53:00,640 » that portion of the RL came as a result of the planning commission discussion. 656 00:52:58,160 --> 00:53:04,319 Um there was some discussion about let's I don't know what it's called. So I'm 657 00:53:01,920 --> 00:53:11,119 going to call it the Westshore Lane portion of the city right ofway and then 658 00:53:08,160 --> 00:53:14,559 we'll call Belvadier Way the other RL exhibit that they're asking for. So at 659 00:53:13,359 --> 00:53:20,160 the planning commission hearing there was discussion about that retaining wall 660 00:53:17,280 --> 00:53:24,960 that hillside who has responsibility for it 661 00:53:22,160 --> 00:53:29,280 etc. And as a result of the planning commission hearing it was decided that 662 00:53:26,880 --> 00:53:33,200 the property owners should take on um the responsibility of all that 663 00:53:31,280 --> 00:53:37,520 landscaping because they're not changing anything down there on that portion of 664 00:53:35,839 --> 00:53:42,880 their of the property. Um and so that's why it 665 00:53:41,040 --> 00:53:48,800 is before the council. Now there was also a condition added to the planning 666 00:53:46,319 --> 00:53:54,800 commission resolution as a result of a discussion with the um parks open space 667 00:53:53,280 --> 00:53:57,760 lane. I think they're here. Char I think 668 00:53:56,319 --> 00:54:04,559 Charlie was at that planning commission hearing um and the property owner. And 669 00:54:00,480 --> 00:54:10,960 so they agreed on a condition to monitor the retaining wall during construction 670 00:54:07,839 --> 00:54:18,240 and prior to building permit final, they would reassess the structural integrity 671 00:54:16,160 --> 00:54:23,440 of that wall and then work with the city if something were to happen. I have 672 00:54:20,720 --> 00:54:26,240 that. So did that answer your question? It's a long way to 673 00:54:24,480 --> 00:54:29,520 » Yes. So um >> can I ask one clarifying comment, Pat? 674 00:54:28,240 --> 00:54:32,559 Is the retaining wall you're referring to? The wooden 675 00:54:31,200 --> 00:54:37,040 » the short wooden retaining wall. >> Yeah. Okay. Thanks. 676 00:54:34,079 --> 00:54:38,800 » I have a picture. >> You do. 677 00:54:37,520 --> 00:54:41,599 » I can bring it over. >> There was a picture in the packet. 678 00:54:40,240 --> 00:54:45,280 » We have We have the picture, too. I just want to make sure it was the same. Yeah. 679 00:54:43,040 --> 00:54:51,119 » I don't know. >> Sure. Bring it. 680 00:54:47,599 --> 00:54:56,520 So, um the staff report um talks about the original um application 681 00:54:57,920 --> 00:55:04,200 for the RL which was just along Belvadier Way. 682 00:55:10,400 --> 00:55:20,720 And so we have two exhibits A one and two. No, no, there a well two exhibit 683 00:55:16,960 --> 00:55:27,760 A's on two separate sheets of paper. So is the first exhibit which is along 684 00:55:23,520 --> 00:55:31,359 Belvadier Way where the driveway is um in front of the property, is that the 685 00:55:29,680 --> 00:55:33,520 exhibit that the planning commission looked at? 686 00:55:32,800 --> 00:55:39,520 » Yes. >> Okay. And then the second exhibit is 687 00:55:36,000 --> 00:55:48,640 something the applicant brought in as a result of um staff's 688 00:55:43,440 --> 00:55:54,000 recommendation. They should um maintain the plantings along the lane. 689 00:55:52,559 --> 00:55:58,119 » Yes. And then um 690 00:55:59,839 --> 00:56:11,040 it on the second exhibit it's a little hard to see, but are I mean are 691 00:56:08,880 --> 00:56:16,880 they taking all of the land up to that concrete 692 00:56:15,280 --> 00:56:23,040 tallish 18 in 2 in two foot concrete curb? I 693 00:56:21,200 --> 00:56:28,000 don't know what to call it. Then then there's a a pipe and then 694 00:56:25,280 --> 00:56:35,680 another little rolled curb. So they're just taking from the dirt back. 695 00:56:32,160 --> 00:56:41,359 » They're taking the landscaping only. No concrete, no wall, no curb. It's 696 00:56:39,359 --> 00:56:46,160 landscaping only. So, because I went to um well, maybe 697 00:56:44,559 --> 00:56:53,359 this might be for the applicant, but I went to visit the site and it appears 698 00:56:48,960 --> 00:57:00,240 where the wood um retention wall is was actually um 699 00:56:55,680 --> 00:57:08,000 put in because dirt was built up there. And um and that wood retention wall is 700 00:57:05,119 --> 00:57:13,599 holding back the dirt that someone not the current applicant but someone in the 701 00:57:10,480 --> 00:57:17,960 past added dirt and changed the actual natural slope of the land. 702 00:57:18,880 --> 00:57:27,839 » Um I would say that it so there's a drainage um uh ditch right beneath it. 703 00:57:23,920 --> 00:57:32,319 Um, so I don't know if the the slope was changed above the the wall, but but 704 00:57:29,839 --> 00:57:36,559 certainly it's it's very possible that it was added to uh capture debris and 705 00:57:34,960 --> 00:57:43,520 stop it from going into the into the drain. Um, it it doesn't appear to have 706 00:57:40,480 --> 00:57:48,480 been built as a um it it it's not holding the slope up or anything. 707 00:57:46,400 --> 00:57:52,319 » So if that wood wall went away, nothing would happen except debris into the 708 00:57:51,440 --> 00:57:56,000 drain. >> Yes. Yeah. that there would be there 709 00:57:54,240 --> 00:58:05,920 would be debris falling into the drain. Um and the but the slope itself is um it 710 00:58:02,079 --> 00:58:11,599 would would probably um not be affected. There would be there would continue to 711 00:58:07,440 --> 00:58:16,400 be debris uh from time to time, but um yeah, it's it's not a it doesn't appear 712 00:58:13,440 --> 00:58:20,200 to be a structural retaining wall. >> No, it's not structural. 713 00:58:27,599 --> 00:58:32,160 Do you have any other comments or questions? 714 00:58:30,400 --> 00:58:39,680 » No, not that I can take up. >> Okay, 715 00:58:33,599 --> 00:58:46,400 » thank you. Um, so, uh, I guess what I'd like to clarify is that 716 00:58:42,079 --> 00:58:52,880 they're, um, with your suggestion asking for that RL only for the plants so they 717 00:58:48,960 --> 00:58:57,760 can, is it to keep privacy? They want the plants to stay alive. They want to 718 00:58:55,280 --> 00:59:01,680 be able to trim them. Is it because they're located in in uh public 719 00:59:00,160 --> 00:59:05,359 property, they wouldn't be able to do that legally or is that sort of what it 720 00:59:04,960 --> 00:59:09,680 is? >> I I Yeah, I mean, I think it's a 721 00:59:06,720 --> 00:59:13,119 wellestablished grove of plantings that will are stabilizing that hillside and 722 00:59:11,839 --> 00:59:17,599 they're doing all these improvements above it and 723 00:59:14,319 --> 00:59:19,920 » they had just planned on not amending those that portion of it of the 724 00:59:19,440 --> 00:59:24,960 property. >> Right. I mean, I I was just trying to 725 00:59:21,680 --> 00:59:29,359 understand why what what the reason for the RL is if they're not planning on 726 00:59:27,040 --> 00:59:32,559 touching it. What why would they even ask for it? 727 00:59:30,160 --> 00:59:36,480 » I think we asked them to >> maintain it to take on the liability and 728 00:59:34,319 --> 00:59:39,280 responsibility and maintaining that plant those plantings. 729 00:59:37,599 --> 00:59:45,160 » Okay. So, you asked them to maintain those plants. Okay. So if um 730 00:59:45,839 --> 00:59:56,240 if they didn't take on those plants and the city needed to do repairs, we could 731 00:59:51,599 --> 01:00:01,200 conceivably go into that um dirt and plant area and pull some of those out or 732 00:59:59,359 --> 01:00:03,839 we could change them or we could cut them or we could do whatever we want 733 01:00:03,200 --> 01:00:08,079 with them. >> Yep. 734 01:00:04,240 --> 01:00:13,680 » And so this way it allows them to keep on top of those plants without 735 01:00:10,559 --> 01:00:20,000 us necessarily making changes there. I'm I just recall from the meeting that the 736 01:00:16,880 --> 01:00:24,480 owner was um very concerned that the plants would be there for privacy so 737 01:00:21,760 --> 01:00:28,720 that the public walkway people wouldn't just be looking in at them and their 738 01:00:26,319 --> 01:00:35,520 pool etc. So I see it as a benefit to them to be able to keep the um plants 739 01:00:33,280 --> 01:00:37,280 alive and you know thick in that area. 740 01:00:36,799 --> 01:00:42,799 » Yeah. >> Yeah. 741 01:00:38,079 --> 01:00:48,880 » Um Okay. And then um 742 01:00:44,799 --> 01:00:53,440 I I was looking at the plans and I don't have any comments about 743 01:00:50,319 --> 01:01:00,480 their plans. I just had one question which was um I noticed that there's a 744 01:00:57,359 --> 01:01:08,720 pool that's going to go in quite close to that dirt area. And in in your 745 01:01:05,359 --> 01:01:13,440 experience of constructing a pool and creating surrounding vegetation, which 746 01:01:10,880 --> 01:01:20,640 they show on their plans, would would um construct would a truck 747 01:01:17,359 --> 01:01:24,960 or people need to be below the pool? I mean, do you work around a whole pool 748 01:01:22,720 --> 01:01:30,720 that's in a location like that, create a retaining wall for it? I couldn't tell 749 01:01:28,240 --> 01:01:35,280 from the plans. I don't know how they're creating that pool. It just seems like 750 01:01:33,599 --> 01:01:39,920 they would have to do some They're demolishing the whole thing. So, I'm 751 01:01:36,960 --> 01:01:46,880 assuming they'd be creating a retaining wall. I'm just concerned that 752 01:01:44,240 --> 01:01:51,359 I I would assume trucks would have to go in near that dirt area. That's all. 753 01:01:50,400 --> 01:01:53,680 » Oh, I >> But I don't know. 754 01:01:52,000 --> 01:01:56,880 » I haven't seen a construction management plan. You know, we're not going to issue 755 01:01:55,440 --> 01:01:59,839 a building permit that's not structurally sound to hold up that pool 756 01:01:58,799 --> 01:02:04,240 on a hillside. >> Okay. Okay. Great. Um, so I think those 757 01:02:03,119 --> 01:02:07,520 are my only questions. >> I have a new question. Sorry. 758 01:02:06,720 --> 01:02:13,079 » Okay. >> So my new question is is that um 759 01:02:15,760 --> 01:02:26,079 who's who will be responsible for that retention wall if it fails and it needs 760 01:02:21,599 --> 01:02:31,440 to have some kind of replacement in its current location or a future location. 761 01:02:29,359 --> 01:02:36,799 if we give them the revocable license because the retention wall is in the 762 01:02:34,480 --> 01:02:43,040 dirt right in front of the plants. It's not on the other side of the concrete 763 01:02:39,680 --> 01:02:46,640 curb. I'm calling it. >> Well, I I mean, have you read the 764 01:02:45,040 --> 01:02:50,960 condition of approval from the planning commission approval? 765 01:02:48,559 --> 01:02:54,000 So it it says if the retaining wall is altered or compromised during 766 01:02:52,319 --> 01:02:58,240 construction, the applicant shall work with the city on an agreement to remedy 767 01:02:56,559 --> 01:03:05,040 the movement of the retaining wall prior to building permit final. So I think it 768 01:03:02,079 --> 01:03:08,960 was at the planning commission hearing that property owner didn't want to 769 01:03:06,559 --> 01:03:13,520 commit to building a whole new wall because he had no idea how much that was 770 01:03:10,720 --> 01:03:17,119 going to cost. And so the agreement was like, well, yeah, we'll we'll monitor it 771 01:03:15,520 --> 01:03:21,359 and see what happens and then we'll revisit it. This is all prior to their 772 01:03:19,119 --> 01:03:25,760 building permit final. However, the architect is online. I you know, I don't 773 01:03:23,440 --> 01:03:31,440 want to speak for them. Um the retaining wall is not in the revocable license 774 01:03:27,839 --> 01:03:36,480 that they're asking for. Um so it would be our responsibility. 775 01:03:33,599 --> 01:03:43,319 » So I'm not talking about con I'm talking post construction. Let's get past the 776 01:03:39,119 --> 01:03:43,319 construction. But let's say 777 01:03:43,520 --> 01:03:51,119 they finish their construction now and in two years for some reason that wall 778 01:03:48,240 --> 01:03:55,760 fails and some the dirt's moving and it has that has to has some kind of a 779 01:03:52,720 --> 01:04:03,520 retention something. >> Um yeah, I can speak in general um about 780 01:03:58,079 --> 01:04:08,400 what um how it would be addressed. Um if uh if the cause of the of the uh failure 781 01:04:06,480 --> 01:04:13,200 was something that the property owner had had done um then 782 01:04:11,599 --> 01:04:20,400 I think the city would approach them and and um talk about uh replacing the wall 783 01:04:17,839 --> 01:04:25,119 and um sh having some kind of agreement on on 784 01:04:22,880 --> 01:04:30,480 how that would be done. um if the wall was uh you know if it failed because the 785 01:04:27,920 --> 01:04:36,240 wood had rotted and um there was nothing in particular the that the owner did 786 01:04:32,640 --> 01:04:44,319 that um had any effect um then it would be the city's responsibility um um alone 787 01:04:41,200 --> 01:04:51,039 » so can can Rebecca I understand that the public benefit is is that they're 788 01:04:46,160 --> 01:04:58,000 maintaining the vegetation there um but um other which basically for their 789 01:04:54,640 --> 01:05:02,200 privacy. Um, what is the other public benefit that we're going to be getting? 790 01:05:03,039 --> 01:05:10,079 » Well, I mean, at least from the the city standpoint, we're 791 01:05:07,359 --> 01:05:14,160 they're taking on the liability and responsibility of 792 01:05:11,920 --> 01:05:19,119 maintaining all of that landscaping. So, it's hold which is holding the hill, 793 01:05:17,440 --> 01:05:27,839 you know, it's all holding that the hillside in and so it won't if 794 01:05:23,440 --> 01:05:30,559 the hillside won't fall into the lane >> if they're not. 795 01:05:29,119 --> 01:05:34,480 » If you look at the language though, Andrew, I don't think maintenance is 796 01:05:32,880 --> 01:05:40,880 specifically called out in the RL, our standard RL. 797 01:05:38,559 --> 01:05:46,200 I think it's more about indemnification versus maintaining. 798 01:05:43,039 --> 01:05:46,200 I mean, 799 01:05:50,720 --> 01:05:54,559 » are you talking about the language of the RL, Kevin? 800 01:05:53,200 --> 01:05:58,240 » Well, yeah. I mean, because I think the question is is that and I just want to 801 01:05:56,640 --> 01:06:01,200 clarify. So, that that short retaining wall that's in the RL. 802 01:06:00,799 --> 01:06:03,839 » No, >> it's on the prop uh the owner's 803 01:06:03,200 --> 01:06:08,880 property. >> No, it's in the right of way. 804 01:06:06,559 --> 01:06:16,280 They are not asking for an RL for that retaining wall. They're asking for 805 01:06:11,839 --> 01:06:16,280 license for what's behind it. Yeah. 806 01:06:17,760 --> 01:06:23,039 » Okay. So, my my legal question is the same. Is is there any language that 807 01:06:21,200 --> 01:06:28,240 actually requires So, in the case of this, there's landscaping that's 808 01:06:24,559 --> 01:06:32,319 currently on city land and I don't think there's anything in the RL specifically 809 01:06:29,760 --> 01:06:35,599 that says they need to maintain it. >> Yeah, I think that's a fair point, uh, 810 01:06:33,920 --> 01:06:40,079 Vice Mayor. So I think one thing if you want to make that explicit is in section 811 01:06:37,920 --> 01:06:43,520 three or paragraph three we we normally address you know if they're erecting or 812 01:06:42,160 --> 01:06:49,359 installing a building fence wall or other structure they have a duty to um 813 01:06:47,119 --> 01:06:53,280 maintain that in all in good condition repair. I think to your point excellent 814 01:06:51,359 --> 01:06:56,880 point maybe we should include um installation of landscaping to ensure 815 01:06:55,760 --> 01:07:02,000 that they also need maintaining landscaping as well in that area. Well 816 01:06:59,760 --> 01:07:04,319 » it's the current landscaping right 817 01:07:02,319 --> 01:07:08,319 » the existing landscaping. Yeah, >> because I think that's that's the bene 818 01:07:06,400 --> 01:07:12,559 or I believe I mean that's the benefit is that they would be taking 819 01:07:09,599 --> 01:07:14,960 responsibility for maintaining that landscaping, 820 01:07:13,280 --> 01:07:19,280 » right? And so I guess given the nature of the RL requested in this instance, we 821 01:07:17,200 --> 01:07:24,079 can include a reference to landscaping in in that section three, 822 01:07:20,880 --> 01:07:28,799 » right? But the wall itself is not there's nothing since it's not part of 823 01:07:25,680 --> 01:07:32,079 the RL. The retaining wall would be somewhat related to or it's related to 824 01:07:30,400 --> 01:07:36,720 the condition from the planning commission, but that's not clear as to 825 01:07:34,559 --> 01:07:40,000 is there really a direct responsibility on the part of the applicant that they 826 01:07:38,720 --> 01:07:45,599 should have to do anything if the wall fails. It's like we will discuss and 827 01:07:43,359 --> 01:07:49,200 then maybe agree on something or maybe we won't. 828 01:07:47,119 --> 01:07:56,000 » Yeah, correct. Well, I guess if we go with that 829 01:07:52,480 --> 01:08:03,200 thinking and looking at the photo that was in our packet and if they're taking 830 01:07:59,440 --> 01:08:08,880 over all the dirt literally just in front of the 831 01:08:04,960 --> 01:08:14,559 » little retention wall there, what is causing that retention wall to 832 01:08:11,359 --> 01:08:20,159 fail is the dirt behind it. So, it seems to me that no matter what 833 01:08:17,920 --> 01:08:24,799 we're saying here, unless, as Tony said, the wood just 834 01:08:22,960 --> 01:08:29,520 starts disintegrating, if there's any movement at all, it's 835 01:08:26,960 --> 01:08:34,719 going to be due to that dirt behind it. So, therefore, it seems to me that from 836 01:08:32,239 --> 01:08:38,640 day one, they're going to be responsible for that wall, whether they want to be 837 01:08:36,880 --> 01:08:45,600 or not, because it's the dirt that's pushing it and causing it to move. So, I 838 01:08:42,000 --> 01:08:52,080 I just I guess I'm confused why this is not a retaining wall. It's really just a 839 01:08:50,159 --> 01:08:58,000 retention wall or something like that where like you said, it's just holding 840 01:08:54,319 --> 01:09:04,880 the dirt back. I I I think yes to repair it or help it to be 841 01:09:02,080 --> 01:09:10,560 more um structurally standing up and really holding all that dirt back whe 842 01:09:07,839 --> 01:09:15,040 whether it was brought in more than it should have been or whatever happened in 843 01:09:12,159 --> 01:09:20,159 the past. Um, I I guess I don't understand and I don't have any clue how 844 01:09:18,080 --> 01:09:24,880 much money it would be, but it isn't really an entire retaining wall where 845 01:09:22,319 --> 01:09:30,159 you're putting in all kinds of huge structures 10 feet down and you know, 846 01:09:27,600 --> 01:09:34,239 whatever. So, it just seems to me that we're kind of cutting off our nose to 847 01:09:32,640 --> 01:09:38,880 spite our face with this because no matter what, this is going to wind up 848 01:09:36,640 --> 01:09:42,319 being attributed to them and then we're going to have to go back and have an 849 01:09:40,239 --> 01:09:46,880 argument with them. And it seems to me this is the time to just ask the 850 01:09:44,080 --> 01:09:52,719 architect knowing that it's just a retention wall and not a true retaining 851 01:09:49,920 --> 01:09:56,960 wall with steel, etc. if that's something that they might consider while 852 01:09:55,040 --> 01:09:59,960 they're doing all the construction. Anyway, 853 01:10:01,199 --> 01:10:11,840 » hi. Thank you. Can you hear me? >> Hi. Yes. Great. Um, I think I would like 854 01:10:08,560 --> 01:10:19,679 to defer to the agreement that was made um with the commission um that's written 855 01:10:15,199 --> 01:10:23,760 in the in the um resolution that if there was an issue with the retaining 856 01:10:21,199 --> 01:10:31,679 wall that we would address it at that time instead of committing the owner 857 01:10:29,360 --> 01:10:35,360 right now to it. I think since the owner was present at that time and that was 858 01:10:33,040 --> 01:10:38,640 the agreement I I would like to hold to that. 859 01:10:36,880 --> 01:10:43,040 » So I think that you should understand that the planning commission just makes 860 01:10:40,400 --> 01:10:52,480 a recommendation to city council and it's city council here is deciding on 861 01:10:46,320 --> 01:10:56,480 the actual revocable license and um it's I I'm not sure but it may come to the 862 01:10:54,960 --> 01:11:01,040 point that if you want the revocable license it may include the retention. So 863 01:10:59,440 --> 01:11:06,560 if it's something that you need to consult with your clients on perhaps we 864 01:11:03,679 --> 01:11:09,760 need to continue this. So you could consult with your clients. 