Great. Um, I will call to uh order this uh city of Bvad Council meeting of
Monday, May the 11th, 2026. Can I get a roll call, please?
» Council member Cooper >> here.
» Council member Burke >> here.
» Mayor Wilkinson, >> present. Council member Carropet,
» here. >> For the record, Council Member Mark will
be joining us momentarily. >> He's right there. Perfect.
» Okay, with with that, we're going to be moving to item two, which is the close
session.
» Perfect timing.
Crazy.
» Are we Are we live? Okay, great. Um, do I need Beth? Do I need another roll
call? No. Okay, great. So, I'm reporting out from the close session on the uh
conference with labor negotiator and public employee performance evaluation.
There is nothing to report. Um, so we are now going to move on to item number
three, which is reports and presentations. Uh, firstly starting with
city council reports. Does any council member have an update?
Oh, sorry. Um, so I want to report that uh Jane and I attended the wildfire
preparedness forum on Saturday, May 2nd in San Rafale. Um, and um they there
they presented a new Marin County Community Wildfire Protection Plan and
the acronym is CWPP. And this evaluation outlines the seven
areas that need an action plan. And they actually had one for the town of um
Tibbron which included Belvadier. And um
I've reached out to the uh Tibberon um fire department to ask how this is um
how they're going to interact with Belvadier on this uh report. And I think
in the future it would be good to have them come and give us a um an
explanation and an update on their action plan.
Um we also had a um get ready I guess I should ask Jane did you want to add
anything to that? No. Um, we also had a get ready 9492 meeting or um I'm sorry
uh get ready 9492 um has a class um on May 20th um at the library from 1 to 3
if anyone's interested in attending and we had a be ready Belvadier meeting
um where we were still focusing on our event prior to the Belvadier film
festival on October 6 and we'll be having um more um details to follow in
the coming months. >> Thank you, Jane.
» More emergency preparedness. I attended the April Belvadier Chibron Emergency
Preparation Council prep. Yes, I think that's it.
And learned that Chief Woo, our actor and resident, and Lori Nilson are
creating many videos focused on emergency preparedness.
Um the first video will show how to put a go bag together and as the videos are
finished um we'll link them to our B Ready Belvadier website section and I
think they're supposed to be just around 30 seconds long and they'll go there
will be a series of them and um uh different people from the community will
get involved and and participate in making the video. So I think it'll be a
great addition to our uh B Ready Belvadier area. people can click right
on it and get a quick 30 second little message on how to do things. So,
and um the in-depth training happening at the library on May 20th will be
announced in the breeze this coming week. That's all I have.
» Nobody else? Um okay, I will open this for public comment.
» Mayor Wilkinson, there are no hands raised.
» Okay. Thank you. Okay, moving on to um item 3B, which is our city manager
report. >> Yes, thank you, Mayor Wilkinson. I do
have a couple of updates this evening. Uh first, I'll start with Malard. Uh
staff continues to meet uh regularly with the Malard team to work through the
remaining items identified in the city's incomplete incompleteness letter. In
parallel with those discussions, the city attorney has been reviewing the
subdivision improvement agreement, affordable housing agreement, and
regulatory agreements. Based on their current schedule, the applicant is
working towards and still hopes to bring the final map forward to council for
council consideration at the June for a June hearing, I should say. um on the
relocation component for the project. Rebecca's team is working with our
consultants to prepare the relocation benefits analysis and an action plan
that shows practically how the relocations will occur. Our objective is
to have that work substantially complete in the next 30 days so the city can
ensure the process is transparent for the tenants and of course that it's
meeting the state's tenant protection laws. Uh in parallel, staff has also
begun the onboarding for Eric Sebrook, who will serve as the city's uh project
coordinator. One of the immediate priorities that's been discussed was
improving organization and public accessibility of project materials,
particularly through the website, uh including other supporting documents.
Uh that effort is currently underway. Rebecca is also coordinating a meet and
greet community event with Mr. Sebrook. Uh we're trying to work that in towards
the end end of May and we'll put some meeting details in this week's breeze
once we have those dates ironed out. Um switching gears to the seaw wall. Last
month city council approved the seaw wall strengthening project along Beach
Road. They chose to award the construction contract to the lowest
bidder Gordon NB who's a general engineering contractor. The contractor
has completed execution of the contract documents including the submission of
the required insurance and bonding and the project is now moving into the
pre-construction coordination phase. Uh as part of that effort, the city
contractor, the engineering team uh