865 01:11:08,000 --> 01:11:14,480 » So let me let me jump in here. So I think we have two options in front of 866 01:11:11,199 --> 01:11:18,159 us. Thank you Pat. Um is we either consider this as it's currently drafted 867 01:11:16,560 --> 01:11:22,880 that the wall the retain wall is excluded from the RL or we send it back 868 01:11:20,560 --> 01:11:27,280 and we say that the RL either is inclusive of the wall it's all or 869 01:11:24,560 --> 01:11:34,719 nothing. Um, right now it feels I think a bit peacemail is what I'm hearing from 870 01:11:30,960 --> 01:11:37,920 everyone on the the council. So, um, I mean, we can open up for a public 871 01:11:36,320 --> 01:11:43,679 comment in a second, but I think right now, unless you can tell us differently, 872 01:11:41,920 --> 01:11:48,480 there doesn't seem to be a reason to be considering this as just a portion of 873 01:11:46,159 --> 01:11:52,080 the RL versus like why wouldn't we just include the whole thing? So, if you want 874 01:11:49,920 --> 01:11:55,320 the RL, you can have it, but it includes the wall. 875 01:11:56,719 --> 01:12:02,440 So, why don't we open up to public comment? 876 01:12:08,000 --> 01:12:11,000 » October. 877 01:12:11,760 --> 01:12:17,760 » Hi, I'm Charlie. I'm the chair of the parks open spaces lanes committee. Um, 878 01:12:16,080 --> 01:12:21,280 as part of being chair, we're notified or meant to be notified when there's 879 01:12:19,199 --> 01:12:25,199 projects impacting lanes. This project is touching a vital artery which is 880 01:12:23,440 --> 01:12:29,199 called Belvadier Way. This is the only lane connecting West Shore Road to the 881 01:12:27,040 --> 01:12:32,560 rest of the upper end of the island. Um we were not notified when this first 882 01:12:30,719 --> 01:12:35,679 came up. I found out about it day of the planning commission. I sent in a letter. 883 01:12:34,080 --> 01:12:40,719 That's what we're hoping to pull up. I took a few photos. Um and then after the 884 01:12:38,719 --> 01:12:45,920 after the meeting, I was basically told that we would be contacted about the 885 01:12:42,960 --> 01:12:49,360 next steps. Um we were not. So this again I was surprised to learn that this 886 01:12:47,520 --> 01:12:52,880 was up. I was sort of waiting for that email to come through about when we're 887 01:12:50,640 --> 01:12:57,040 going to be talking about it next. Um, we can get that picture. This is again a 888 01:12:55,120 --> 01:13:00,880 critical artery. Um, and the photo I have really shows how it's bulging out. 889 01:12:59,199 --> 01:13:04,560 Um, I appreciate that we're working to sort of collaborate on this and I love 890 01:13:02,480 --> 01:13:08,560 that we're we're thinking creatively. Um, monitoring the retaining wall. I 891 01:13:07,120 --> 01:13:12,080 think if if I had been talked about that, I would just have some questions 892 01:13:10,320 --> 01:13:16,960 about how we're going to do that. If we say that it's maybe the other one too, 893 01:13:14,080 --> 01:13:21,440 Sammy or um the second photo, if we're saying it's bulging out right now like 894 01:13:18,880 --> 01:13:25,199 12 inches, if we look again and it's bulging out by like 13 inches, is that 895 01:13:23,600 --> 01:13:29,840 sufficient for them to have to repair it? My other question is if the wall was 896 01:13:28,000 --> 01:13:34,159 perfectly erect and it ended up in the current state that it's in now, would 897 01:13:31,520 --> 01:13:38,159 that be deemed sufficient for repairs? Um I think speaking to the public 898 01:13:35,840 --> 01:13:41,440 benefit, the vegetation as it stands right now, I think that vegetation is 899 01:13:39,679 --> 01:13:47,679 non-native plants. I I don't know that it's particularly beneficial to the 900 01:13:44,239 --> 01:13:52,320 public per se, more so than um making sure that that lane doesn't collapse and 901 01:13:49,679 --> 01:13:55,840 that dirt and debris and wood doesn't go off that. That's again that lane is wide 902 01:13:54,320 --> 01:13:58,960 enough for a car to go down. I think I remember in the report they were 903 01:13:56,880 --> 01:14:02,640 actually asking for the ability to drive vehicles up that lane. So this is really 904 01:14:00,640 --> 01:14:10,159 important. I look at this photo here and I I I think this is a good opportunity 905 01:14:05,199 --> 01:14:13,679 for an uh a rethinking of this uh this this issue. I this looks like an issue. 906 01:14:12,159 --> 01:14:17,840 It doesn't seem safe. I'm glad we're looking at it. But um you know, these 907 01:14:16,000 --> 01:14:22,560 trees have roots, too. These roots are going to be pushing against this and um 908 01:14:20,159 --> 01:14:27,040 I would love to work with whomever in the city wants to about um the thoughts 909 01:14:25,040 --> 01:14:29,199 of the of the parks, open spaces, and lanes committee, but this was the first 910 01:14:28,080 --> 01:14:32,320 I heard of it. So, I wanted to just chime in and give an update from my 911 01:14:30,480 --> 01:14:37,760 perspective for why I think it's really important to make sure that we look into 912 01:14:34,800 --> 01:14:41,440 this and also um I'm just not sure how we're going to measure impact on that. 913 01:14:39,600 --> 01:14:47,040 Like, how how far bulging is it right now? Is it 13? Is it 14 inches? Um and 914 01:14:44,800 --> 01:14:50,159 and how do we make sure that that monitoring really happens? And I'm I'm 915 01:14:48,560 --> 01:14:55,400 concerned about that. >> Thank you, Charlie. 916 01:14:52,400 --> 01:14:55,400 MA. 917 01:14:58,080 --> 01:15:04,880 » Hi, I'm Ma Bergson. I am on the parks open space and lanes committee, but I'm 918 01:15:02,800 --> 01:15:09,040 here speaking as an individual because since I am not chair and we were not 919 01:15:07,199 --> 01:15:12,719 notified of this, we don't have sort of a consensus, so I can't speak on behalf 920 01:15:11,199 --> 01:15:17,600 of the committee, but I wanted to speak up as an individual. Um, with regard to 921 01:15:15,199 --> 01:15:22,080 that, um, I would agree with all that has been said, um, here by the council, 922 01:15:20,239 --> 01:15:26,239 um, as well as by Charlie and that we are really happy that this is is coming 923 01:15:24,159 --> 01:15:29,840 up and being considered. He mentioned that it is the access, you know, sort of 924 01:15:28,159 --> 01:15:34,480 upward to the island from West Shore. It's also the only westside access from 925 01:15:32,400 --> 01:15:37,840 the island off the island down to the water. So, I think it's we need to 926 01:15:36,080 --> 01:15:43,040 acknowledge it as a really important evacuation route as well as a super 927 01:15:39,760 --> 01:15:48,000 commonly used lane. Um, as we could see from the photos uh that Charlie had 928 01:15:45,440 --> 01:15:52,480 submitted to um the city back in October, the amount of damage is much 929 01:15:50,400 --> 01:15:57,520 more extensive than I think is shown really by the photo that was in the 930 01:15:53,920 --> 01:16:02,400 packet today. Um, and that is whether it's caused by soil being, you know, 931 01:15:59,760 --> 01:16:07,440 pushed down or I think if you look at all of the photos, it actually is a lot 932 01:16:04,480 --> 01:16:11,360 by not only um roots but actually also even just the trunks. I mean, one of the 933 01:16:09,199 --> 01:16:16,000 photos showed that there's some sort of um you know, conifer that's sort of 934 01:16:13,360 --> 01:16:21,600 leaning against it. So, my concern is that if you grant an RL saying that we 935 01:16:19,280 --> 01:16:26,239 approve the existing landscaping when what you have is landscaping and a slope 936 01:16:23,840 --> 01:16:30,560 situation that has clearly already adversely impacted the city's wall 937 01:16:28,719 --> 01:16:35,199 there, then you're basically saying we're good with what we have and now 938 01:16:33,600 --> 01:16:40,159 we're having to try to measure when it's bad. And I don't think that's 939 01:16:37,040 --> 01:16:44,400 appropriate to be letting them sort of ex sort of acknowledging it and 940 01:16:41,760 --> 01:16:48,560 accepting it as it is when in fact part of those plants were clearly planted not 941 01:16:46,480 --> 01:16:54,480 by this applicant but that's what they they purchased. Um, and if they're 942 01:16:50,800 --> 01:16:58,400 looking for a a a revocable license because they want the the benefit of 943 01:16:56,800 --> 01:17:02,640 maintaining their privacy, then I believe that the public deserves the 944 01:16:59,920 --> 01:17:06,880 benefit of having it repaired, that area repaired because that public benefit is 945 01:17:04,800 --> 01:17:12,400 what we will get in exchange for giving them a public benefit of preserving 946 01:17:09,679 --> 01:17:17,840 privacy. The public benefit to the rest of the public is to ensure that the wall 947 01:17:15,199 --> 01:17:21,679 that is holding that stays. And not just that it's not damaged during 948 01:17:19,120 --> 01:17:27,360 construction, but that it extends that it stays for the long term. Um, it 949 01:17:24,800 --> 01:17:31,840 doesn't matter really who caused it to get to where it is now. The question is 950 01:17:29,520 --> 01:17:36,159 is it's being a privilege is being requested and we should be grant looking 951 01:17:33,520 --> 01:17:40,800 at the public benefit as well as the, you know, to the public use. To me, this 952 01:17:38,719 --> 01:17:47,120 is very similar to somebody who who plants a tree in their front yard and 953 01:17:43,760 --> 01:17:50,480 that tree damages the city's sidewalk or other city property and the city comes 954 01:17:49,600 --> 01:17:53,920 to them and says, >> you have a few seconds left. 955 01:17:52,000 --> 01:17:57,199 » The city comes to them and and says you have to address this. And so I think 956 01:17:55,840 --> 01:18:00,159 that is the way we should be looking at this not as an oral accepting the way it 957 01:17:59,120 --> 01:18:03,040 is now. Thank you. >> Great. Thanks. 958 01:18:00,880 --> 01:18:06,760 » One second. Other public comment. 959 01:18:07,040 --> 01:18:12,560 » There are no hands raised. >> Thank you. So, I'll bring it back to 960 01:18:10,400 --> 01:18:15,360 councel. Any additional thoughts for 961 01:18:14,719 --> 01:18:22,719 deliberation? >> Um, I think I think we pretty well 962 01:18:18,400 --> 01:18:29,280 covered it. Um I I agree with our uh public comments that um the revocable 963 01:18:26,480 --> 01:18:35,840 license should be granted when there is a public benefit as determined by the 964 01:18:31,520 --> 01:18:42,080 city council. Um and we do generally try to discourage just the benefit of 965 01:18:38,480 --> 01:18:48,320 private use. Um, I I get that the plants are also beneficial to the public 966 01:18:44,159 --> 01:18:57,040 because they um hopefully hold up that hillside and they make a nice um border 967 01:18:53,199 --> 01:19:04,159 for that road. Um but I think in the past we have also had 968 01:19:01,120 --> 01:19:09,920 uh I'm sorry that our um parks open space and lane meets 969 01:19:07,520 --> 01:19:16,560 unfortunately infrequently and so when these things come up it's 970 01:19:12,880 --> 01:19:23,120 difficult to postpone it and wait for that group because the owner wants to 971 01:19:20,159 --> 01:19:28,880 move forward and is on a time frame. So, I think we get that. But, um, certainly 972 01:19:27,120 --> 01:19:34,560 from October to now, it would have been nice to follow up on that and have had 973 01:19:31,600 --> 01:19:41,360 some kind of meeting with, uh, Chair Harrington on this. Um, I don't see I 974 01:19:38,400 --> 01:19:47,600 think that right now, yes, it would be difficult to determine unless we're very 975 01:19:45,280 --> 01:19:54,000 careful how we measure what it looks like now, what it might look like um, 976 01:19:49,920 --> 01:19:59,440 during construction. Um, I don't I think we've tried in the past whenever there's 977 01:19:56,880 --> 01:20:06,719 a lane next to the property and I would say that we've been very fortunate with 978 01:20:03,040 --> 01:20:11,920 our community and they always seem to want to help the city and help make the 979 01:20:09,280 --> 01:20:16,159 lane better. I don't think we've had too many people stand up and who are next to 980 01:20:14,560 --> 01:20:19,679 a lane and say, "I'm doing full construction, but I'm not going to even 981 01:20:18,400 --> 01:20:24,400 though you're asking, I'm not going to help out that lane at all." I think 982 01:20:22,080 --> 01:20:30,560 we've been, like I said, fortunate that most of our community is very generous 983 01:20:26,640 --> 01:20:35,520 that way. So, I I don't see this as being a huge expense, but again, it's 984 01:20:33,360 --> 01:20:42,080 not I don't know, so I can't comment on that. It is next to a lane. It's um 985 01:20:39,040 --> 01:20:51,360 especially important to the entire community and um I think I would uh 986 01:20:46,960 --> 01:20:58,960 agree with our vice mayor that without a commitment to um repair that wall that's 987 01:20:55,760 --> 01:21:03,120 obviously failing um that I could not support the RL. 988 01:21:02,560 --> 01:21:09,120 that. >> So, um 989 01:21:05,520 --> 01:21:16,800 I also feel that I agree with um council member Cooper. Um it's very hard to 990 01:21:12,800 --> 01:21:22,560 separate out an RL granting an RL when there's a component there that actually 991 01:21:19,920 --> 01:21:28,000 is I know it's not a structural wall, but 992 01:21:25,040 --> 01:21:33,679 um retains um 993 01:21:29,520 --> 01:21:39,600 the dirt and the plants. um from uh failure. And I think it goes the the 994 01:21:37,920 --> 01:21:45,679 retention wall, whatever you want to call it, uh goes with the plantings. 995 01:21:42,719 --> 01:21:52,080 It's um uh just part of the um 996 01:21:50,320 --> 01:21:58,960 area that it's in. I mean, if the retention wall was in front of the 997 01:21:55,920 --> 01:22:03,679 concrete curb, I'm calling it, um I wouldn't have um questioned it, but it's 998 01:22:01,760 --> 01:22:10,000 actually behind the curb, right in front of the plants. And obviously, 999 01:22:06,400 --> 01:22:15,600 it's a component of um that whole area and all the plantings. And so I would 1000 01:22:12,880 --> 01:22:23,280 not be able to approve the RL without the so-called retention wall um being 1001 01:22:20,480 --> 01:22:26,400 repaired or replaced whatever is necessary 1002 01:22:24,960 --> 01:22:30,800 by the applicant. >> Thank you. Uh I agree and don't need to 1003 01:22:29,440 --> 01:22:33,800 add anything further. Do I hear a motion? 1004 01:22:35,280 --> 01:22:42,159 » So should we ask for continuance or just deny it or modify it? 1005 01:22:40,239 --> 01:22:45,679 » Yeah. How do you want to handle it? >> You want to ask? 1006 01:22:43,040 --> 01:22:51,440 » I think a continuence would be the most uh favorable. Um but we can ask the 1007 01:22:49,520 --> 01:22:53,840 applicant if >> we should ask the applicant if they're 1008 01:22:52,800 --> 01:22:57,159 interested in that. Otherwise, we'll deny it. 1009 01:22:57,600 --> 01:23:04,080 » Um yes, we'd definitely like a continuence. Does that just essentially 1010 01:23:01,760 --> 01:23:10,080 extend to the next meeting? Could you elaborate on what that means? 1011 01:23:07,600 --> 01:23:13,280 Uh I think you'd have to say the process. 1012 01:23:10,400 --> 01:23:17,040 » It depends on yeah if you on the conversations around based on what 1013 01:23:15,360 --> 01:23:19,840 happened this evening and if you can revise the plans and we can get 1014 01:23:18,400 --> 01:23:23,520 everything in time for the next agenda packet. 1015 01:23:21,679 --> 01:23:30,800 » Got it. That sounds good. >> Yeah. And as soon as that timing is met, 1016 01:23:25,760 --> 01:23:37,920 it will come back to the council. Um, >> and I think that if it all the 1017 01:23:35,600 --> 01:23:45,159 conditions are met, I'm surely this could go on a consent calendar once we 1018 01:23:40,719 --> 01:23:45,159 see everything is proper. 1019 01:23:45,280 --> 01:23:51,520 » Thank you. And does it extend for both exhibits along Belvadier Way and 1020 01:23:49,760 --> 01:23:54,719 Belvadier Way Lane or do those get separated out? 1021 01:23:53,280 --> 01:24:00,320 » Well, the resolution is uh or the revocable license is written as one 1022 01:23:56,800 --> 01:24:04,880 document. Okay. currently. Um, so you could come back with just uh one portion 1023 01:24:02,320 --> 01:24:09,199 of it if there isn't agreement on the portion we discussed tonight. 1024 01:24:07,520 --> 01:24:16,760 » Got it. Thank you for clarifying. >> Sure. Uh, no, sorry, Charlie. Public 1025 01:24:13,360 --> 01:24:16,760 comments closed. 1026 01:24:19,600 --> 01:24:26,800 » Duly duly noted. Thank you. All right. I think we are done with that item. Let's 1027 01:24:25,120 --> 01:24:32,679 move on. We can call our other commissioners back, our other council 1028 01:24:28,800 --> 01:24:32,679 members back into the room. 1029 01:24:33,520 --> 01:24:38,600 » I know. >> Feels like that, doesn't it? 1030 01:25:00,400 --> 01:25:05,320 I'm now turning it back to you, Sally. Thank you so much. 1031 01:25:06,880 --> 01:25:14,400 » Okay, we are moving on to item number six, which is public hearing 6A. receive 1032 01:25:12,400 --> 01:25:21,679 an annual report on the status of vacancies and staff retention to fulfill 1033 01:25:17,840 --> 01:25:26,400 Assembly Bill 2561. Helga, thank you, Mayor Wilkinson. This hearing 1034 01:25:24,159 --> 01:25:32,800 is being conducted in accordance with Assembly Bill 2561, which was signed 1035 01:25:29,679 --> 01:25:40,159 into law by Governor Nuome on September 22nd, 2024, and took effect January 1st, 1036 01:25:36,480 --> 01:25:44,239 2025. The legislation added section 3502.3 1037 01:25:42,000 --> 01:25:49,360 to the California government code requiring public agencies to present the 1038 01:25:46,800 --> 01:25:54,000 status of their vacancies in a public hearing before their governing body at 1039 01:25:51,520 --> 01:25:58,639 least once per fiscal year. The presentation must be made prior to the 1040 01:25:56,080 --> 01:26:02,719 adoption of the final budget. This is an annual public hearing item to present 1041 01:26:00,560 --> 01:26:08,159 the vacancies and allow the city's one bargaining unit the opportunity to make 1042 01:26:05,199 --> 01:26:12,800 a presentation. The city has one bargaining unit, the Belvadier Police 1043 01:26:10,159 --> 01:26:18,960 Officers Association, which includes six budgeted positions and no vacancies for 1044 01:26:16,080 --> 01:26:24,400 fiscal year 2627. Also, under this legislation, the city 1045 01:26:21,600 --> 01:26:29,760 must identify any modifications to policies, procedures, and recruitment 1046 01:26:26,639 --> 01:26:35,280 practices that affect its initiatives to minimize vacancies. The city partners 1047 01:26:32,719 --> 01:26:39,600 with much more than consultant to strengthen our recruitment efforts and 1048 01:26:37,199 --> 01:26:44,000 we have not identified any necessary changes to our current policies, 1049 01:26:41,440 --> 01:26:47,280 procedures or recruitment activities at this time and staff are available for 1050 01:26:46,159 --> 01:26:54,719 questions. >> Does anybody have questions? 1051 01:26:50,480 --> 01:26:59,120 » No. Um that's open for public comment. >> Um there's no motion on this. Is just we 1052 01:26:56,800 --> 01:27:02,960 just have to receive it. Correct. >> Sure. Uh, excuse me, Mayor C, if I could 1053 01:27:01,600 --> 01:27:07,199 just make one comment for the record. Um, just to slightly add to Helga 1054 01:27:05,040 --> 01:27:10,000 statements, uh, the BOA was provided with an opportunity to pro provide a 1055 01:27:08,639 --> 01:27:12,159 presentation tonight and they did not take us up on the offer just for the 1056 01:27:11,520 --> 01:27:15,760 record. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you very much. Um, 1057 01:27:14,000 --> 01:27:21,040 okay, that was nice and brief. We'll move on to um, 1058 01:27:18,480 --> 01:27:25,280 seven other schedule items 7A, which is a preliminary review and discussion of 1059 01:27:23,199 --> 01:27:33,159 the annual operating budget and capital improvement program for fiscal year 1060 01:27:27,600 --> 01:27:33,159 2627. And Hoga, this is again yours. 1061 01:27:52,800 --> 01:27:59,199 » Thank you again, Mayor Wilkinson and council members. Before you today is the 1062 01:27:56,639 --> 01:28:03,639 preliminary operating and capital budget for fiscal year 2627. 1063 01:28:06,159 --> 01:28:14,560 To begin with some revenue highlights, the general fund revenues are projected 1064 01:28:10,880 --> 01:28:19,280 to increase by 10.2% or approximately 979,000. 1065 01:28:16,800 --> 01:28:25,600 Property tax revenues remain the primary driver with overall growth of 5.62% 62% 1066 01:28:22,960 --> 01:28:30,480 over the current year budget or about 439,000 1067 01:28:27,520 --> 01:28:36,080 based on the county's estimates. Other property tax revenues are expected to 1068 01:28:33,199 --> 01:28:42,000 remain flat while fire tax revenue is projected to increase by approximately 1069 01:28:39,040 --> 01:28:46,639 3% pending final state data which comes out in early May. 1070 01:28:44,159 --> 01:28:51,120 Development related fee revenues have increased due to the new user fee 1071 01:28:48,560 --> 01:28:57,040 schedule that went into effect July 1st, 2025 and continued development activity, 1072 01:28:54,719 --> 01:29:02,239 particularly large-scale projects and increased encroachment and road 1073 01:28:58,800 --> 01:29:07,920 closures. Despite a slight decline in permit volume, fees are projected to 1074 01:29:04,880 --> 01:29:13,600 recover approximately 89% of the city's cost of service. The city council also 1075 01:29:10,800 --> 01:29:19,440 approved a CPI based adjustment for the user fees schedule which will be 1076 01:29:16,080 --> 01:29:24,800 effective July 1st, 2026. Fee performance in the first year has 1077 01:29:21,760 --> 01:29:29,600 largely met the 92% cost recovery target. Therefore, no additional 1078 01:29:27,120 --> 01:29:34,880 incremental revenue is assumed in the outer years. Consistent with best 1079 01:29:32,159 --> 01:29:39,040 practices, no revenue increases were assumed in the first year of the 1080 01:29:36,239 --> 01:29:44,560 implementation and staff will continue to monitor cost recovery trends over 1081 01:29:41,679 --> 01:29:52,000 time as they may fluctuate with broader economic conditions. 1082 01:29:47,920 --> 01:29:58,480 One-time increase in building permit plan review and road impact fee revenue 1083 01:29:54,800 --> 01:30:03,600 is anticipated in fiscal year 2728 from the Malard Point project. Based on 1084 01:30:00,960 --> 01:30:09,679 the current timeline, timing remains uncertain and staff will refine revenue 1085 01:30:06,400 --> 01:30:13,920 projections as the project advances. No grant funding is included in the 1086 01:30:11,760 --> 01:30:18,560 proposed budget at this time, though staff will continue to pursue 1087 01:30:15,760 --> 01:30:22,880 opportunities through partner agencies. Overall, revenue projections remain 1088 01:30:21,040 --> 01:30:31,159 strong, but are intentionally conservative to support long-term fiscal 1089 01:30:25,920 --> 01:30:31,159 stability amid the economic uncertainty. 1090 01:30:34,159 --> 01:30:43,120 And now on the expenditure side from the general fund for fiscal year 2526 was 1091 01:30:40,960 --> 01:30:47,440 the last year of a three-year contracts with the city's represented and 1092 01:30:44,800 --> 01:30:53,840 non-represented groups. The city is currently engaged in labor negotiations 1093 01:30:51,280 --> 01:30:59,440 and anticipates reaching an agreement in the coming weeks. The fiscical year 2627 1094 01:30:57,280 --> 01:31:05,600 budget incorporates the results of a compensation study and a 2 and a.5% cost 1095 01:31:02,639 --> 01:31:10,400 of living adjustment. A 3% salary increase has been assumed across the 1096 01:31:07,679 --> 01:31:15,600 outer years. The fiscal year 2627 budget includes 1097 01:31:14,080 --> 01:31:20,400 235,000 for a temporary police officer position 1098 01:31:18,320 --> 01:31:25,760 over a three-year period to support operations during the police department 1099 01:31:23,280 --> 01:31:31,920 evaluation. The budget The budget includes 150,000 1100 01:31:29,840 --> 01:31:37,520 for implementing the housing element goals, programs, and policies along with 1101 01:31:35,199 --> 01:31:44,239 funding for general legal costs and ongoing litigation. It also allocates 1102 01:31:41,199 --> 01:31:49,520 50,000 for the city's 2030 climate action plan implementation. 1103 01:31:46,960 --> 01:31:56,560 Expenditures related to the Meard Point project include 150,000 for a special 1104 01:31:53,120 --> 01:32:02,880 project manager, 10,000 for a relocation specialist, and 45,000 for city engineer 1105 01:31:59,920 --> 01:32:08,000 services. These costs will be reimbursed in accordance with the agreement with 1106 01:32:04,960 --> 01:32:12,800 the developer. Timber on fire is estimating a 7 and a half% increase in 1107 01:32:10,800 --> 01:32:19,679 our contract costs again this coming fiscal year due to increase in district 1108 01:32:15,679 --> 01:32:24,560 expenditures related to station 10 costs from the capital fund. The budget 1109 01:32:21,920 --> 01:32:31,840 includes 70,000 to replace an aging public works utility truck,7,000 for a 1110 01:32:27,600 --> 01:32:37,199 police handheld radar unit, and 13,500 for replacement of several staff 1111 01:32:34,320 --> 01:32:40,960 computers, a server, and backup power systems. 1112 01:32:38,800 --> 01:32:44,880 from the capital improvement fund. The budget includes the beach road 1113 01:32:42,480 --> 01:32:52,880 stabilization project scheduled from June through October 2026 with a total 1114 01:32:48,400 --> 01:32:58,960 cost of 4.97 million. Of this 4.68 million will be funded from the critical 1115 01:32:55,360 --> 01:33:05,679 infrastructure reserve with 345 from other sources to close the gap. An 1116 01:33:02,320 --> 01:33:10,320 estimated 2.48 48 million will roll over from fiscal year 2526 1117 01:33:08,320 --> 01:33:17,120 and the construction contract was approved by council on April 13th. The 1118 01:33:13,760 --> 01:33:23,199 5-year CIP includes ongoing annual funding of 80,000 for lane improvements 1119 01:33:20,080 --> 01:33:28,960 and 15,000 for vegetation management and fire fuel reduction. Key projects next 1120 01:33:26,719 --> 01:33:33,840 year include the Harry B. gallon stair repair, community park restroom 1121 01:33:31,199 --> 01:33:39,040 renovations, redrilling of the community park well, and police department 1122 01:33:36,080 --> 01:33:44,480 improvements. The budget also includes 60,000 to complete the infrastructure 1123 01:33:41,520 --> 01:33:50,880 assessments will which will inform the fisc year 2728 capital budget. Several 1124 01:33:48,800 --> 01:33:56,440 projects are expected to be partially funded through partner agencies and 1125 01:33:53,040 --> 01:33:56,440 private donations. 1126 01:33:58,400 --> 01:34:05,920 A large part of the city's expenditures are staffing costs. Personnel costs are 1127 01:34:03,600 --> 01:34:10,560 projected to increase in fiscal year 2627 1128 01:34:07,600 --> 01:34:15,760 over estimated actuals primarily due to staffing additions and compensation 1129 01:34:12,800 --> 01:34:24,000 adjustments. Regular salaries are increasing by 21% approximately 535,000 1130 01:34:20,639 --> 01:34:30,880 driven by higher staffing levels with 21 staff headcount in the proposed bud 1131 01:34:26,639 --> 01:34:35,600 budget verse 18.4 actual headcount in 2526 1132 01:34:32,800 --> 01:34:42,080 which is an increase of about 14% over estimated actuals. Implementation of the 1133 01:34:38,719 --> 01:34:49,280 compensation study is estimated at a 4% increase or 124,000 and a 2.5% COLA or 1134 01:34:47,040 --> 01:34:54,560 about 75,000. The compensation study amounts reflect 1135 01:34:52,560 --> 01:35:01,840 potential adjustments which are part of the ongoing labor negotiation process. 1136 01:34:58,719 --> 01:35:06,639 Lower fiscal year 2526 staffing and expenditures reflect vacancies in 1137 01:35:04,080 --> 01:35:10,960 police, administration, and public works during the current fiscal year. These 1138 01:35:08,960 --> 01:35:14,800 positions have all been filled with the latest position being filled at the end 1139 01:35:12,960 --> 01:35:18,560 of April for the administrative technician. 1140 01:35:16,320 --> 01:35:24,960 Health insurance costs are projected to rise by 22% reflecting a 9% increase in 1141 01:35:22,560 --> 01:35:30,239 premiums as well as the addition of family rate coverage for the new police 1142 01:35:27,360 --> 01:35:37,120 position. The city's unfunded acred liability contribution is increasing by 1143 01:35:33,199 --> 01:35:43,280 45% approximately 104,000 under over the fiscal year 26 actuals 1144 01:35:40,719 --> 01:35:51,560 consistent with fluctuations driven by CalPER's investment performance actuary 1145 01:35:46,560 --> 01:35:51,560 assumptions and retiree experience. 1146 01:35:51,679 --> 01:35:58,320 Other personnel costs are also increasing, primarily due to the 1147 01:35:56,000 --> 01:36:03,760 addition of the one and a half positions in the police department impacting costs 1148 01:36:01,199 --> 01:36:08,440 such as holiday pay, shift differential, and education incentive pay. 1149 01:36:10,080 --> 01:36:17,040 This next slide highlights the city's required pension related payments to 1150 01:36:14,239 --> 01:36:22,080 Kalpers, including contributions toward the unfunded acred liability and 1151 01:36:19,920 --> 01:36:28,639 payments associated with the pension obligation lease lease back debt. The 1152 01:36:25,120 --> 01:36:35,760 fiscal year 2627 UAL payment is based on the most recent Kalpers actuarial 1153 01:36:31,280 --> 01:36:42,400 valuation as of June 30th, 2024, which reflected an investment return of 9.3%. 1154 01:36:39,760 --> 01:36:48,000 However, prior years continue to impact current and future contribution 1155 01:36:44,159 --> 01:36:54,159 requirements, including a negative 6.1% return for the period June 30th, 2022, 1156 01:36:51,440 --> 01:36:59,280 and a 5.8% 8% return for the period ending June 30th, 2023, 1157 01:36:57,119 --> 01:37:04,960 both of which fell below the Kalpers's assumed rate of 6.8%. 1158 01:37:02,159 --> 01:37:11,199 As a result, UL contributions are projected to remain elevated over the 1159 01:37:07,440 --> 01:37:15,679 5-year forecast period. Again, UL costs may fluctuate annually based on 1160 01:37:13,520 --> 01:37:21,199 investment performance, changes in actuary assumptions, and retiree 1161 01:37:18,400 --> 01:37:27,920 experience. The pension related debt obligation will have a final payment of 1162 01:37:24,000 --> 01:37:33,199 123,000 in fiscal year 3132. We are also planning a re review of the 1163 01:37:30,480 --> 01:37:38,800 city's pension funding strategy for this coming December, including whether some 1164 01:37:35,760 --> 01:37:42,040 section 115 assets should be transferred to Kalpers. 1165 01:37:44,719 --> 01:37:52,639 And this slide shows the anticipated transfers from the general fund that are 1166 01:37:49,040 --> 01:38:01,199 part of the budget. FIRE is 1.42 million, the pension 115 trust fund, the 1167 01:37:56,400 --> 01:38:06,159 300,000, pension related debt, 237,000. The budget includes a 100,000 transfer 1168 01:38:03,760 --> 01:38:11,440 to the insurance and legal reserve fund to cover ongoing uninsured legal 1169 01:38:08,719 --> 01:38:16,239 expenses with a reduction in transfer amount reflecting an anticipated 1170 01:38:13,520 --> 01:38:23,199 decrease in legal costs and bringing the fund to its minimum required balance. 1171 01:38:19,199 --> 01:38:29,600 The capital improvement fund 184,000 and a 705 transfer to the critical 1172 01:38:26,800 --> 01:38:34,880 infrastructure reserve was budgeted in 2526 to support the beach road 1173 01:38:32,239 --> 01:38:41,199 stabilization project. The fund will also be renamed the long-term capital 1174 01:38:37,280 --> 01:38:46,239 planning fund and receive a 1.1 million transfer to support future capital needs 1175 01:38:44,159 --> 01:38:51,840 identified through the upcoming infrastructure assessments. And finally, 1176 01:38:49,119 --> 01:38:55,159 the equipment replacement fund transfer of 89,500. 1177 01:38:58,000 --> 01:39:05,760 And this brings us to a summary of the proposed budget. The proposed budget 1178 01:39:03,040 --> 01:39:12,560 anticipates total operating revenues of 11.86 million and total operating 1179 01:39:08,560 --> 01:39:17,040 expenditures of 11.16 million, resulting in an operating surplus of just over 1180 01:39:15,280 --> 01:39:21,119 700,000. Capital revenues are estimated at 1181 01:39:19,360 --> 01:39:27,040 545,000 while capital expenditures are projected 1182 01:39:23,440 --> 01:39:34,159 to be 3.31 million leading to a capital fund deficit of 2.77 million primarily 1183 01:39:31,040 --> 01:39:40,080 due to the 2.23 million in expenditures for the Beach Road stabilization project 1184 01:39:36,800 --> 01:39:46,320 next year. In summary, revenues are projected at 12.41 million and 1185 01:39:42,800 --> 01:39:52,719 expenditures at 14.48 48 million resulting in a 2.07 million deficit. 1186 01:39:50,480 --> 01:39:56,800 This is primarily due to one-time costs for the beach road stabilization project 1187 01:39:55,199 --> 01:40:01,840 largely funded by the critical infrastructure reserve. Following this 1188 01:39:59,520 --> 01:40:07,159 one-time expense, the budget is expected to return to more typical operating 1189 01:40:04,159 --> 01:40:07,159 levels. 1190 01:40:07,920 --> 01:40:15,600 And this slide shows projected fund balance as of June 1191 01:40:12,480 --> 01:40:22,960 30th, 2027. The general fund begins fiscal year 2627 at 7.21 million above 1192 01:40:20,320 --> 01:40:28,320 the reserve target and after plan transfers for fire capital pensions and 1193 01:40:25,600 --> 01:40:34,080 reserve is projected to end the year at 5.63 million. The critical 1194 01:40:30,960 --> 01:40:40,560 infrastructure reserve fle reflects a 2.49 million transfer out and a 705 1195 01:40:37,920 --> 01:40:46,000 transfer in resulting in a remaining balance of 1.1 million. As mentioned 1196 01:40:43,920 --> 01:40:50,480 previously, the fund will be renamed the long-term capital planning fund to 1197 01:40:47,920 --> 01:40:55,600 support future capital needs through the infrastructure assessments. 1198 01:40:53,440 --> 01:40:59,520 The budget, as submitted, anticipates returning to a more normal state, 1199 01:40:57,520 --> 01:41:04,880 allowing the city to replenish the newly renamed long-term capital planning fund 1200 01:41:01,679 --> 01:41:08,440 to over 1.85 million by the end of the forecast period. 1201 01:41:08,480 --> 01:41:15,040 And this brings us to the general fund reserve. The reserve policy is to 1202 01:41:12,080 --> 01:41:21,119 maintain a reserve equal to 50% of the projected general fund expense plus fire 1203 01:41:17,600 --> 01:41:27,199 transfer plus pension debt service. This budget incorporates the policy with the 1204 01:41:23,280 --> 01:41:33,520 reserve goal at 50% of fiscal year 2728 projected general fund expense plus fire 1205 01:41:30,239 --> 01:41:38,000 transfer plus debt service which is 5.21 million. The projected general fund 1206 01:41:35,760 --> 01:41:43,920 balance at the end of next fiscal year is 5.63 million. The projected general 1207 01:41:41,520 --> 01:41:48,920 fund balance is over the policy goal by 417,000 1208 01:41:45,520 --> 01:41:48,920 or 54%. 1209 01:41:49,440 --> 01:41:56,960 And this slide shows the history of the general fund's actual ending balance. 1210 01:41:53,600 --> 01:42:02,639 The fiscal year 2526 estimated general fund balance of 7.21 million and it 1211 01:42:00,320 --> 01:42:07,119 shows the 5-year projections. The green line reflects the council's reserve 1212 01:42:04,639 --> 01:42:13,119 policy goal. As you can see, the budget reflects that it does meet the reserve 1213 01:42:09,040 --> 01:42:16,880 policy goal for the next five years. And in conclusion, a few highlights of 1214 01:42:14,960 --> 01:42:21,440 this budget are that the general fund reserve policy is met over the 5-year 1215 01:42:19,119 --> 01:42:26,159 forecast period. We continue with annual contributions to our 115 trust fund. We 1216 01:42:24,880 --> 01:42:31,040 contribute to the critical infrastructure reserve to fund the beach 1217 01:42:28,239 --> 01:42:36,000 road stabilization construction with plans to replenish the fund in future 1218 01:42:33,600 --> 01:42:41,040 years. And the budget reflects a fiscally conservative approach that 1219 01:42:38,239 --> 01:42:46,280 prioritizes maintaining staffing levels and supporting the city's operational 1220 01:42:43,280 --> 01:42:46,280 needs. 1221 01:42:46,560 --> 01:42:53,280 So tonight, we are asking you for your input and we'll take your suggestions 1222 01:42:50,800 --> 01:42:57,440 into consideration while we continue to refine our budget projections and we 1223 01:42:55,760 --> 01:43:02,480 will bring the budget back to council for adoption on June 8th after we 1224 01:42:59,679 --> 01:43:07,719 conduct the public hearing. And with that, I'd be happy to answer 1225 01:43:04,320 --> 01:43:07,719 any questions. 1226 01:43:09,679 --> 01:43:15,360 » Helga, thank you very much for the detailed presentation. Um, let me open 1227 01:43:13,520 --> 01:43:21,440 this to the city council first for questions for Helga. 1228 01:43:18,800 --> 01:43:26,400 » Of course, Brian. >> Well, Helga, that was masterful. Thank 1229 01:43:23,600 --> 01:43:31,360 you very much. I know it was a lot of work for you. It was a lot of work for 1230 01:43:28,400 --> 01:43:37,600 me to read it, too. So, so well done. Um, 1231 01:43:35,040 --> 01:43:42,719 basically I guess the first question I'm going to ask is should the public be 1232 01:43:40,000 --> 01:43:48,719 worried about the 2 million plus deficit that you highlighted? 1233 01:43:45,040 --> 01:43:53,679 » Uh, no. Because the majority of that is covered by the transfers from the 1234 01:43:51,520 --> 01:43:56,639 critical infrastructure reserve fund to cover. 1235 01:43:54,080 --> 01:44:03,199 » So the reserve fund is not included in your math. And so that comes in and 1236 01:44:00,400 --> 01:44:06,000 essentially takes care of that deficit. >> It does. Yes. 1237 01:44:04,080 --> 01:44:13,199 » Okay, great. I just wanted to clarify that. Um, 1238 01:44:09,119 --> 01:44:18,000 so on page four, I was just curious and I I may be off on this, so that's what 1239 01:44:16,080 --> 01:44:24,239 I'm going to ask is I noticed that in chart three it said 1240 01:44:21,040 --> 01:44:33,199 over-the-counter revenue trends. So why would um 26 27 1241 01:44:30,239 --> 01:44:41,119 why why would you anticipate that to be what looks to me to be lower than what 1242 01:44:36,560 --> 01:44:47,360 was even in 2425 which was before we had the new fee 1243 01:44:44,880 --> 01:44:51,639 structure. Is is this have something to do with the fee structure or not? 1244 01:44:53,520 --> 01:44:56,520 So, 1245 01:44:57,440 --> 01:45:06,560 so in the proposed budget, it does reflect the new fee schedule. However, 1246 01:45:03,440 --> 01:45:11,520 » we only have like a half a year's worth of 1247 01:45:08,080 --> 01:45:17,199 » data on the new fee schedule revenue. So, I didn't want to overestimate the 1248 01:45:14,400 --> 01:45:22,239 revenues in this first year. And once we have 1249 01:45:19,199 --> 01:45:28,560 better historical data on the revenues under the new fee schedule, then we can 1250 01:45:26,159 --> 01:45:34,560 um have a better >> little Yeah. realistic number. Okay. 1251 01:45:32,719 --> 01:45:37,440 » Okay. It just seemed like it was a little bit low because it was even under 1252 01:45:36,560 --> 01:45:40,880 two years ago. >> Yeah. 1253 01:45:38,560 --> 01:45:45,920 » Anyway, if that that was a question I had. So, let 1254 01:45:43,920 --> 01:45:48,920 me see. Um, 1255 01:45:49,440 --> 01:45:59,600 I I did notice there was a $7,000 um expenditure for coyote and rat 1256 01:45:57,760 --> 01:46:04,880 mitigation, but um I don't know. I really don't know 1257 01:46:02,719 --> 01:46:09,920 anything about the rat mitigation. So, is that something we're going to discuss 1258 01:46:06,639 --> 01:46:14,880 at some point or how how does that happen? Yeah, that's uh something that 1259 01:46:12,960 --> 01:46:18,320 the mayor and I are looking into currently and we'll have a proposal that 1260 01:46:16,960 --> 01:46:22,080 we'll bring to city council in the future. Um we're not quite sure where 1261 01:46:20,239 --> 01:46:25,440 that's going to land yet. We're still gathering our facts, but um we did want 1262 01:46:24,239 --> 01:46:28,000 to make sure that something was in the budget in case it goes the direction we 1263 01:46:27,119 --> 01:46:34,000 think it might. >> Okay. And then, 1264 01:46:30,239 --> 01:46:41,199 and I may be wrong, but um do you recall what our um coyote uh contract is with 1265 01:46:39,280 --> 01:46:46,800 Marin Humane? >> Uh I want to say it's 2500 a quarter. 1266 01:46:45,199 --> 01:46:50,560 » That's is that >> Yeah. 1267 01:46:47,600 --> 01:46:56,800 » Okay. So that's more than 7,000. So this doesn't 1268 01:46:53,119 --> 01:47:02,400 count. This is separate from our contract with Marine Humane. This 7,000 1269 01:46:59,920 --> 01:47:08,400 is a separate. >> Isn't that under the 1270 01:47:06,080 --> 01:47:11,520 That's sep I believe that's separate. Okay. From min Yeah, the animal control 1271 01:47:10,960 --> 01:47:15,199 is >> right 1272 01:47:12,000 --> 01:47:17,679 » under the non-dep departmental. So >> Oh, okay. 1273 01:47:16,080 --> 01:47:21,920 » It's a separate line item. >> Oh, okay. Great. I wasn't sure. I 1274 01:47:20,159 --> 01:47:28,840 thought maybe we were saving money. That's really been nice. Um, 1275 01:47:25,520 --> 01:47:28,840 let's see. 1276 01:47:32,719 --> 01:47:42,159 I know you brought up um pensions and the change in 1277 01:47:38,480 --> 01:47:51,920 in those figures and I I was looking in the list of unfunded expenditures on 1278 01:47:45,679 --> 01:47:57,280 page 13 and would would pension issues be considered an unfunded expenditure or 1279 01:47:54,480 --> 01:48:03,119 they again a separate >> um that's separate because um you know 1280 01:48:00,320 --> 01:48:08,239 we have our required contribution that Kalpers says that we have to pay each 1281 01:48:05,840 --> 01:48:13,760 year and then the um the unfunded acred liability is 1282 01:48:10,960 --> 01:48:20,080 something that is determined on an annual basis from Kalpers through their 1283 01:48:16,560 --> 01:48:24,880 valuation and that's and our section 115 fund is 1284 01:48:22,000 --> 01:48:30,960 is there to offset that. >> Okay. Thank you. 1285 01:48:27,760 --> 01:48:34,239 Um, okay. That's all I have. Kevin, 1286 01:48:32,080 --> 01:48:37,840 » sure. Um, thank you, Helga. Helga. Uh, it's a great presentation, very thorough 1287 01:48:35,920 --> 01:48:43,040 as always. Um, just three questions for you. On page five, it's uh somewhat 1288 01:48:40,719 --> 01:48:46,960 related to Jane's question. Is the revenue that you're projecting for 1289 01:48:44,639 --> 01:48:55,440 licenses and permits um for this coming fiscal 785 785,000? 1290 01:48:52,560 --> 01:49:00,600 Um and my question was is so the 265 for malad's included in that 765, right? 1291 01:49:00,639 --> 01:49:04,880 » Um no >> it is. So that's separate. 1292 01:49:02,880 --> 01:49:10,000 » It's separate because the malard is in fiscal year 2728. 1293 01:49:08,000 --> 01:49:12,960 » Oh, so it's the year forward. Okay, thank you. That actually helps quite a 1294 01:49:11,520 --> 01:49:17,920 bit. So my question was the same as Jane's is just it seemed low compared to 1295 01:49:15,840 --> 01:49:20,159 especially last year. But again, it's just mainly because of a conservative 1296 01:49:19,520 --> 01:49:25,520 approach. >> Yes. So, if we were to trend in the same 1297 01:49:23,119 --> 01:49:31,040 level, how much higher would that be, do you think? 1298 01:49:27,840 --> 01:49:36,400 » Um, I I don't really know at this time, but you know, once 1299 01:49:32,960 --> 01:49:37,440 » 25% I mean it could be 25 to 30% more than 1300 01:49:36,960 --> 01:49:40,719 » Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. We could come close to maybe 1301 01:49:39,360 --> 01:49:44,560 what we did last year. >> We would theoretically theoretically 1302 01:49:42,960 --> 01:49:47,840 » it's just good to know. Can I just jump in there because isn't it also the case 1303 01:49:46,000 --> 01:49:51,840 that we've seen just a lot of unusually large projects and so we're normalizing 1304 01:49:50,639 --> 01:49:54,080 for that as well in terms of your forecasting? 1305 01:49:52,480 --> 01:49:56,719 » Yes, that's true. >> Thank you. 1306 01:49:55,840 --> 01:50:02,560 » True. >> Well, if you walk around town, you're 1307 01:49:58,800 --> 01:50:06,639 still seeing a lot of unusually >> so I'm not sure it's a 1308 01:50:04,960 --> 01:50:07,760 » Yeah, it's a conservative number for sure. 1309 01:50:06,960 --> 01:50:10,239 » It is. Yes. >> Okay, great. 1310 01:50:08,239 --> 01:50:12,800 » I I just didn't want to overestimate. >> Yeah. No, I appreciate that. I think 1311 01:50:11,520 --> 01:50:17,679 that's actually kept us in good standing, that type of approach. Um, on 1312 01:50:15,360 --> 01:50:22,800 page eight and nine, um, just in terms of capital expenditures or operating 1313 01:50:20,000 --> 01:50:27,040 expenditures, I'm sorry. What are your thoughts in terms of contingency 1314 01:50:24,480 --> 01:50:32,040 planning, especially as it relates to Beach Road? Like what's baked in here? 1315 01:50:34,480 --> 01:50:42,239 » 11%. >> Oh, yes. In 1316 01:50:39,119 --> 01:50:46,800 » Yeah. Yeah. That's 11%. I'm getting the nod from Tony. 1317 01:50:43,280 --> 01:50:49,800 » And you're feeling good about that. >> Yeah, 1318 01:50:49,840 --> 01:50:56,560 I'll take that answer. I'll take that and run. Um, okay. Last question. 1319 01:50:55,119 --> 01:51:02,000 » It'll read better in the in the minutes than the audio. 1320 01:50:59,199 --> 01:51:06,400 » Um, on page 13, last question is just the unfunded expenditures. any sense of 1321 01:51:04,639 --> 01:51:11,960 what this could be from a ballpark standpoint, like what our potential 1322 01:51:08,320 --> 01:51:11,960 exposure is here? 1323 01:51:12,880 --> 01:51:19,520 » That's for Tony, I think. >> Um, yeah, I I wouldn't guess. I I think 1324 01:51:17,199 --> 01:51:23,320 Robert or Tony could answer that. >> I'll take it from anyone. 1325 01:51:24,800 --> 01:51:33,560 » Just a ballpark. million dollars projects from 1326 01:51:38,080 --> 01:51:41,360 » you'll have to give me a minute to just uh take a look. 1327 01:51:40,320 --> 01:51:44,400 » We can come back to why don't you think for a moment and we can go on to other 1328 01:51:43,520 --> 01:51:46,000 council members. >> Great. 1329 01:51:44,800 --> 01:51:52,800 » Thank you. >> Uh Peter, any questions? 1330 01:51:49,440 --> 01:51:58,800 » Uh just just a quick um clarification. you were talking about the uh the 1331 01:51:54,000 --> 01:52:05,679 reserve for for the um 2627 fiscal year and you talked about the 56 over the 52 1332 01:52:02,400 --> 01:52:11,920 um calculation with $400,000 some odd the 56 it was you know a slide a few ago 1333 01:52:09,760 --> 01:52:16,080 that's the the year ending projections right 1334 01:52:12,719 --> 01:52:18,159 » I think I think you had it as July of 26 >> oh 1335 01:52:16,400 --> 01:52:21,679 » I think I'm just just I don't know whether I read that wrong or but it 1336 01:52:20,639 --> 01:52:26,159 should be the year ending >> it should be the 1337 01:52:23,679 --> 01:52:31,360 Um, just two things I mentioned in the finance committee meeting. Uh, I do 1338 01:52:29,199 --> 01:52:37,599 think and I know Kevin brought this up. I do think we should strive going 1339 01:52:34,480 --> 01:52:41,679 forward and it may even need to be done somewhat retroactively layer on a 1340 01:52:39,679 --> 01:52:48,239 separate P&L for Malard because I think there's tentacles in a lot of different 1341 01:52:44,000 --> 01:52:51,360 places. You've got costs for uh the consultant. You've got costs for legal 1342 01:52:49,920 --> 01:52:55,440 work. You've got costs for um cost recover cost for for a number of things 1343 01:52:53,599 --> 01:53:00,880 that we assume we're going to be paid for. Uh and we're actually are are have 1344 01:52:58,320 --> 01:53:04,080 already collected fees with no no real benefit go into some of the fees that 1345 01:53:02,400 --> 01:53:07,199 we've already identified. So they are in there in from an actual perspective 1346 01:53:05,599 --> 01:53:12,080 going backwards and they will be in this year you know assuming that that there 1347 01:53:09,360 --> 01:53:17,599 are some projects for this year. So I would hope and think that at some point 1348 01:53:14,080 --> 01:53:22,000 we build a standalone um fee structure, standalone expense structure including 1349 01:53:20,000 --> 01:53:25,040 potentially staff costs and so forth so that it all feeds into over budget but 1350 01:53:23,760 --> 01:53:30,239 you can look at it in it in its isolation. Um I know we talked about it 1351 01:53:27,119 --> 01:53:36,800 before. Um second thing is uh I do also think that 1352 01:53:32,480 --> 01:53:41,119 25 26 permit fees were augmented by the um um permit renewals as we talked 1353 01:53:39,520 --> 01:53:43,360 about. um >> yes, 1354 01:53:41,599 --> 01:53:47,040 » which which aren't really accounted for going 1355 01:53:44,719 --> 01:53:50,719 forward either. So, I think that might need to be layered out or broken out as 1356 01:53:48,960 --> 01:53:54,639 a separate line item in the future because it doesn't take, you know, more 1357 01:53:52,880 --> 01:53:57,199 than three or four or five permit renewals to be a decent number. 1358 01:53:56,880 --> 01:54:01,440 » Yes. >> In relation to $700,000 total line item, 1359 01:53:59,520 --> 01:54:05,679 » right? I am planning to work with planning and building on the Malard to 1360 01:54:03,440 --> 01:54:10,480 have a better schedule for that. And then I have worked with um the building 1361 01:54:08,960 --> 01:54:15,520 official for those building extension fees. I do 1362 01:54:13,199 --> 01:54:20,480 have a list for those and I'm planning to break those out. There's it's about 1363 01:54:17,760 --> 01:54:26,000 28,000 that we've >> collected in this current fiscal year so 1364 01:54:23,840 --> 01:54:29,840 far to date. And so I am going to break those out so that they will have a 1365 01:54:27,760 --> 01:54:36,119 separate line item going forward. >> Wonderful. Thank you, 1366 01:54:33,119 --> 01:54:36,119 Pat. 1367 01:54:36,320 --> 01:54:42,159 Nice thing about being fourth in line is all my questions were answered. 1368 01:54:41,520 --> 01:54:47,199 » Thank you. >> Thank you, Helga. I appreciate um a lot 1369 01:54:45,199 --> 01:54:53,599 of my questions were answered in advance by multiple emails from um Helga and uh 1370 01:54:51,119 --> 01:54:58,880 which I greatly appreciate and thank you for all your work. You're welcome. 1371 01:54:56,000 --> 01:55:02,719 » Um I do not have questions. I attended the finance committee meeting and asked 1372 01:55:00,400 --> 01:55:07,920 my questions then. So um let's open this for public comment. Is there anybody in 1373 01:55:05,599 --> 01:55:12,560 the audience who would like to make a public comment? Okay, let's go to um 1374 01:55:10,960 --> 01:55:16,000 online >> there are no hands raised. 1375 01:55:14,159 --> 01:55:20,719 » Great. Okay, so let's bring this back for discussion or a motion or actually 1376 01:55:19,599 --> 01:55:25,520 we don't need a motion. This is justformational. 1377 01:55:22,480 --> 01:55:32,080 Um would anybody like to give any specific direction um that isn't already 1378 01:55:29,520 --> 01:55:36,719 included in this memo? I'd like us to make more money and spend less money. 1379 01:55:35,119 --> 01:55:41,360 » Okay. And let's let's actually go back to Tony in terms of the question that 1380 01:55:38,480 --> 01:55:44,880 was asked about the potential very large number in terms of our capital 1381 01:55:42,560 --> 01:55:50,080 expenditure needs. >> Um yeah, 1382 01:55:46,320 --> 01:55:54,080 » can you hear me? Yep. There we go. Um yeah, it's it's really hard to say 1383 01:55:51,840 --> 01:55:58,320 without looking into these more more closely. Um and I just checked with 1384 01:55:56,400 --> 01:56:06,080 Robert on one of them, the as far as the undergrounding goes. Um and you know so 1385 01:56:02,800 --> 01:56:10,880 going back going up uh the the list here starting with undergrounding um about 5 1386 01:56:08,400 --> 01:56:14,560 million um sustainability plan implementation which would be 1387 01:56:12,639 --> 01:56:21,840 sustainable fleet LED lighting and so on. Um my guess would be uh between half 1388 01:56:19,119 --> 01:56:26,480 a million and 1 million. um critical infrastructure project, earthquake and 1389 01:56:23,520 --> 01:56:32,400 utility protection for levies. Um I'd say um between 5 and 10 million and then 1390 01:56:30,080 --> 01:56:39,440 roadway adjustments related to emergency evacuation planning. Um I I have not 1391 01:56:36,639 --> 01:56:44,560 seen any of those uh proposed uh changes. So, um it depends if we're 1392 01:56:41,840 --> 01:56:50,320 talking about big retaining walls or if we're uh just talking uh smaller 1393 01:56:46,719 --> 01:56:57,679 projects, but uh anything from uh 3 to 5 million, I'd say. So, um I'd say between 1394 01:56:52,880 --> 01:57:01,679 10 and 15, uh million in total. >> This this is in this is part of your 1395 01:57:00,000 --> 01:57:07,920 capital needs assessments that you're currently uh going through or is 1396 01:57:05,679 --> 01:57:12,080 » No. Uh so those are all uh those assessments are all for existing 1397 01:57:09,199 --> 01:57:17,599 infrastructure. Um these are uh proposed new uh infrastructure items. 1398 01:57:16,400 --> 01:57:20,000 » Okay. Does that answer your question? Were you looking for the bigger number 1399 01:57:18,639 --> 01:57:24,960 of the all-in >> No, no. I I think that does um I think 1400 01:57:23,920 --> 01:57:27,520 I'm sure it's something you're already talking about at the finance committee. 1401 01:57:26,159 --> 01:57:33,280 I mean those are big numbers obviously and how we think of those in addition to 1402 01:57:30,400 --> 01:57:37,679 the infrastructure project. I mean the numbers get even bigger and you know 1403 01:57:35,360 --> 01:57:41,280 obviously we have a very modest budget. So 1404 01:57:39,360 --> 01:57:44,639 yeah it's just it's a lot of exposure if those things ever become critical. 1405 01:57:42,880 --> 01:57:49,360 » Yeah. I mean my understanding is that once we have a better idea of the 1406 01:57:47,199 --> 01:57:53,040 numbers we then need to think about how we might be planning for that 1407 01:57:50,480 --> 01:57:56,080 financially over the next 30 years or whatever those however long those 1408 01:57:54,480 --> 01:57:59,679 assessments go out. But but you're still planning to bring that back to us next 1409 01:57:58,159 --> 01:58:01,760 fiscal year. You'll have completed all the assessments. Is that right? 1410 01:58:01,040 --> 01:58:04,400 » Correct. >> Yes. Yeah. 1411 01:58:02,800 --> 01:58:07,440 » All right. Thank you. So, unless there's any other comments or questions from 1412 01:58:06,080 --> 01:58:13,000 council members, we're going to close this item um and move on to 1413 01:58:16,400 --> 01:58:25,199 item 7B, which is a review and discussion of revocable license policy 1414 01:58:21,280 --> 01:58:28,719 and application to the beach road strip. Um who is put this Rebecca? Is this your 1415 01:58:28,239 --> 01:58:30,159 item? >> Yes. 1416 01:58:29,119 --> 01:58:34,960 » Okay, go ahead. >> Thank you. Good evening, mayor, council 1417 01:58:31,760 --> 01:58:40,400 members. This item um includes a discussion of how the city manages 1418 01:58:36,639 --> 01:58:45,280 revocable licenses, also known as RL's on the beach road parcels known as the 1419 01:58:42,560 --> 01:58:48,800 strip. The goal of this discussion is whether the current public benefit 1420 01:58:46,960 --> 01:58:53,840 framework is sufficient or if a more structured approach is required. Under 1421 01:58:52,159 --> 01:58:58,239 um our current administrative policy manual, the council grants RLS based on 1422 01:58:56,560 --> 01:59:03,199 public safety and infrastructure protection, aesthetic improvements, 1423 01:59:00,719 --> 01:59:06,800 validation of long-standing existing encroachments. 1424 01:59:04,719 --> 01:59:12,159 Um as we discussed previously, they are discretionary in nature and can be 1425 01:59:08,639 --> 01:59:18,320 revoked at any time by the council. Uh the staff reviewed the 21 residential uh 1426 01:59:15,119 --> 01:59:25,280 parcels along the strip. Um, it is a highly utilized area of the 21 parcels, 1427 01:59:22,159 --> 01:59:29,760 17 hold RLS. These types of encroachments include stairs, retaining 1428 01:59:27,360 --> 01:59:34,400 walls, fences, decks, landscaping, and elevators. These improvements mostly 1429 01:59:32,400 --> 01:59:40,880 exist solely to facilitate private access to the 17 peers and docks from 1430 01:59:37,280 --> 01:59:44,400 those residential homes. Um, while these public while these benefit the 1431 01:59:42,400 --> 01:59:49,520 homeowner, the public benefit is is often indirect, which include things 1432 01:59:47,040 --> 01:59:55,119 like the owner stabilizing a hill the city would otherwise have to manage and 1433 01:59:51,520 --> 01:59:59,520 improved landscaping in some cases. Uh, recent shoreline cleanup efforts 1434 01:59:57,040 --> 02:00:03,840 mandated by regulatory agencies underscores the city's obligations and 1435 02:00:01,520 --> 02:00:07,119 costs for maintenance of the strip. This development provides good reason to 1436 02:00:05,440 --> 02:00:11,440 consider whether the current framework should be more clear should more clearly 1437 02:00:08,960 --> 02:00:16,400 align private use of public land with a measurable public benefit. A few general 1438 02:00:14,480 --> 02:00:21,760 approaches for the council to consider are one expanded maintenance. 1439 02:00:19,840 --> 02:00:26,400 So this would include licences maintaining their improvement plus the 1440 02:00:24,080 --> 02:00:31,040 adjacent public strip including vegetation management, debris removal 1441 02:00:28,719 --> 02:00:35,119 and general upkeep. Secondly, an annual fee structure is 1442 02:00:33,360 --> 02:00:40,239 something to consider. This would include changing a recurring charging a 1443 02:00:37,280 --> 02:00:44,000 recurring fee while the RL primarily um benefits private interests. This fee 1444 02:00:42,320 --> 02:00:49,119 would create a dedicated fund for shoreline maintenance and regulatory 1445 02:00:46,000 --> 02:00:53,760 cleanup costs. A third approach would be to continue with the current approach 1446 02:00:51,119 --> 02:00:59,520 but undergo a closer examination of the revocable licenses standard provisions 1447 02:00:56,960 --> 02:01:04,560 and or addition of provisions specific to the strip. The city um has used the 1448 02:01:02,800 --> 02:01:09,920 current revocable license for several years and staff could examine other uh 1449 02:01:08,000 --> 02:01:14,080 similar approaches taken by other jurisdictions in the area. 1450 02:01:12,320 --> 02:01:18,400 The fourth approach would be to stop issuing RLS in the strip where the 1451 02:01:16,480 --> 02:01:22,480 primary aim of the improvements is to provide access to private peers and 1452 02:01:20,080 --> 02:01:26,480 docks. The council could decide in its discretion that this provides little to 1453 02:01:24,320 --> 02:01:31,599 no public benefit. Um the fifth approach could be to revoke 1454 02:01:29,280 --> 02:01:36,159 all RLS for the strip where the primary aim of the improvements is to provide 1455 02:01:33,440 --> 02:01:41,199 access to private peers and docks due to the potential lack of public benefit. a 1456 02:01:39,360 --> 02:01:46,400 lease agreement arrangement could be considered as an alternative in that 1457 02:01:43,119 --> 02:01:50,239 case. Uh tonight we are seeking uh direction on whether to pursu pursue 1458 02:01:48,639 --> 02:01:54,480 further analysis and potential amendments to the administrative policy 1459 02:01:52,239 --> 02:01:59,679 manual 11.7 um to address these issues identified 1460 02:01:57,599 --> 02:02:06,159 and I am available for questions should you have any. 1461 02:02:02,719 --> 02:02:10,320 » Thank you Rebecca. Um, who would like to uh start with questions if there are 1462 02:02:08,480 --> 02:02:14,480 any? >> Okay, Jane, go ahead. 1463 02:02:12,239 --> 02:02:20,320 » Thanks, Rebecca. I really enjoyed reading this report and I especially 1464 02:02:17,440 --> 02:02:27,040 liked having a lot of choices. It was a really thorough analysis of 1465 02:02:23,840 --> 02:02:32,320 seemingly so of what our options are. Um, so 1466 02:02:30,400 --> 02:02:38,800 one of the things that was mentioned was the doc lease payments. Do have we been 1467 02:02:35,840 --> 02:02:43,360 collecting those every five years? Okay. And so that goes up and you just collect 1468 02:02:40,960 --> 02:02:48,400 it and the nod was fine. 1469 02:02:45,920 --> 02:02:51,599 » Yeah, but we do send out the notices for payment each year and then we increase 1470 02:02:50,320 --> 02:02:58,440 them every five years. >> Oh, oh, each year. Okay, thanks. Good to 1471 02:02:54,400 --> 02:02:58,440 know. Um 1472 02:02:58,480 --> 02:03:07,679 if if we were to decide to create a lease situation for those uh that strip 1473 02:03:04,719 --> 02:03:14,320 area, how would that affect or impact the open space and 1474 02:03:11,040 --> 02:03:20,800 public access requirement of the open space? Do you see that the lease would 1475 02:03:17,679 --> 02:03:25,119 have an impact on that? >> Yeah. So I think one potential advantage 1476 02:03:23,040 --> 02:03:30,000 of the lease approach is frankly that I would have a more defined term for how 1477 02:03:27,440 --> 02:03:33,599 long the you know arrangement is in place. I don't think it I don't see it 1478 02:03:31,920 --> 02:03:36,880 as necessarily although certainly if Robert Rebecca or others have thoughts 1479 02:03:35,119 --> 02:03:41,199 I'm not sure if it necessarily impacts the nature of the open space access 1480 02:03:38,719 --> 02:03:44,239 requirements or principles that the city has followed. But I think the the 1481 02:03:43,199 --> 02:03:48,080 principal difference between a lease and a license is that as you know the 1482 02:03:46,000 --> 02:03:52,080 licenses or at least a revocable license I've seen since being attorney don't 1483 02:03:50,159 --> 02:03:57,440 have any defined end date or term whereas leases obviously do. 1484 02:03:55,040 --> 02:04:03,440 So you don't anticipate you're saying you could write into the lease whatever 1485 02:03:59,440 --> 02:04:06,239 you wanted to to cover the public access and 1486 02:04:04,239 --> 02:04:12,000 » yeah similarly I think in approach in terms of you know what our ask could be 1487 02:04:09,840 --> 02:04:15,280 so to speak um I think in either instance a lease or license it would be 1488 02:04:13,599 --> 02:04:18,560 pretty much the same because at the end of the day it is public property right 1489 02:04:16,960 --> 02:04:22,000 and obviously the public agency to decide what it wants to do with it own 1490 02:04:19,760 --> 02:04:26,440 public property. >> Okay. Um 1491 02:04:28,480 --> 02:04:38,159 so again um unfortunately parks open space and lanes was not brought into 1492 02:04:35,360 --> 02:04:46,560 this discussion. I I think because the item came at a time when between their 1493 02:04:41,920 --> 02:04:50,960 meetings, but certainly um I think in it would be great to keep them involved 1494 02:04:48,159 --> 02:04:57,599 going forward with any discussions or any anything that goes on. Um, I think 1495 02:04:54,560 --> 02:05:04,639 this uh this is our group that oversees all those areas and uh so I'm hopeful 1496 02:05:00,960 --> 02:05:12,520 that we pay attention to that and not um continue to kind of ignore it. So that's 1497 02:05:08,560 --> 02:05:12,520 all the questions I have. 1498 02:05:13,040 --> 02:05:21,920 » Just one is uh so some have everyone has an RL and some have leases or does 1499 02:05:18,960 --> 02:05:28,719 everyone have an RL and a lease? I think some all have RLS, 1500 02:05:26,400 --> 02:05:34,159 » some have leases. Most have those who have docks have leases as well. 1501 02:05:31,760 --> 02:05:38,400 » So why why both? Because you were just saying, Andrew, you could just solve 1502 02:05:35,679 --> 02:05:42,400 this with one. >> Well, the Yeah, the dock leases are for 1503 02:05:40,639 --> 02:05:46,400 the overwater structures. Got it. >> The RLS are for um improvements on the 1504 02:05:46,000 --> 02:05:53,760 strip. >> Got it. Okay. Thank you. 1505 02:05:51,280 --> 02:05:58,239 Thanks, Rebecca. Um, of the 19 and this is relating to our conversation just 1506 02:05:56,159 --> 02:06:06,320 just an hour ago at this point, two hours ago maybe. Uh, of the 19 L leases 1507 02:06:02,320 --> 02:06:12,480 that ex RLS that exist, are they for the entire um, property beneath 1508 02:06:11,040 --> 02:06:15,840 property line or property line on the strip or just for the improvements 1509 02:06:13,679 --> 02:06:19,679 within that area? >> I'd say the majority are for the 1510 02:06:17,679 --> 02:06:23,920 improvements within the area. >> Okay. So, so unlike what we do normally 1511 02:06:22,000 --> 02:06:27,679 on community road in that case or whatever the case might have been, um we 1512 02:06:26,159 --> 02:06:32,960 license that in like the whole grade out area of their of the um city right away 1513 02:06:31,040 --> 02:06:36,639 adjacent to their property property line to property line. We don't do that here. 1514 02:06:34,239 --> 02:06:38,480 We do it just for the area that they're specifically looking to improve. 1515 02:06:38,000 --> 02:06:43,119 » Correct. >> Got it. Thank you. 1516 02:06:40,719 --> 02:06:47,360 » I I would I would say that I think it you'd have to go back and look at them. 1517 02:06:44,800 --> 02:06:52,960 Some of them actually the RLS are quite large and they do take over. Um if you 1518 02:06:50,480 --> 02:06:58,719 go if you look at Cliff Lane at the bottom there, well that whole lane is 1519 02:06:55,280 --> 02:07:03,280 between three RLS, three different homes and the one at the bottom has an 1520 02:07:01,119 --> 02:07:09,280 actually quite large all the way covering the beach as well as um part of 1521 02:07:06,639 --> 02:07:14,239 the pier and the bottom of the lane versus another one that has the lane and 1522 02:07:11,840 --> 02:07:17,119 the other one that has. No, it is it's confusing 1523 02:07:15,040 --> 02:07:20,960 » the lane. Well, the lanes I've seen the RL covers the whole lane, but in terms 1524 02:07:19,360 --> 02:07:23,199 of the strip, I don't know. >> Yeah, I'm just talking about these 1525 02:07:22,159 --> 02:07:29,400 particular on the strip that we're addressing right now. 1526 02:07:26,159 --> 02:07:29,400 » I think 1527 02:07:32,239 --> 02:07:44,159 » so Rebecca, great report, very thorough. So the question is is that as we as I 1528 02:07:41,520 --> 02:07:50,320 look at some of the options that you gave us um to have them take over 1529 02:07:47,920 --> 02:07:59,840 maintenance obligation of as Peter described from lot to lot 1530 02:07:54,000 --> 02:08:04,159 um and to either have an annual fee or a lease 1531 02:08:01,679 --> 02:08:09,760 it seems and with the maintenance. So the 1532 02:08:06,960 --> 02:08:14,639 question is is and you may not have done that and that might be something we need 1533 02:08:11,360 --> 02:08:19,800 to do is is there one approach that has a greater benefit to the city 1534 02:08:21,040 --> 02:08:24,840 as as far as 1535 02:08:26,239 --> 02:08:33,199 like the maintenance would cover quite a bit. I don't know if we would ever be 1536 02:08:30,880 --> 02:08:39,280 able to get a lease that would cover all the 1537 02:08:35,040 --> 02:08:42,239 benefit of the maintenance of the entire parcel. 1538 02:08:40,719 --> 02:08:46,079 » Yeah. While Rebecca's looking, I would say if 1539 02:08:44,000 --> 02:08:52,079 you're if the objective is to try and get the maximum benefit, 1540 02:08:49,599 --> 02:08:55,040 if we are to give an RL, then yeah, it would be I would say a combination of 1541 02:08:53,599 --> 02:09:00,880 both. It' be a maintenance agreement for the entire slopes and it also be a 1542 02:08:58,400 --> 02:09:05,920 either a fee in Luffy or it' be a lease for for the square footage of the actual 1543 02:09:04,400 --> 02:09:10,400 improvements whether that be a hill elevator or a staircase or whatever. 1544 02:09:08,159 --> 02:09:17,119 » And so then my next question I guess goes to our legal counsel. 1545 02:09:14,000 --> 02:09:22,880 So the question is is that um we all know these license are revokable. 1546 02:09:20,079 --> 02:09:27,840 Um, do you see legally one, and I I'm not I'm sure 1547 02:09:26,239 --> 02:09:36,480 you're aware of all the five options, but is there an option there that 1548 02:09:31,920 --> 02:09:41,199 either legally is more advantageous or one that is definitely 1549 02:09:39,280 --> 02:09:45,840 more a disadvantage for the city to um 1550 02:09:43,840 --> 02:09:50,639 pursue, >> one that might be fraught with issues. 1551 02:09:48,719 --> 02:09:55,360 Uh so let me let me try to answer this way. I would say legally the one that 1552 02:09:53,440 --> 02:10:00,320 would require the most homework so to speak, the most preparation would be the 1553 02:09:56,960 --> 02:10:03,280 fee. um as noted in the staff report and as you know from other other fee 1554 02:10:01,760 --> 02:10:06,480 discussions in terms of user fees and regulatory fees and all those sort of 1555 02:10:04,960 --> 02:10:11,119 stuff you know that does require some sort of study 1556 02:10:08,400 --> 02:10:15,599 um exactly how you get to the cost to the city in terms of staff time or 1557 02:10:12,960 --> 02:10:19,440 otherwise and then figure figure out how much to pass on to you know private 1558 02:10:17,599 --> 02:10:23,679 residents within the city that are participating you know are partaking 1559 02:10:21,520 --> 02:10:28,320 that particular benefit. So I would say to the extent that we want to go down 1560 02:10:25,119 --> 02:10:33,040 that road, it requires more again sort of homework or leg work to put put 1561 02:10:30,239 --> 02:10:36,960 ourselves on a good legal footing. >> So that's one consideration perhaps for 1562 02:10:34,639 --> 02:10:42,719 council. >> Okay. So, and if we revoke the license 1563 02:10:40,239 --> 02:10:48,719 and come up with a new plan, whatever that plan is, um, and someone doesn't 1564 02:10:46,400 --> 02:10:57,360 want doesn't agree with what our new plan is, we just revoke it and they 1565 02:10:51,520 --> 02:11:02,400 can't gain access to their doc. >> Well, I again, revocable licenses 1566 02:10:59,679 --> 02:11:06,480 adopted and approved by city councils deep into the histories of Belvadier say 1567 02:11:04,320 --> 02:11:11,440 what they say. Um, but I think that certainly you could expect some push 1568 02:11:08,239 --> 02:11:16,239 back as a speaking as a practical matter depending on the length of which they've 1569 02:11:13,599 --> 02:11:19,679 had that revocable license and to the extent of what we are taking away and 1570 02:11:18,320 --> 02:11:24,800 perhaps how much they've invested in that property as well. 1571 02:11:22,159 --> 02:11:28,079 So again, I certainly understand the city's position. I believe the council 1572 02:11:26,079 --> 02:11:34,159 does as well. We will obviously maintain that position, but you know, there could 1573 02:11:30,560 --> 02:11:37,800 be some disputes along the way. >> Okay. Thank you, 1574 02:11:38,000 --> 02:11:43,920 » Andrew. Can I just follow up on that? Because 1575 02:11:41,920 --> 02:11:50,400 if I'm an existing homeowner with one of these RLS and now I'm being asked to um 1576 02:11:48,560 --> 02:11:56,960 maintain the entire lot to lot um 1577 02:11:55,040 --> 02:12:04,840 RL >> that could be a significant expense to 1578 02:12:00,320 --> 02:12:04,840 the homeowner. Um, 1579 02:12:04,880 --> 02:12:10,880 and our only they can say no, we're not doing that. But the only recourse is to 1580 02:12:08,560 --> 02:12:14,800 just say, well, you can't actually cross that piece of land to access your dock 1581 02:12:12,800 --> 02:12:17,599 anymore. That's where we'd be stuck. Is that 1582 02:12:16,400 --> 02:12:20,960 right? >> Well, they can cross they can cross a 1583 02:12:19,440 --> 02:12:23,440 piece of land like any other member of the public could cross the land, 1584 02:12:22,800 --> 02:12:26,800 » right? >> But under our revocable licenses, we can 1585 02:12:25,760 --> 02:12:30,960 request that they remove the improvements on those the private 1586 02:12:29,360 --> 02:12:34,480 property. I mean, they can still walk down there, 1587 02:12:32,079 --> 02:12:39,040 » but it's all the other stairs and elevators and all the other stuff that 1588 02:12:36,560 --> 02:12:43,199 they use. That's what is creating, I I assume in the initial instance, the need 1589 02:12:40,480 --> 02:12:46,679 for the RL. If they simply walked down to their docks, 1590 02:12:46,880 --> 02:12:54,079 that's fine. Access the dock. It just may be more 1591 02:12:51,520 --> 02:12:59,360 difficult to do so. >> I mean, are are we potentially burdening 1592 02:12:57,199 --> 02:13:02,000 them with a big expense here? I have no idea what that looks like in terms of 1593 02:13:00,800 --> 02:13:07,599 maintaining all of these different areas. I don't know how disrepaired 1594 02:13:03,760 --> 02:13:10,719 there they are. I don't >> sorry. 1595 02:13:08,960 --> 02:13:17,760 » Do we spend any money? Does anyone spend any money maintaining it? Does the city 1596 02:13:15,119 --> 02:13:21,440 » 310 312 beach as an example? We asked them, you know, they're asking for that 1597 02:13:19,440 --> 02:13:25,280 elevator. It's not before council. And we said, well, you might be, you know, 1598 02:13:23,520 --> 02:13:29,360 council might ask you to maintain the entirety if you draw those imaginary 1599 02:13:27,280 --> 02:13:33,199 property lines down. and they were fine with it. So, I don't know, you know, if 1600 02:13:31,760 --> 02:13:38,320 it's going to add if there's certain properties, sure that have had slides 1601 02:13:34,800 --> 02:13:42,079 and um you know, that are very steep and you know, maybe if that were to happen 1602 02:13:40,159 --> 02:13:47,000 that then yeah, they would it would be a high cost at that point. 1603 02:13:48,320 --> 02:13:54,960 Yeah, I I would just add on to what Rebecca mentioned then uh to the point 1604 02:13:53,280 --> 02:13:59,280 uh we have had some we don't we don't proactively maintain the hill hillside 1605 02:13:56,800 --> 02:14:05,440 or the slope along the along the strip. Um we have had recent instances where we 1606 02:14:03,199 --> 02:14:09,840 had material that fell down and BCDC enforcement action with this which the 1607 02:14:07,199 --> 02:14:13,679 city is um most likely on the hook for. Um, and there's other areas along Beach 1608 02:14:11,840 --> 02:14:17,679 Road that fall in that same category since some of the structures on there 1609 02:14:15,199 --> 02:14:22,719 are very old and not covered in an RL exclusively. So, that's one thing to 1610 02:14:20,000 --> 02:14:27,360 consider. Um, also I just want to mention too that oftent times the 1611 02:14:24,639 --> 02:14:32,239 problems that happen on the slope uh they're the result of the improvements 1612 02:14:29,119 --> 02:14:35,840 along the uh from the property above. you know, if there's drainage that comes 1613 02:14:33,840 --> 02:14:40,719 disconnected or some other feature that wasn't maintained, that causes a slide 1614 02:14:38,560 --> 02:14:45,040 that's in city property. And sometimes, you know, certainly in an emergency 1615 02:14:42,400 --> 02:14:49,199 situation, it's public works getting out there, the city identifying the problem 1616 02:14:47,119 --> 02:14:51,760 and trying to, you know, during poor weather trying to get out there and 1617 02:14:50,320 --> 02:14:56,880 cover the slide until they can figure out who's responsible for it. Um, and 1618 02:14:54,400 --> 02:15:00,480 then the recovery aspect of that can be challenging, too, because people argue, 1619 02:14:58,560 --> 02:15:05,040 okay, what came first, the chicken or the egg here? Is it was it the water uh 1620 02:15:03,440 --> 02:15:10,719 problem that caused the slide or was the slope instable to begin with? So yeah, a 1621 02:15:08,880 --> 02:15:17,440 more clearly defined, you know, ownership or I should say maintenance uh 1622 02:15:13,040 --> 02:15:22,480 responsibility would be beneficial. >> Can I follow up real quick and and 1623 02:15:19,760 --> 02:15:27,199 Rebecca, correct me if I'm wrong. uh you I think highlighted this item well 1624 02:15:24,560 --> 02:15:34,239 initially by identifying that this came up as a real question 1625 02:15:29,920 --> 02:15:38,000 about the public benefit that uh clearly when you're talking about a revocable 1626 02:15:36,079 --> 02:15:43,040 license for a property pretty much anywhere else in the city for city 1627 02:15:39,920 --> 02:15:48,880 rightway the appearance the the um the improvements the um uh uh maintenance is 1628 02:15:46,719 --> 02:15:51,360 the public benefit um there's very little public benefit for these 1629 02:15:50,239 --> 02:15:54,560 properties um city property behind someone's 1630 02:15:52,880 --> 02:15:58,079 property other than their access and someone occasionally walking by it even 1631 02:15:56,079 --> 02:16:01,360 if they're able to. So I think our planning commission in u making 1632 02:15:59,920 --> 02:16:06,639 recommendations city council for these licenses have had a hard time justifying 1633 02:16:04,000 --> 02:16:11,840 the public benefit for that license. So I I think the question I guess I'll keep 1634 02:16:09,199 --> 02:16:16,560 it as a question. Am I phrasing it correctly? Is is I mean is is that 1635 02:16:14,480 --> 02:16:23,280 really the issue? The issue is is is is how we can rationalize the lack of 1636 02:16:20,320 --> 02:16:28,320 public benefit for these licenses. >> Yes. You what is the public benefit of 1637 02:16:26,000 --> 02:16:31,520 private improvements to access your own personal peer doc? 1638 02:16:29,760 --> 02:16:34,559 » And so I think and similar to maybe our other discussion maybe it's a policy 1639 02:16:33,280 --> 02:16:38,479 level >> I'll still keep it as a question. Maybe 1640 02:16:36,160 --> 02:16:43,359 it's a policy level uh uh discussion because arguably 1641 02:16:41,359 --> 02:16:46,800 the public benefit is the question here. And if we can if if if if a broader 1642 02:16:45,599 --> 02:16:52,319 maintenance agreement or one of these options is added to it on a policy on a 1643 02:16:50,080 --> 02:16:56,319 policy level to the to to these type of licenses on this in this area, it 1644 02:16:54,639 --> 02:16:59,519 justifies that benefit somewhat more so than it is now because I I think the 1645 02:16:57,679 --> 02:17:03,439 planning commission has a hard time and justifiably so. I used to have the same 1646 02:17:01,359 --> 02:17:07,120 question down there. Why are we granting this this license for someone? Let's do 1647 02:17:05,280 --> 02:17:11,519 it in in another form. We just never got around to doing it. Um because you can't 1648 02:17:09,200 --> 02:17:15,200 really articulate a public benefit um versus, you know, the maintaining 1649 02:17:13,760 --> 02:17:19,200 maintenance responsibilities, improve landscaping, you know, hill 1650 02:17:16,319 --> 02:17:23,120 stabilization, reduce liability. That's hard to justify, you know, for the 1651 02:17:20,960 --> 02:17:27,200 benefit that that individual gets by having that particular improvement. We 1652 02:17:25,840 --> 02:17:31,280 haven't even got into the definition of structure, right, which is a another 1653 02:17:28,880 --> 02:17:35,040 issue on this. Um so I I I think that that's the gist of 1654 02:17:32,960 --> 02:17:40,559 the the issue is is how we need to describe what the public benefit is. And 1655 02:17:37,439 --> 02:17:46,319 if we can rationalize it within the same um um um bag that we see licenses, 1656 02:17:44,319 --> 02:17:49,920 that's that's I think why we thought about some other form lease or something 1657 02:17:48,559 --> 02:17:54,800 because you you don't need the public benefit for a lease. 1658 02:17:52,719 --> 02:18:00,160 » Yeah, I think it's um I mean because pretty much every house has uh or I 1659 02:17:57,439 --> 02:18:03,840 would guess most houses have an RL most homes and and and we should be they 1660 02:18:02,559 --> 02:18:08,319 should all be treated the same way. I mean, this the strip shouldn't be, you 1661 02:18:05,679 --> 02:18:13,840 know, um, pulled out and treated differently, good, bad, or or or 1662 02:18:11,120 --> 02:18:19,760 neutral. Um, but I guess my question is why now? Um, I mean, the leases don't 1663 02:18:16,880 --> 02:18:21,359 expire till 2039. So, that's another 13 years, 1664 02:18:20,160 --> 02:18:24,559 » but they're different. They're docks. >> Those are the docks. 1665 02:18:22,080 --> 02:18:29,760 » Well, but I mean, yes, yes and no. But, I mean, if you're a homeowner, I mean, 1666 02:18:26,160 --> 02:18:36,800 that's you're the RL's only so you can use the dock. I mean, so it's 1667 02:18:32,399 --> 02:18:40,880 it feels like why are we I mean, maybe are we trying to figure 1668 02:18:38,559 --> 02:18:47,920 this out for people who may be coming before the council in the near future? 1669 02:18:44,399 --> 02:18:52,000 Um or well, I guess you're asking or do we want to step back and think of it 1670 02:18:49,040 --> 02:18:55,840 holistically? I just feel um well, I guess I'm starting to deliberate which 1671 02:18:53,359 --> 02:19:00,880 I'll just stop there. So, the the one thing is is I'm sorry, but the one thing 1672 02:18:57,599 --> 02:19:06,240 is is not everyone that has a revocable license has a dock. Some people just 1673 02:19:03,920 --> 02:19:12,559 have some retaining walls or 1674 02:19:09,200 --> 02:19:16,559 decks or plants or something. So, they're very few, but there are a few 1675 02:19:14,399 --> 02:19:20,960 that don't have the dogs. >> And Rebecca, the impetus for this right 1676 02:19:18,240 --> 02:19:26,399 now is because we have a potential RL coming before us in the strip. Correct. 1677 02:19:24,479 --> 02:19:30,080 Yes. And as Peter mentioned, it's something that we've discussed 1678 02:19:27,920 --> 02:19:33,519 historically. It's just >> So that's that's why it's coming now. 1679 02:19:32,719 --> 02:19:36,240 Okay. >> Um All right. Let's open it for public 1680 02:19:34,960 --> 02:19:41,120 comment before we bring it back for discussion. Ra, 1681 02:19:39,120 --> 02:19:44,519 » there are no hands raised. >> Oh, I'm sorry. 1682 02:19:44,880 --> 02:19:54,880 » We actually have someone here in person. Um, hi, I'm Ma Bergson and I 1683 02:19:52,560 --> 02:19:58,399 am speaking again as an individual. Although I do want to acknowledge that 1684 02:19:56,880 --> 02:20:01,760 um, I am a member of the parks, open space and lane committee. So I speak 1685 02:20:00,240 --> 02:20:06,960 through that lens and also mentioned that unfortunately Charlie could not 1686 02:20:03,760 --> 02:20:11,680 stay. So I am sort of although I'm not the chairperson, I'm also sharing um 1687 02:20:09,600 --> 02:20:16,880 somewhat of his input as well. So I say that in that this context. Um I want to 1688 02:20:14,160 --> 02:20:22,160 start by saying um that unfortunately we were not given notice of this item at 1689 02:20:19,520 --> 02:20:27,439 all in advance. So we for saw it um when it came up in the agenda um uh for the 1690 02:20:25,200 --> 02:20:31,439 city council meeting. So none of us have been included and I think first and 1691 02:20:29,200 --> 02:20:35,200 foremost we wanted to acknowledge I want to acknowledge and Charlie I know it 1692 02:20:32,880 --> 02:20:39,680 feels the same way that we are very happy to have be having this discussion 1693 02:20:38,240 --> 02:20:44,479 um because we think it's really really important and really really valuable and 1694 02:20:41,600 --> 02:20:50,399 we do hope that um that the parks open space and lane can be included in it. Um 1695 02:20:47,200 --> 02:20:55,120 the strip is actually open space. So this is actually directly in our um in 1696 02:20:52,560 --> 02:20:59,760 our area and um we would be happy to have a subcommittee which is what we do 1697 02:20:57,359 --> 02:21:04,560 um in order to participate you know in a sort of a ongoing basis outside of the 1698 02:21:02,720 --> 02:21:10,000 meetings um and bring things to meetings. So I just encourage I hope 1699 02:21:06,479 --> 02:21:13,520 that you will uh make that request and that direction because we'd like to be a 1700 02:21:11,280 --> 02:21:19,280 part of it. Um the other piece that I wanted to mention is that um we um have 1701 02:21:16,880 --> 02:21:24,479 as you know I believe from Charlie been working on a survey. We did a big survey 1702 02:21:21,200 --> 02:21:28,240 of the lanes last year and this year um part of our goal is to do the same thing 1703 02:21:26,720 --> 02:21:32,960 for the open space. So of course actually the strip and this area has 1704 02:21:30,720 --> 02:21:37,439 been part of what we are looking at and ironically we are looking at have been 1705 02:21:35,439 --> 02:21:41,359 looking at the revocable licenses which impact basically all along there and so 1706 02:21:40,080 --> 02:21:45,840 this was something we were already looking at and as such we have looked at 1707 02:21:43,600 --> 02:21:49,439 quite a few of them just sort of spot looking at them looking them up and spot 1708 02:21:47,359 --> 02:21:53,840 looking at them. Um and we want to call attention to the fact that they are all 1709 02:21:51,120 --> 02:21:57,760 very different. For one they have been brought about at very different times. 1710 02:21:55,600 --> 02:22:03,359 Some of them are large, some of them are small. I mean, we have the one at uh 1711 02:21:59,920 --> 02:22:06,880 whatever it is 270 covers like the whole basically the whole property. They have 1712 02:22:04,800 --> 02:22:12,479 taken over the whole tide lot. Um and then versus the one that's at 310 to 312 1713 02:22:09,680 --> 02:22:17,280 are looking at um this elevator and then some stairs. So I think one of the 1714 02:22:14,720 --> 02:22:22,240 things that we request is that as you we look at all of these suggestions, we 1715 02:22:19,760 --> 02:22:28,160 really need to sort of get a do a really good job and be part and really look at 1716 02:22:24,720 --> 02:22:33,200 what exists there. Um oversight has not been been being done. That just has not 1717 02:22:30,800 --> 02:22:36,800 been part of the city's priority. Um and I think it's because they are all very 1718 02:22:34,720 --> 02:22:42,000 different. So you know there's been no direction. There are things that fall 1719 02:22:39,120 --> 02:22:50,399 into the onto the beach. And the number one thing here is that the policy 11.8.2 1720 02:22:46,080 --> 02:22:53,840 is for um the public to have um free it to be a public park and for the public 1721 02:22:51,840 --> 02:22:58,399 to have free passage along the beach. And I want to note that a lot of these 1722 02:22:56,000 --> 02:23:01,439 including accessing either their dock or the ones that don't have a dock, they 1723 02:22:59,840 --> 02:23:06,640 might have a shared dock. They also include steps to get down to the beach. 1724 02:23:04,479 --> 02:23:11,840 They're not just crossing to their dock. They all want to get to the beach. And 1725 02:23:08,319 --> 02:23:16,479 the idea is that this open space area and the way these docks and these 1726 02:23:13,680 --> 02:23:21,120 various RLS sort of connect to the beach and their docks not be done in a way or 1727 02:23:19,520 --> 02:23:27,520 their maintenance of the hillside is done in a way that adversely impacts the 1728 02:23:24,319 --> 02:23:31,840 ability of the city to fulfill this important policy of public access. We 1729 02:23:30,000 --> 02:23:36,240 want everybody to be able to have free passage. And if you haven't ever done 1730 02:23:33,359 --> 02:23:41,439 it, um I I know Charlie and I would be happy to show you what an amazing trip 1731 02:23:38,960 --> 02:23:46,160 it is to go down. Right now we can go down the Harry Bell Allen steps and to 1732 02:23:43,439 --> 02:23:51,760 walk along there and we would both love to give anyone that uh that option. So I 1733 02:23:49,200 --> 02:23:57,680 will retire. That's sort of all of my questions. Thank you. 1734 02:23:54,000 --> 02:24:01,520 » Thank you very much. Ma, um Bethy said nobody online. Correct. 1735 02:23:59,200 --> 02:24:06,479 » Correct. Oh, I apologize Mr. Rothman. Okay, he's back. Bring him in. 1736 02:24:05,280 --> 02:24:12,240 Hi, Dr. Rothman. >> Hi, thank you very much. U could you 1737 02:24:09,200 --> 02:24:16,160 tell me whether the city has a similar strip 1738 02:24:13,760 --> 02:24:22,800 of its own land on the side of the island that looks out 1739 02:24:19,600 --> 02:24:26,319 towards Saucelo? >> No, we don't. 1740 02:24:24,640 --> 02:24:31,960 » In other words, it goes from private property to what? To state 1741 02:24:28,720 --> 02:24:31,960 » state property. 1742 02:24:33,359 --> 02:24:38,399 Is that right? It just goes from property to state. 1743 02:24:37,040 --> 02:24:41,359 » Thank you very much for for that information. 1744 02:24:39,200 --> 02:24:46,399 » Yeah, I'm looking right now. Um, it's the it's the state from the end of the 1745 02:24:43,280 --> 02:24:52,240 island working eastward, sorry, northward, westward. Um, and then around 1746 02:24:50,560 --> 02:24:56,640 before it gets to cliff, it becomes county property. 1747 02:24:54,800 --> 02:24:59,040 » Oh, but it's never city property. >> Never city property. 1748 02:24:57,920 --> 02:25:04,399 » Thank you very much for that information. Thank you. Um, 1749 02:25:02,479 --> 02:25:09,120 okay, this is getting more complicated, but um, let's bring this back for 1750 02:25:06,560 --> 02:25:12,640 discussion. Um, who wants to Peter, do you want to kick off? Yeah, I'll just 1751 02:25:10,880 --> 02:25:18,120 touch again on what I mentioned before that uh 1752 02:25:15,120 --> 02:25:18,120 uh 1753 02:25:19,600 --> 02:25:27,359 I believe it was Don brought it up in the last planning commission meeting in 1754 02:25:23,600 --> 02:25:34,000 reference to the hiller that he was talking about the discrepancy or the the 1755 02:25:30,479 --> 02:25:38,000 hypocrisy almost between uh public benefit and and you know when you're 1756 02:25:35,520 --> 02:25:41,439 looking at a at a revable license anywhere else on the island, you you 1757 02:25:39,760 --> 02:25:44,399 don't allow private privatization of the property. You can't put a fence there. 1758 02:25:42,720 --> 02:25:50,560 You can't even put a garbage enclosure. And there's all these guid guidelines 1759 02:25:47,359 --> 02:25:55,760 that we've um uh pushed out over over the years to make sure that there really 1760 02:25:53,200 --> 02:26:00,319 is a public benefit to that, you know, 6 foot by 20 foot 200t stretch along the 1761 02:25:58,720 --> 02:26:04,479 front of their property. and those all seem to go out the window when you're 1762 02:26:01,600 --> 02:26:08,560 addressing um significant private improvements and private benefits and 1763 02:26:06,000 --> 02:26:12,399 private exclusive use of this revocable license area on the strip. So he was 1764 02:26:11,040 --> 02:26:16,479 having a hard time with that and I think it brought it to everyone's attention 1765 02:26:14,399 --> 02:26:23,200 that uh 1766 02:26:19,040 --> 02:26:26,560 is an RL the best form of this you know do we want to keep it in the same 1767 02:26:24,479 --> 02:26:30,080 structure because it's not necessarily apples to apples when you when you look 1768 02:26:27,920 --> 02:26:33,520 at what um that private benefit versus public benefit is for that property 1769 02:26:32,080 --> 02:26:38,800 behind them versus something somewhere else. Uh and I think I think that was 1770 02:26:36,080 --> 02:26:43,520 the impetus for this discussion. uh and I think to the parks and open 1771 02:26:40,800 --> 02:26:48,319 space committee um comments broadly about uniformity is we don't have it 1772 02:26:45,520 --> 02:26:51,920 there and it might be an opportunity to design it going forward so that we can 1773 02:26:50,240 --> 02:26:57,439 we can use it going forward and make an attempt to retroactively try to improve 1774 02:26:53,920 --> 02:27:03,439 it. Uh and certainly we have leverage going forward to get broader maintenance 1775 02:26:59,760 --> 02:27:06,720 agreements either with a a a specific revoke license which has a different 1776 02:27:05,120 --> 02:27:13,840 calculation between public and private benefit or at least that doesn't even 1777 02:27:08,800 --> 02:27:18,319 contemplate that uh and have uh a better understanding of of those licenses and 1778 02:27:16,240 --> 02:27:21,280 then seek to to to get them all aligned which isn't that unreasonable and I 1779 02:27:20,080 --> 02:27:24,240 don't know that we would need to go as far as to require someone to cover their 1780 02:27:23,200 --> 02:27:28,160 whole property if they haven't covered with the whole property before. We 1781 02:27:25,920 --> 02:27:32,800 obviously want to um have as much as a status quo as possible, just have it be 1782 02:27:30,479 --> 02:27:39,200 a more consistent approach um where we can. So, I'm open to a lot of ideas. I I 1783 02:27:36,560 --> 02:27:45,040 I just recognized um as Rebecca presented this uh the the the 1784 02:27:43,600 --> 02:27:48,560 differences that that the planning commission has to face when they when 1785 02:27:46,399 --> 02:27:52,880 they try to recommend these licenses to us. 1786 02:27:51,520 --> 02:27:56,720 » Kevin? >> Yeah, sure. I mean, I I guess I I'm 1787 02:27:55,040 --> 02:28:03,600 still struggling with just RLS in general across the community. Um, I 1788 02:28:00,800 --> 02:28:08,479 think it's always been a very thin argument to say that they are delivering 1789 02:28:05,680 --> 02:28:14,080 true public benefit. I mean, for many, at least when I was on planning and even 1790 02:28:10,479 --> 02:28:17,600 since I've been on council, um, I mean, they're not really. I mean, we say, "Oh, 1791 02:28:16,000 --> 02:28:22,160 well, the this is going to get a street a car off the street." Well, you know, 1792 02:28:19,840 --> 02:28:25,840 or, you know, this is going to they're not things that are truly creating 1793 02:28:24,080 --> 02:28:29,680 community benefits where people are going to congregate or, you know, play 1794 02:28:28,240 --> 02:28:33,920 in the park in front of their house or whatever it might be. And so, I know 1795 02:28:31,200 --> 02:28:37,359 even at our home, um, I think, you know, we bought it this way, but there's a 1796 02:28:35,359 --> 02:28:40,399 wall and a gate and so forth. I mean, nobody's getting the benefit of that 1797 02:28:38,880 --> 02:28:44,000 except for us. And so, I think that's probably true of many RLS around the 1798 02:28:42,640 --> 02:28:48,560 island for whatever reason. And I don't know why um the city was planned in this 1799 02:28:46,560 --> 02:28:52,880 way many many many many years ago. So that's one piece is I think that it's a 1800 02:28:50,560 --> 02:28:58,240 holistic question about RLS and I think we have to be careful not to um try and 1801 02:28:55,760 --> 02:29:03,520 apply a different discipline to this particular part of the city um over RLS 1802 02:29:01,280 --> 02:29:07,280 that are have been approved throughout the city. So that would be one. And then 1803 02:29:05,200 --> 02:29:13,439 the second is is I also feel very uncomfortable about um anything that 1804 02:29:10,319 --> 02:29:19,120 might be retroactive or would be affecting people who are currently for 1805 02:29:17,040 --> 02:29:24,479 whatever reason uh have the benefit of these RLS and leases through to 2039. I 1806 02:29:22,800 --> 02:29:29,760 mean, that's the only sort of event that's in the future where, you know, 1807 02:29:26,880 --> 02:29:35,680 there's a moment where these these uses will be reconsidered and have 1808 02:29:32,640 --> 02:29:41,040 to be renegotiated, I would imagine. Um, and so I would rather we be thinking 1809 02:29:38,479 --> 02:29:45,280 about how to make it co-terminous with the lease. like if this is something 1810 02:29:42,560 --> 02:29:49,520 we're going to tackle, that feels like the most appropriate time so we don't 1811 02:29:47,280 --> 02:29:56,120 sort of dilute or diminish something that's already been promised or given to 1812 02:29:52,800 --> 02:29:56,120 um residents, 1813 02:29:59,120 --> 02:30:08,319 » James. >> Okay. Sure. Um well I guess trying to 1814 02:30:05,280 --> 02:30:15,760 comment on some of the others I I don't I think I do see the strip RLS as 1815 02:30:12,160 --> 02:30:23,040 different in some ways from the rest of the city because every house on there or 1816 02:30:19,359 --> 02:30:30,000 at least everyone with access is has to cross open space not just city land but 1817 02:30:26,720 --> 02:30:35,280 o designated open space to be able to get to their 1818 02:30:32,640 --> 02:30:43,439 um doc or peer, however you want to call it. And in a way, there might be some 1819 02:30:39,280 --> 02:30:48,800 similarities in that we we give RLS for people to get to their stairs to get to 1820 02:30:46,640 --> 02:30:57,520 their front door. This is them getting an RL getting to their property of some 1821 02:30:52,240 --> 02:31:03,760 sort. I think um I think it would be you know it it would be hard to balance 1822 02:31:00,080 --> 02:31:10,000 the logic of taking away access to the docs that 1823 02:31:06,399 --> 02:31:16,080 exists and have a lease until 2039 by saying um you know we're not going to 1824 02:31:13,920 --> 02:31:20,319 give you an RL unless you do this that and the other thing and take take 1825 02:31:18,319 --> 02:31:24,880 whatever five was take we're just revoking all of them that that doesn't 1826 02:31:22,479 --> 02:31:29,439 seem logical or make any sense to me at all. Um 1827 02:31:27,920 --> 02:31:36,240 so I think because it's open space and 1828 02:31:32,240 --> 02:31:43,600 because along this particular um open space and strip area, we do have 1829 02:31:41,040 --> 02:31:49,359 I think four lanes that are also involved in this. So it isn't just you 1830 02:31:46,960 --> 02:31:56,319 know where where do these come in? A lot of the RLS are um like I said, one lane 1831 02:31:53,439 --> 02:32:01,760 has three RLs from three different houses that connect with it. And so, you 1832 02:31:59,840 --> 02:32:08,160 know, I think we'd be opening can of worms if we 1833 02:32:03,920 --> 02:32:13,200 if we try to make it um the same as other areas in the city where those RLS 1834 02:32:10,720 --> 02:32:18,319 really are specific to every single home. There there's not a lot of 1835 02:32:15,280 --> 02:32:23,520 overlap. In this in this case we do it they are different. I I do see the open 1836 02:32:20,720 --> 02:32:31,120 space and the strip as being different. um how we handle those differences. You 1837 02:32:26,640 --> 02:32:36,880 know, again, I think um I would hate I I think it would be no matter whether we 1838 02:32:33,359 --> 02:32:44,399 decide to do research with the lease idea or if we um amend the RL 1839 02:32:41,680 --> 02:32:48,479 specifically for the strip because it is so different and it doesn't have 1840 02:32:46,080 --> 02:32:53,760 anything else anywhere that that matches it. Um, I think we just have to be 1841 02:32:51,439 --> 02:33:00,080 really careful about public access because that's one of the main things 1842 02:32:55,280 --> 02:33:07,120 for our open spaces. And, um, as far as public benefits, 1843 02:33:02,399 --> 02:33:15,200 um, I've taken that walk with MA once, the whole strip and once um, just 1844 02:33:10,479 --> 02:33:24,160 part part of it. And um the p the public benefit is that you can get along our 1845 02:33:20,720 --> 02:33:31,680 whole all our open space by having access provided by these homeowners that 1846 02:33:28,000 --> 02:33:39,040 connect to their peers and allow um stairs to go over huge boulders that you 1847 02:33:35,920 --> 02:33:44,640 normally would have to scramble over or um and and it's not just low tide. Low 1848 02:33:42,479 --> 02:33:50,479 tide you can get a get through with anything, but it's um in case of 1849 02:33:47,040 --> 02:33:55,680 emergencies, if it's a moderate tide, high tide would be tough anyway, but 1850 02:33:52,960 --> 02:34:04,560 there are a lot of tides in between. And these um uh additions to the peers 1851 02:34:00,160 --> 02:34:08,640 really do help with that access. So, um I I think we need to get parks, open 1852 02:34:06,800 --> 02:34:12,960 space, and lane involved going forward. definitely even if it's just a 1853 02:34:10,240 --> 02:34:17,600 subcommittee so they can meet at the time that is more convenient for the 1854 02:34:15,439 --> 02:34:23,840 rest of the city and then I think we have to from my perspective I do see the 1855 02:34:20,240 --> 02:34:29,720 strip is um requiring some additional thought and differences from what goes 1856 02:34:25,840 --> 02:34:29,720 on in the rest of the city. 1857 02:34:31,120 --> 02:34:39,760 So, um, the RLS in the strip are totally 1858 02:34:37,200 --> 02:34:47,359 different than most other RLS that the city uses. And I 1859 02:34:44,160 --> 02:34:51,520 think the first off the I don't want to call it generic, but the revocable 1860 02:34:49,680 --> 02:34:58,160 license um that we use 1861 02:34:54,880 --> 02:35:04,880 for the strip is doesn't fit in with what the strip is 1862 02:35:00,160 --> 02:35:09,200 all about. So I think at least the very least we should be or initially looking 1863 02:35:07,680 --> 02:35:14,640 at that revocable license for the strip and 1864 02:35:11,600 --> 02:35:21,840 how it's worded and what it's included. Um, 1865 02:35:16,560 --> 02:35:29,040 I I I look at the strip as city property and um and we're we're giving away a 1866 02:35:26,720 --> 02:35:33,680 portion of the city property for the benefit 1867 02:35:30,640 --> 02:35:41,359 of the people that own those homes. And it was done 1868 02:35:35,840 --> 02:35:46,880 me many many many years ago. And um and probably there were times that 1869 02:35:44,240 --> 02:35:52,800 um people just put in the staircase and didn't realize it was open space. Um but 1870 02:35:50,479 --> 02:35:59,760 I think it's time the city take a look at it and figure out the best way to go. 1871 02:35:57,120 --> 02:36:05,600 Um you know I I remember a prior attorney 1872 02:36:03,760 --> 02:36:12,640 saying that we shouldn't be giving away our city land. we should be collecting a 1873 02:36:08,560 --> 02:36:16,720 fee for what we give away. Um, which I find hard as Kevin says, you know, a lot 1874 02:36:14,880 --> 02:36:20,800 of properties, you know, your gate, your driveway. I mean, of course, people have 1875 02:36:18,399 --> 02:36:25,760 to have that. Um, well, maybe not your gate. You wouldn't get that now, but 1876 02:36:22,479 --> 02:36:30,399 your driveway you definitely need. Um, but the strip is totally different and I 1877 02:36:28,080 --> 02:36:37,840 think it needs to be handled different and the right process to go through. I 1878 02:36:33,600 --> 02:36:43,120 mean, you know, there's a a balance there between the city benefit 1879 02:36:40,479 --> 02:36:50,479 and the individual benefit that I think we have to weigh. And I think this is 1880 02:36:45,760 --> 02:36:57,280 also a greater community discussion. Um it may be that we need to schedule this 1881 02:36:55,439 --> 02:37:03,680 discussion again and maybe hear back from some of the people that have the 1882 02:36:59,120 --> 02:37:09,680 RLS um just to hear their input um so we can balance everything out. Um but I 1883 02:37:06,720 --> 02:37:15,280 think we should investigate um you know some of the suggestions here. I'm not 1884 02:37:12,560 --> 02:37:22,720 calling to spend a lot of money. Um but I would say um we should look at you 1885 02:37:19,520 --> 02:37:30,720 know um is a fee schedule better than a lease and or you know do we maybe not 1886 02:37:27,280 --> 02:37:35,439 say you have to pay for the whole area of your the strip that you're using 1887 02:37:33,920 --> 02:37:39,439 but you're going to have to share in some of the costs. I I don't know what 1888 02:37:37,040 --> 02:37:45,040 the right balance is, but I definitely think that this is something we're going 1889 02:37:41,120 --> 02:37:52,319 to have to um investigate and um 1890 02:37:47,920 --> 02:37:58,080 probably a task force would be a good idea just to get some 1891 02:37:55,120 --> 02:38:05,080 parameters and and hopefully we can hear from some of those RL people um to get 1892 02:38:01,359 --> 02:38:05,080 their their feedback. 1893 02:38:06,560 --> 02:38:10,760 Thank you, Pat. Um, 1894 02:38:11,200 --> 02:38:16,640 Rebecca, part of the reason this is coming forwards now is that time crunch 1895 02:38:14,479 --> 02:38:21,120 associated with a couple of one property or two properties that's looking that 1896 02:38:18,000 --> 02:38:24,479 are looking to get an RL on the strip. Right now, 1897 02:38:21,760 --> 02:38:27,600 » it's two properties, one RL. >> Okay. 1898 02:38:25,920 --> 02:38:32,840 » Well, it could be two RLs, but it's the same improvements. They're looking for a 1899 02:38:29,520 --> 02:38:32,840 shared elevator. 1900 02:38:33,040 --> 02:38:41,520 And if we um I mean I agree with Pat that this you're not going to want to 1901 02:38:38,800 --> 02:38:47,200 hear this Rebecca, but this needs more thought and some form of uh a couple of 1902 02:38:44,319 --> 02:38:55,200 council members working with uh parks and urban spaces um might make 1903 02:38:51,760 --> 02:38:58,720 sense, but how far can we push back these homeowners because that isn't 1904 02:38:57,040 --> 02:39:02,000 going to happen overnight. >> Yeah, they were a little frustrated. 1905 02:39:00,960 --> 02:39:08,800 They were originally going to be agendaized tonight. Um, we've pushed it 1906 02:39:05,120 --> 02:39:11,680 back twice now. I think it would >> Is it part of a bigger project that 1907 02:39:10,160 --> 02:39:14,640 they're doing? >> No. 1908 02:39:12,399 --> 02:39:18,600 » No. Andrew, do you have any comment on that in terms of our obligations? 1909 02:39:20,399 --> 02:39:27,520 » Legally, I think you can you can seek more time to ponder this issue and 1910 02:39:24,640 --> 02:39:32,080 figure out the best way forward. Uh I don't know if they have any legal 1911 02:39:29,359 --> 02:39:36,080 expectation to have their application decided by certain day one or the other. 1912 02:39:33,920 --> 02:39:41,120 I'm not aware of any. I I don't think that we that we um 1913 02:39:38,880 --> 02:39:44,640 uh I think we have a responsibility to to act in a timely fashion with with any 1914 02:39:43,280 --> 02:39:50,160 applicant, let alone these applicants who've already been put off. Uh I would, 1915 02:39:48,880 --> 02:39:55,200 as Pat pointed out, this has been going on for a long time. I'm not sure we we 1916 02:39:51,760 --> 02:40:00,479 we are making a huge mistake um hearing and granting ultimately um upon review a 1917 02:39:58,319 --> 02:40:04,000 a license for them even if we have to say you know this this as as an 1918 02:40:02,720 --> 02:40:06,880 additional condition of that license that we're we're we're going to look at 1919 02:40:05,600 --> 02:40:10,000 the ultimate form and it could be revoked if if the change if the item is 1920 02:40:09,040 --> 02:40:13,840 changed which we have the right to do anyway but I I can't imagine that that 1921 02:40:12,479 --> 02:40:17,600 this process should hold them up because if this process takes on the type of 1922 02:40:16,080 --> 02:40:22,240 scope that we've just contemplated tonight they're not going to come up 1923 02:40:18,640 --> 02:40:24,800 before us for a year um And I don't I don't think that's that's appropriate 1924 02:40:23,680 --> 02:40:28,160 for them. >> Can I agree with Peter? I mean, I think 1925 02:40:26,800 --> 02:40:32,800 it's our best practice. >> Well, but just going back, I mean, when 1926 02:40:29,760 --> 02:40:39,600 this was initially um worked on, it took 24 public hearings in five years. 1927 02:40:35,840 --> 02:40:42,000 » Um and so, you know, >> no, no, no. 1928 02:40:40,720 --> 02:40:46,479 » I think it was the dock leases. >> The dock leases took took that long. And 1929 02:40:43,920 --> 02:40:51,040 so, I mean, it's it's >> it took 5 years and 24 public hearings. 1930 02:40:49,359 --> 02:40:53,920 It took the council 24 public hearings over a period of five years to resolve 1931 02:40:52,560 --> 02:40:57,680 all the issues and concerns that were raised by the dock owner, city attorney, 1932 02:40:55,840 --> 02:41:02,399 and other members of the city staff. >> It was before the internet. That's why. 1933 02:41:00,000 --> 02:41:09,040 » Right. Right. AI could get that down to 22 meetings in four years. Um but uh but 1934 02:41:06,640 --> 02:41:13,760 again, I think to your point, I would say we should proceed with 310 and 312. 1935 02:41:12,240 --> 02:41:20,479 um because this is going to we shouldn't hold them hostage to um a policy um 1936 02:41:17,280 --> 02:41:25,280 evolution desire by the city. Uh which could take quite a while. Um and I think 1937 02:41:23,280 --> 02:41:28,399 it's yeah similar to the sidewalk issue that you raised earlier today, Pat. It's 1938 02:41:26,880 --> 02:41:32,560 like I mean yes, we probably should have a sidewalk policy and we probably should 1939 02:41:30,960 --> 02:41:38,640 have sidewalks along the park, but we can't hold up that homeowner until we 1940 02:41:35,680 --> 02:41:41,439 get our policy work done. So that do you have a comment on that or does that make 1941 02:41:39,840 --> 02:41:46,800 sense just to we'll bring them forward and we are going to do a broader review? 1942 02:41:43,359 --> 02:41:51,280 » Okay on that one specifically um they've also agreed to maintaining the entirety 1943 02:41:49,680 --> 02:41:56,399 of the strip. So, that's one thing. We've also walked with Ma and Charlie um 1944 02:41:54,560 --> 02:42:03,040 with the homeowner, one of the property owners, and they've agreed to do some um 1945 02:42:00,080 --> 02:42:07,200 raising of a platform so that people can pass through that to give it the public 1946 02:42:06,080 --> 02:42:11,359 better access. >> Okay. So, it feels like that'll just 1947 02:42:09,280 --> 02:42:16,080 come forward as as planned next month. Um, but I have a question for for Jane 1948 02:42:13,520 --> 02:42:20,000 in relations because it sounds like um, Parks Neighbor Spaces is looking to sort 1949 02:42:17,760 --> 02:42:24,479 of revitalize the strip and so that's part of what's playing into this 1950 02:42:21,600 --> 02:42:29,040 discussion. Correct. Well, I think it's important to realize that they are a 1951 02:42:26,720 --> 02:42:33,840 very active parks open space and lanes committee and I would say lucky for us 1952 02:42:32,479 --> 02:42:41,280 because they're really doing a phenomenal job of um documenting every 1953 02:42:37,280 --> 02:42:46,960 lane and next the next um focus area is going to be on the open space and with 1954 02:42:44,000 --> 02:42:52,399 that documentation and database I really see and I think Tony has mentioned 1955 02:42:48,800 --> 02:42:59,439 before that it's a great asset because We don't have um the ability in our 1956 02:42:55,600 --> 02:43:04,240 staff to be looking uh on a regular basis at what's needed for every single 1957 02:43:01,840 --> 02:43:09,280 piece of lane and open space. But they have the ability to do that and that 1958 02:43:06,800 --> 02:43:14,800 could be easily given to them as an annual job to go along and document are 1959 02:43:13,200 --> 02:43:19,840 people um are are the ladders falling apart? 1960 02:43:17,600 --> 02:43:25,680 Can you still walk down a lane? Can you get to the strip as uh stated in their 1961 02:43:23,840 --> 02:43:31,920 uh revocable license? Are they keeping it up? And that is something that would 1962 02:43:28,240 --> 02:43:37,520 be doable um as an enforcing um issue that we always struggle for. So 1963 02:43:34,640 --> 02:43:44,240 I I think the parks open space and lane because they have renewed energy and 1964 02:43:40,720 --> 02:43:48,080 focus and um they're really tackling what they're supposed to be doing and 1965 02:43:46,240 --> 02:43:51,840 yeah so I think that is a part of it but I think it's a great benefit. 1966 02:43:50,000 --> 02:43:57,840 » Okay. So it sounds like there's broad consensus that the strip is different 1967 02:43:54,960 --> 02:44:02,479 from other RLS except for Kevin who dis disagrees with that. So it does feel 1968 02:44:00,720 --> 02:44:06,399 like there is more work to do and then the question is really how do we do that 1969 02:44:04,080 --> 02:44:13,200 work and not take five years and however many meetings. Um so I if people have 1970 02:44:10,720 --> 02:44:17,200 specific suggestions and it's I know Pat suggested a task force if it's very 1971 02:44:14,960 --> 02:44:21,800 narrow I would certainly support that. I don't know how other council members 1972 02:44:18,800 --> 02:44:21,800 feel. 1973 02:44:25,439 --> 02:44:36,160 I think if if if you reread number one, uh it's pretty it's almost an exact 1974 02:44:33,279 --> 02:44:37,840 model of what Rebecca is proposing for >> 310 312. 1975 02:44:37,279 --> 02:44:44,319 » Okay. >> Which is our existing license and you're 1976 02:44:41,200 --> 02:44:49,520 threading the needle by having increased responsibility over the whole stretch 1977 02:44:46,080 --> 02:44:54,560 and the um increased um obligation for maintenance. that can provide the 1978 02:44:53,200 --> 02:44:58,640 planning commission and ultimately us with a greater sense of public benefit 1979 02:44:56,640 --> 02:45:04,399 that works well within our our our existing licensing structure. Um because 1980 02:45:02,240 --> 02:45:08,720 uh you know you read our policy with the vocal licenses not specific to the strip 1981 02:45:07,120 --> 02:45:13,760 or anywhere else. It talks very extensively about a significant public 1982 02:45:10,399 --> 02:45:18,160 benefit. Uh so I think that approach going forward meaning guidance from us 1983 02:45:15,600 --> 02:45:23,760 in in a conversation just like this um solves decent part of the problem as far 1984 02:45:21,120 --> 02:45:28,479 as um giving the planning commission clear guidance as far as how they can um 1985 02:45:26,720 --> 02:45:31,439 recommend these licenses in this area for us going forward which might be not 1986 02:45:30,080 --> 02:45:35,760 too many going forward but nonetheless gives them that guidance which liberates 1987 02:45:33,439 --> 02:45:39,120 us I believe to think about this more holistically and maybe we push that back 1988 02:45:37,279 --> 02:45:43,920 to the parks and open space committee to think about it as um in in in concert of 1989 02:45:42,080 --> 02:45:47,600 their survey of the open spaces going forward, in particular this area, what 1990 02:45:45,680 --> 02:45:53,920 recommendations would they make to the city council uh in further licensing 1991 02:45:51,120 --> 02:45:59,520 this this area? What's the what's the um periodic uh review um survey updates and 1992 02:45:57,840 --> 02:46:01,760 then contact home owners how they need to maintain it and so forth. I mean, 1993 02:46:00,720 --> 02:46:05,040 there could be a whole schedule they could put together um that could go 1994 02:46:03,920 --> 02:46:08,880 forward. I mean, I don't know that this is something we need to invest a 1995 02:46:07,600 --> 02:46:13,840 subcommittee beyond what's already in place in the parks committee. If we if 1996 02:46:11,200 --> 02:46:20,240 if we go with a general direction that these ongoing maintenance obligations um 1997 02:46:16,720 --> 02:46:22,479 for the broader um borderto border responsibility and take out the going 1998 02:46:21,680 --> 02:46:26,800 backwards, we're not going to necessarily look at that right now. that 1999 02:46:24,240 --> 02:46:31,279 that'll become become a recommendation of of how out of sync we might be with 2000 02:46:29,040 --> 02:46:35,840 with older licenses as you look through those or as parks look looks at them one 2001 02:46:33,200 --> 02:46:40,000 by one across the total property. >> I'm a bit confused. So you're saying 2002 02:46:38,160 --> 02:46:43,680 going forwards we should impose broader requirements but in terms of the the 2003 02:46:41,840 --> 02:46:46,800 existing licenses you're saying leave them be? 2004 02:46:44,479 --> 02:46:52,000 » Leave them be. I think parks open space part of their open space survey is not 2005 02:46:49,520 --> 02:46:55,760 only to look at the physical um um um condition of the of the strip, but 2006 02:46:53,359 --> 02:46:59,520 examine the licenses to see how they how how they correspond into the maintenance 2007 02:46:57,520 --> 02:47:02,160 that that exists on the strip and come back to us and say these these six 2008 02:47:00,880 --> 02:47:04,640 licenses are in good shape. These six licenses are in bad shape. Here's how 2009 02:47:03,359 --> 02:47:07,200 you could potentially improve them. >> They're in good shape or bad shape. 2010 02:47:05,920 --> 02:47:09,120 Meaning that they're not maintaining the whole the whole 2011 02:47:08,160 --> 02:47:11,520 » they're either not they're not they're not they're not maintaining as they're 2012 02:47:10,240 --> 02:47:15,600 supposed to maintaining it or the license doesn't cover the area that 2013 02:47:12,880 --> 02:47:18,640 needs to be maintained. You know, if I were to do it, I I would look at the the 2014 02:47:17,200 --> 02:47:22,479 three or four three properties that exist there and have a good 2015 02:47:20,479 --> 02:47:27,200 understanding of all the licenses and have a database that identifies uh where 2016 02:47:25,040 --> 02:47:31,600 the problems are. Are they covered by licenses? And if they are, um then the 2017 02:47:30,160 --> 02:47:35,920 the homeowner is not living up to their obligation as a LE. And if if if if an 2018 02:47:34,399 --> 02:47:39,279 area that's neglected or needs needs some some attention is not covered by a 2019 02:47:37,600 --> 02:47:42,240 license, either the city needs to address that problem short of a 2020 02:47:40,800 --> 02:47:45,359 landslide or something like that or we need to go to that homeowner, talk to 2021 02:47:44,080 --> 02:47:48,399 them about broadening their their responsibility, revoke the license, or 2022 02:47:47,040 --> 02:47:54,240 if we don't see that as a plausible option, we need to, you know, step in 2023 02:47:50,960 --> 02:47:58,720 and and and recognize that is a a an obligation or a liability, you know, for 2024 02:47:56,399 --> 02:48:01,680 our further assessment of our property. So the only thing I would say there is 2025 02:47:59,840 --> 02:48:08,000 this sounds like it gets into a little bit of the Milzac stuff where you don't 2026 02:48:04,240 --> 02:48:12,880 actually see the annual uh reviews taking place or or it just falling 2027 02:48:10,240 --> 02:48:15,520 apart. And so to me, you have to cover if you're going to do it forward 2028 02:48:14,160 --> 02:48:18,800 looking, you do it backward looking to you issue everybody with with the new 2029 02:48:17,279 --> 02:48:23,040 requirements and then park and then parks and urban space can come and say 2030 02:48:20,880 --> 02:48:27,680 when those on they're not honoring those agreements. I'm just responding to to 2031 02:48:25,359 --> 02:48:33,680 both Jane and and and and the parks open space based committee wanting 2032 02:48:30,319 --> 02:48:38,240 a a seat at this table to to to continue the assessment process just as they do 2033 02:48:36,000 --> 02:48:43,359 the lanes um that these open space including the strip becomes part of 2034 02:48:40,000 --> 02:48:45,840 their ongoing um active review of of city property. 2035 02:48:44,240 --> 02:48:51,359 » But does that answer the full question that we're being asked tonight? I mean, 2036 02:48:48,640 --> 02:48:56,080 that's talking about maintenance. And I think we're sitting here saying, you 2037 02:48:53,600 --> 02:49:03,840 know, we have private development on public land that 2038 02:48:59,200 --> 02:49:11,120 we've given RLS to, and are those RLS the correct vehicle we should be using? 2039 02:49:07,760 --> 02:49:15,680 And if they are the correct vehicle, does it cover everything that needs to 2040 02:49:13,040 --> 02:49:20,240 be covered? Because the R the the strip is different. So, I think there's, you 2041 02:49:18,720 --> 02:49:24,960 know, I mean, I think it's great park and open space wants to go out and take 2042 02:49:22,240 --> 02:49:28,560 a look and see, you know, who's maintaining, who's not maintaining, who 2043 02:49:26,880 --> 02:49:33,600 needs to do this, who needs to do that. But I think that we're at a higher level 2044 02:49:30,399 --> 02:49:39,840 here asking the question, you know, how how are we going to address this private 2045 02:49:36,160 --> 02:49:45,680 development on public land and, you know, a a greater question of, you know, 2046 02:49:43,120 --> 02:49:51,040 who's responsible for what. And I think that no offense to anybody, but I think 2047 02:49:48,479 --> 02:49:56,080 it goes beyond park and open lane for that discussion. So I just thought that 2048 02:49:54,240 --> 02:50:01,520 if there was a task force, we could look at you know what could a lease look 2049 02:49:58,800 --> 02:50:04,800 like? What you know how how are we going to come up with the FIA? There's 2050 02:50:03,200 --> 02:50:09,120 somebody else out there that, you know, we can look at how they have it 2051 02:50:06,160 --> 02:50:13,120 structured. I think we're very unique in what we have. So I I I don't know if 2052 02:50:11,439 --> 02:50:18,560 we'll find somebody that has the same situation, but I think it just takes a a 2053 02:50:16,399 --> 02:50:24,960 broader look to see the potential of what we can and can't do. And you know, 2054 02:50:21,840 --> 02:50:29,040 with alongside respecting our community and the members who have their RL and 2055 02:50:27,600 --> 02:50:33,600 how we're going to mesh this all together so that we can all get the 2056 02:50:31,920 --> 02:50:37,600 greatest benefit. They get the great benefit, we get a great benefit. 2057 02:50:36,399 --> 02:50:41,920 The only thing I would add to that though is that the city has already 2058 02:50:39,359 --> 02:50:45,120 decided assuming that these structures comply with what was approved by the 2059 02:50:43,680 --> 02:50:50,960 city. I mean the city has already decided that these people can build what 2060 02:50:47,760 --> 02:50:56,720 they've built. So I mean I would just be cautious about reopening decisions that 2061 02:50:54,000 --> 02:51:00,800 have been made and settled for many many years. I mean, if there are things that 2062 02:50:58,720 --> 02:51:06,000 we want to do on a going forward basis that addresses some of these issues that 2063 02:51:02,800 --> 02:51:09,840 were raised tonight, um I can understand that, but but I don't think that we want 2064 02:51:07,760 --> 02:51:14,880 to create a narrative that we're going to um at least in my opinion um 2065 02:51:12,560 --> 02:51:17,600 re-examine what we've already decided. That would be like someone coming and 2066 02:51:16,080 --> 02:51:21,520 saying, "Hey, you know, we've changed our mind and you can't have your second 2067 02:51:19,439 --> 02:51:25,359 story if it was approved or whatever." It's like that's that's settled. That's 2068 02:51:23,600 --> 02:51:30,800 settled. I I can see where you're coming from, but I'm also thinking, okay, so 2069 02:51:27,600 --> 02:51:36,560 someone has had a revocable license for 15 years, and you know, somebody, you 2070 02:51:34,560 --> 02:51:38,399 know, I mean, I don't want to pick on any single property. 2071 02:51:37,840 --> 02:51:43,040 » Don't, >> but I mean, you know, we had this 2072 02:51:41,120 --> 02:51:48,319 arrangement, it no longer is working. Now we want this new arrangement. Well, 2073 02:51:45,279 --> 02:51:53,040 okay, they had a revocable license, but that revocable license they had, they 2074 02:51:51,439 --> 02:51:56,880 don't want anymore. So now we got to give them a different revocable license 2075 02:51:54,880 --> 02:52:01,279 because they're doing reconstruction or changing the whatever. That is when we 2076 02:51:59,359 --> 02:52:03,520 could go to someone and say, "Okay, you know, this is how we're going to 2077 02:52:02,720 --> 02:52:06,800 structure it, >> right?" But that's different. I mean, 2078 02:52:04,720 --> 02:52:10,399 like a catalyst for change like at 310 and 312 to me is different because 2079 02:52:08,319 --> 02:52:13,439 they're coming to the city saying, >> "Pard me, 2080 02:52:11,040 --> 02:52:16,240 » no properties mentioned." >> Well, no, no. I mean, but that one we we 2081 02:52:14,960 --> 02:52:20,319 have because it's the one that we said we should bring forward. But that's to 2082 02:52:18,160 --> 02:52:23,840 me uh it's a catalyst for change and so therefore it's required to go through 2083 02:52:22,240 --> 02:52:28,880 this process. It's being you know they're saying hey we'd like the city to 2084 02:52:26,160 --> 02:52:32,880 actually give us something. Um and so I think it's a fair thing to discuss um 2085 02:52:31,279 --> 02:52:36,960 you know what's the best and most balanced approach to that. I just again 2086 02:52:34,880 --> 02:52:40,880 I'm just cautioning about you know being very careful about navigating decisions 2087 02:52:38,800 --> 02:52:45,760 that have been made made for many many years. um experiences people are relying 2088 02:52:44,000 --> 02:52:50,160 on and counting on because the city's granted those experiences and so we ne 2089 02:52:48,240 --> 02:52:55,040 we should just be very careful and I would be very respectful of those 2090 02:52:51,760 --> 02:52:58,319 settled decisions. Yeah. And I I recommended that approach or just 2091 02:52:56,880 --> 02:53:03,840 throughout that approach number one without the retroactive element um just 2092 02:53:01,600 --> 02:53:08,479 doing my informal headcount um I didn't see a great will to among I guess at 2093 02:53:06,399 --> 02:53:16,880 least the four of us to to change much of the methodology uh leases fees um 2094 02:53:13,600 --> 02:53:20,560 structure- wise um other than trying to improve the maintenance um 2095 02:53:18,960 --> 02:53:25,120 liability and potentially the public benefit um And 2096 02:53:23,600 --> 02:53:29,600 then to consider that what what what what Pat and Rico talked about is is 2097 02:53:27,200 --> 02:53:34,319 having um the parks and space committee sort of continue their their their 2098 02:53:31,680 --> 02:53:38,160 broader oversight of this of these of this space just like they do the um the 2099 02:53:36,479 --> 02:53:41,840 lanes and everything else. >> But then maybe that would be helpful if 2100 02:53:40,319 --> 02:53:47,520 we're going to have folks think about this. Maybe we need to be clear on the 2101 02:53:44,640 --> 02:53:52,960 parameters like I mean is this screen space uh or is this you know here are 2102 02:53:50,800 --> 02:53:58,960 some parameters to operate within or to ideulate within. Um again I I'm maybe 2103 02:53:56,399 --> 02:54:03,920 there aren't but I I think we we haven't I don't think aligned on that tonight. 2104 02:54:00,880 --> 02:54:08,160 Um and maybe that's worth coming back 2105 02:54:06,000 --> 02:54:13,120 and agreeing to it might make it a more productive all 2106 02:54:10,479 --> 02:54:16,960 over the place. Um as Peter said, do we mostly have 2107 02:54:14,880 --> 02:54:21,920 agreement that that before discussing whether it's just uh 2108 02:54:19,920 --> 02:54:27,040 going forward or retroactively an an idea of it's the maintenance obligations 2109 02:54:23,920 --> 02:54:32,760 that we want to uh pass over is that is a broad agreement that that's the core 2110 02:54:28,880 --> 02:54:32,760 issue that we have here. 2111 02:54:33,840 --> 02:54:42,800 Well, I mean, I think the maintenance is part of it and then it's um 2112 02:54:40,399 --> 02:54:48,720 uh I mean, I don't want to take anything away from anybody that has anything. Um 2113 02:54:45,520 --> 02:54:58,160 I'm not, you know, advocating for that. Um but a lot of it is is just, you know, 2114 02:54:52,479 --> 02:55:01,680 um uh when people redo their staircase um down to the dock, sometimes they 2115 02:55:00,080 --> 02:55:05,840 change it. Sometimes it was like a direct, you know, like kill her down and 2116 02:55:04,080 --> 02:55:08,960 now they want to kind of do a meandering thing. Well, that's kind of a new 2117 02:55:07,120 --> 02:55:13,920 revocable license and that's where we can open up the discussion. So, um I'm 2118 02:55:12,319 --> 02:55:18,960 not advocating that we take anything away from anybody, but I'm just thinking 2119 02:55:16,160 --> 02:55:28,000 that we need to think of this in a longer term how we're going to um look 2120 02:55:23,600 --> 02:55:32,319 at maintenance and and and you know, is is the revocable license the right term 2121 02:55:30,319 --> 02:55:36,240 we should use or should the revocable license switch to something else? I 2122 02:55:34,399 --> 02:55:44,160 don't know. I wonder if we've had task force before 2123 02:55:38,720 --> 02:55:48,800 that have had um finite dates on them and I don't know if that's a possibility 2124 02:55:46,800 --> 02:55:53,600 just to get a little bit more information from the community greater 2125 02:55:51,359 --> 02:55:59,040 community as well as having parks open space and lane representatives 2126 02:55:56,319 --> 02:56:03,840 there and maybe you know so that it doesn't take five years 2127 02:56:01,520 --> 02:56:07,680 make it a three month >> meeting schedule kind of like the seaw 2128 02:56:05,760 --> 02:56:14,000 wall is not going on forever and they have a a small subcommi committee that's 2129 02:56:11,279 --> 02:56:18,160 meeting as needed and getting through whatever it is they need to get done and 2130 02:56:16,240 --> 02:56:22,240 perhaps we can use that as a model for something 2131 02:56:19,760 --> 02:56:25,040 more finite in time. >> Rebecca, I feel like we're giving you no 2132 02:56:23,680 --> 02:56:29,520 direction here whatsoever because we're all over the map. I think I think what 2133 02:56:27,120 --> 02:56:33,680 some things I'm hearing are I think parks open space lanes committee would 2134 02:56:32,240 --> 02:56:38,800 you know they have the energy they have the momentum it would be great if they 2135 02:56:35,760 --> 02:56:43,600 could assess each revocable license and like Jane and Pat were saying that some 2136 02:56:41,359 --> 02:56:48,000 of them cover the entirety of the strips some of them only cover the stairs right 2137 02:56:46,160 --> 02:56:53,920 so then that can give us sort of a basis of what we're looking at right and I 2138 02:56:50,800 --> 02:56:58,960 don't think I think we're looking at ways is to 2139 02:56:57,200 --> 02:57:03,680 move forward with these revocable licenses. You have to remember we have 2140 02:57:00,800 --> 02:57:08,640 all those 21 properties. There's 19 RLS already. So the chances of a new RL 2141 02:57:06,479 --> 02:57:12,640 coming back are pretty rare, >> right? Unless somebody sells a property, 2142 02:57:10,399 --> 02:57:16,560 demos a house, and red does it. Those, you know, that you know that's probably 2143 02:57:14,560 --> 02:57:20,560 going to happen. It's happened once in the 10 years I've worked here. So I 2144 02:57:18,880 --> 02:57:25,520 think we could move forward with pars space 2145 02:57:23,359 --> 02:57:28,960 lane doing an assessment and then coming back and reporting on that and seeing if 2146 02:57:27,200 --> 02:57:36,160 there's anything that we can do to sort of you know improve getting more 2147 02:57:31,920 --> 02:57:44,080 maintenance out there. I also think that keeping the existing RL might be a road 2148 02:57:40,160 --> 02:57:49,600 we want to go down and enter into and enter new language for RL's in the strip 2149 02:57:47,279 --> 02:57:52,800 that discusses maintenance moving forward, 2150 02:57:50,240 --> 02:57:56,880 » right? similar to what might be coming next month, 2151 02:57:54,880 --> 02:58:02,880 which to me seems pretty clean, but I don't know if it goes as far in depth as 2152 02:57:59,680 --> 02:58:06,720 Pat is suggesting, but it seems like it would sort of help 2153 02:58:04,560 --> 02:58:12,080 us move move forward, >> right? Um, so I guess the only question 2154 02:58:09,600 --> 02:58:16,319 is in terms of asking parks and open spaces to do that, obviously Jane would 2155 02:58:13,840 --> 02:58:21,200 be working with them on that. Is there any reason to include any other council 2156 02:58:18,399 --> 02:58:27,439 member in this in that part of this or not? Meaning do you feel like you're do 2157 02:58:23,920 --> 02:58:30,800 you do would that be helpful? >> No, I I think it's fine unless someone 2158 02:58:29,439 --> 02:58:33,760 wants to do it. I don't think it's necessary. 2159 02:58:31,279 --> 02:58:37,279 » Okay. So does that seem like a good approach that first parks and open 2160 02:58:35,520 --> 02:58:40,720 spaces does that assessment and at the same time as they're providing that 2161 02:58:39,279 --> 02:58:45,840 information we really start to think about what the policy will be around 2162 02:58:43,600 --> 02:58:48,880 whether we're just requiring maintenance obligations or 2163 02:58:47,279 --> 02:58:52,000 whether we have to open this up more more broadly. Well, I guess yeah, the 2164 02:58:50,319 --> 02:58:55,120 question, you know, the question is po. What is the point of them doing that? We 2165 02:58:53,600 --> 02:58:58,720 already have they already exist. These RLS, we're not we're not going to go 2166 02:58:56,560 --> 02:59:02,560 retroactively back. So, I don't know. No, maybe that's not the best use of 2167 02:59:01,040 --> 02:59:06,319 their time. >> Well, sorry, not helpful. But now that 2168 02:59:05,120 --> 02:59:10,880 I'm thinking about it, we don't want to waste their time on 2169 02:59:08,560 --> 02:59:16,479 » I believe the way forward is to do a a a slightly modified uh uh robo license 2170 02:59:13,840 --> 02:59:20,720 addressing the the the the additional uh stabilization landscaping maintenance 2171 02:59:18,560 --> 02:59:26,000 aspects of this particular pieces of piece pieces of property. Um which which 2172 02:59:24,080 --> 02:59:29,359 gives gives this the city the more the security relative to stabilization but 2173 02:59:27,680 --> 02:59:32,560 also helps thread that needle which I talked about relative to the public 2174 02:59:30,479 --> 02:59:38,319 benefit. That seems the right approach going forward. I'm responding to parks 2175 02:59:35,760 --> 02:59:42,240 open space um existing and already planned survey of open spaces in the 2176 02:59:40,640 --> 02:59:45,680 next year whenever they decided to do that whenever they hope to do that. And 2177 02:59:43,920 --> 02:59:51,040 it wouldn't be that difficult in that survey of these open spaces to um 2178 02:59:49,040 --> 02:59:54,399 include information about whether it's licensed or not, whether there's whether 2179 02:59:52,800 --> 02:59:58,880 there's full full coverage of the property, whether there's um landscaping 2180 02:59:56,800 --> 03:00:02,240 um um responsibilities to the homeowner. whatever three or four or five questions 2181 03:00:00,319 --> 03:00:06,720 they come up with to identify where there's additional risks relative to 2182 03:00:04,000 --> 03:00:10,720 that public space um as it relates to the the public's use of that space. And 2183 03:00:09,040 --> 03:00:13,840 if and if one one property doesn't have a license on it covering anything more 2184 03:00:12,240 --> 03:00:18,399 than just the stairway up the up the hill and there's a lot of loose loose 2185 03:00:15,680 --> 03:00:22,319 soil with no with no vegetation there, I might say in that survey, this is this 2186 03:00:20,560 --> 03:00:26,720 poses some risk of of slide in the future and maybe maybe that gets rolled 2187 03:00:25,200 --> 03:00:29,600 over to Tony and then and they do a more sophisticated assessment because that 2188 03:00:28,240 --> 03:00:32,960 could become the same situation where we had with BCDC, you know, this past year. 2189 03:00:31,520 --> 03:00:35,920 But but the issue I have with that is that while we have an active parks and 2190 03:00:34,399 --> 03:00:38,720 open spaces right now, we might not do in five or 10 years time and then 2191 03:00:37,600 --> 03:00:41,439 nobody's doing those assessments. >> But I think it's a onetime survey just 2192 03:00:40,080 --> 03:00:43,760 like your like your lane survey. I don't know that it needs to be readressed that 2193 03:00:43,359 --> 03:00:47,359 often. >> But but that would be a peacemeal 2194 03:00:45,680 --> 03:00:52,000 approach. So you're saying some we would apply this retroactively to some 2195 03:00:49,359 --> 03:00:54,479 depending on the circumstances and not all. 2196 03:00:52,560 --> 03:00:57,920 » No, it's just a it's just an assessment. It just it just tells you where we are 2197 03:00:56,000 --> 03:01:02,800 because that that way you file it not only in the in in the parks archives but 2198 03:01:00,720 --> 03:01:06,880 Rebecca has it so she knows the history of where everything is 2199 03:01:05,520 --> 03:01:11,120 » but we're not expanding their obligations retroactively under your 2200 03:01:09,040 --> 03:01:14,479 model with Kevin on that. I don't think we we 2201 03:01:12,720 --> 03:01:20,000 can or should necessarily sort of impose new requirements on people imposing new 2202 03:01:17,439 --> 03:01:25,840 requirements but within the RL it does talk about maintaining. So if they have 2203 03:01:23,760 --> 03:01:31,600 an RL and the maintenance is not occurring then it would give the city 2204 03:01:28,319 --> 03:01:36,479 leverage to be able to say we've noticed that the stairs are crumbling and you 2205 03:01:34,399 --> 03:01:40,880 haven't kept them up and this is now dangerous for the public. You know what 2206 03:01:38,880 --> 03:01:44,560 » it would also provide a good basis if they did come back for a new RL for new 2207 03:01:43,120 --> 03:01:49,920 improvements we could say well we have this study and here's what you know 2208 03:01:46,800 --> 03:01:52,240 » and could could we ask MA if this seems okay 2209 03:01:50,640 --> 03:01:56,000 » ma come back up. >> So, she's right there. 2210 03:01:54,240 --> 03:01:59,520 » We're sort of telling her what she's doing. 2211 03:01:57,279 --> 03:02:04,960 » Yeah. So, I I would Yes. >> Oh, it's green. Is it Is it on? Yeah. 2212 03:02:01,600 --> 03:02:09,680 Okay. Um Yeah. I think so what we were looking to do is as part of this open 2213 03:02:07,520 --> 03:02:14,160 space that we did commit to work on this year because we did the lanes one last 2214 03:02:11,439 --> 03:02:19,600 year. So, we're heading into fiscal year whatever July 1. um is to and so we've 2215 03:02:17,760 --> 03:02:23,120 already started is to look at all of the open space not just the strip but all 2216 03:02:21,439 --> 03:02:26,800 the open space and to do a similar survey that we did with the lanes um 2217 03:02:25,279 --> 03:02:31,520 which is looking at sort of all the different aspects to create this sort of 2218 03:02:29,120 --> 03:02:36,479 catalog for the city and sort of a baseline you know look into what they 2219 03:02:34,479 --> 03:02:42,880 have and one of the big things that has come up for us was of course these uh 2220 03:02:39,520 --> 03:02:46,720 RLS particularly in the strip and so what we realized is we did look at a 2221 03:02:44,640 --> 03:02:51,520 handful of them and I will say recent projects encouraged us to do that. So we 2222 03:02:49,520 --> 03:02:57,920 did look at a couple and they are the ones that are there are very different 2223 03:02:53,920 --> 03:03:02,160 and there are bits that one um would I believe the city give the city if the 2224 03:03:00,080 --> 03:03:06,880 city had that survey they would know what the existing obligation is under 2225 03:03:04,640 --> 03:03:11,359 existing RLS and whether they're being fulfilled and so I think that is a 2226 03:03:09,120 --> 03:03:16,560 benefit and it's not retroactively creating anything it's really looking at 2227 03:03:13,680 --> 03:03:21,040 what exists and you know are they doing it an example is you know giant giant 2228 03:03:19,120 --> 03:03:26,000 trees that have fallen down and now are blocking the beach. And the question is, 2229 03:03:24,240 --> 03:03:30,319 uh, it came up earlier, you know, is that the city's maintenance obligation 2230 03:03:27,920 --> 03:03:34,399 or is this happen to be one of the RL's that's bigger and it actually should be 2231 03:03:32,640 --> 03:03:38,479 the homeowners and and I don't think anybody knows because they're not easy 2232 03:03:36,479 --> 03:03:43,040 to find. Um, that's, you know, they're they're buried and they're not easy to 2233 03:03:40,000 --> 03:03:46,240 find. Um, and so, uh, I mean, I looked at them up at the county assessor's 2234 03:03:44,800 --> 03:03:52,720 office because I was there waiting for my jury duty. So um so that's the one 2235 03:03:50,960 --> 03:03:58,720 thing. The other piece that I just want to bring up um that this has been a big 2236 03:03:55,439 --> 03:04:03,840 focus on maintenance at the core of this and a big piece as to why we are you 2237 03:04:02,319 --> 03:04:09,680 know looking at this and why we're looking at open space and lanes is about 2238 03:04:06,240 --> 03:04:15,760 public access. And so to the extent that the city has allowed um has given RLS 2239 03:04:13,120 --> 03:04:19,840 where there are stairs to get to to get to the beach and to get up and over the 2240 03:04:17,680 --> 03:04:25,840 dock and we've and people have put in docks or developments that block 2241 03:04:22,319 --> 03:04:31,439 people's access their walkway across the public area. Um and there are places 2242 03:04:29,279 --> 03:04:35,439 where stairs that were there are no longer there. This is an example and I'm 2243 03:04:33,920 --> 03:04:38,640 not, you know, I don't I couldn't even tell you the numbers, but there are 2244 03:04:36,720 --> 03:04:44,399 stairs that were clearly there that would have given people passage that 2245 03:04:41,439 --> 03:04:49,520 were probably part of the original development in RL and now they're gone. 2246 03:04:47,120 --> 03:04:54,000 And so that at certain tides that prevents the public from having public 2247 03:04:51,439 --> 03:04:58,240 access across that land because it's not just that they're maintaining an unsafe 2248 03:04:56,160 --> 03:05:05,680 land area, it's that they're not protecting public access across the city 2249 03:05:03,040 --> 03:05:11,200 city's land, which is part of all RL's. So I I didn't want us to lose track of 2250 03:05:07,760 --> 03:05:15,359 that in this focus on maintenance. Um because there's a ton of different 2251 03:05:13,279 --> 03:05:18,640 things down there. There's decks, there's steps, there's doc connections 2252 03:05:17,359 --> 03:05:23,439 to doc that are up high, there's connections to docs that are down low, 2253 03:05:20,560 --> 03:05:27,120 and the down low ones block access. Um, we did mention the proposals for the 2254 03:05:25,200 --> 03:05:31,040 upcoming one. Well, we met with them. We had a great meeting with them and 2255 03:05:28,960 --> 03:05:35,279 realized if they um what they're proposing, if they raised sort of did 2256 03:05:33,200 --> 03:05:40,240 some sort of an adjustment of how they laid out the stairs, you could easily go 2257 03:05:37,200 --> 03:05:45,279 behind it. So that's an example of not changing the obligation of existing RLS 2258 03:05:43,760 --> 03:05:48,640 but really looking at what was the obligation to start out with and are 2259 03:05:47,120 --> 03:05:52,960 they still fulfilling it both for maintenance as well as for access. Okay, 2260 03:05:50,800 --> 03:05:59,840 » Ra that was very helpful. So thank thank you for that. So does the approach seem 2261 03:05:56,080 --> 03:06:04,160 to be that we going forwards we're going to do what we do with this with the this 2262 03:06:01,920 --> 03:06:09,120 new property that we're going to require them to cover the whole lot. Um that's 2263 03:06:07,760 --> 03:06:13,439 all that we're going to do right now in relation to RLS, but we are going to 2264 03:06:10,720 --> 03:06:17,760 have parks and open spaces do a review of everything existing and come back to 2265 03:06:15,200 --> 03:06:21,279 us. Do you have an idea in terms of time horizon? Do you want to bring that back 2266 03:06:19,040 --> 03:06:26,560 to the city council directly or how would you want to approach that? 2267 03:06:24,000 --> 03:06:31,359 » I will say this is brand is a new sort of a timeframed assignment. So I think 2268 03:06:29,040 --> 03:06:36,960 you know we would be happy to you know get the direction from you. um it it 2269 03:06:34,640 --> 03:06:41,680 will take a while so we don't want to delay. We're very eager to do it and we 2270 03:06:38,720 --> 03:06:45,840 had given ourselves this year to sort of do it. You know that was and we've 2271 03:06:43,279 --> 03:06:50,800 already you know gotten started so we will be on it and so you give us the 2272 03:06:48,000 --> 03:06:53,680 direction if you gave us a a timeline we would look forward to meeting it because 2273 03:06:51,760 --> 03:06:57,040 this is our top priority one of our top priorities for the year. I think this is 2274 03:06:55,439 --> 03:07:01,439 and as you can see even just from today's meeting um and and recent events 2275 03:06:59,600 --> 03:07:05,200 it's it's very critical and we want to be a partner. So what's the shortest 2276 03:07:03,520 --> 03:07:07,680 timeline you feel is realistic? I guess that's a question. I 2277 03:07:05,920 --> 03:07:11,359 » I think the summer is very difficult because everybody, you know, all of our 2278 03:07:09,439 --> 03:07:15,920 members are coming and going. So I would say that to expect us to come back um at 2279 03:07:14,160 --> 03:07:19,120 some time in the fall, I'd have to even I have to look at our meeting schedule 2280 03:07:17,680 --> 03:07:22,640 because the other thing is we only have so many meetings. So I would need to 2281 03:07:20,479 --> 03:07:27,359 look at the meeting schedule that I don't have um at hand. Maybe 2282 03:07:25,279 --> 03:07:29,200 » maybe Tony does. So by the end of the year 2283 03:07:27,680 --> 03:07:31,680 » or or at your next meeting, why don't you um 2284 03:07:30,240 --> 03:07:36,319 » you know come up with come up with a date and have a meeting in June. 2285 03:07:34,960 --> 03:07:40,160 Yeah, we have a meeting. We do have a meeting in coming up in June. So we 2286 03:07:38,319 --> 03:07:42,160 could do that and and Jane could report back. 2287 03:07:40,800 --> 03:07:44,800 » Perfect. And you always have the option for special meetings if you need more 2288 03:07:43,680 --> 03:07:49,279 meetings as you know. >> Absolutely. And we do have um just so 2289 03:07:46,800 --> 03:07:52,960 you know this whole project is being done by a subcommittee, you know. So we 2290 03:07:51,520 --> 03:07:54,960 have a subcommittee who who are working on this and working on it in between the 2291 03:07:54,479 --> 03:07:58,319 meetings. >> Okay. Great. Okay. Do do we we don't 2292 03:07:57,120 --> 03:08:01,279 you're just looking for feedback here. We don't need any specific motion on 2293 03:07:59,840 --> 03:08:05,760 this. No. >> Correct. Did I take public comment? I 2294 03:08:04,160 --> 03:08:11,200 can't remember. >> I did. So, okay. I think we are done 2295 03:08:09,200 --> 03:08:15,760 with that item. Moving on quickly to our last item which is open forum. Um I'm 2296 03:08:14,160 --> 03:08:18,319 not going to read the whole verbiage. Um is there anybody here for public comment 2297 03:08:17,359 --> 03:08:20,240 for the open forum? >> Uh Mayor Wilgson, there are no hands 2298 03:08:19,920 --> 03:08:23,680 raised >> and I see nobody in the audience. So 2299 03:08:21,760 --> 03:08:28,120 with that, I think we can adjourn. Thank you to everybody. 2300 03:08:24,399 --> 03:08:28,120 » Thank you. Thank you.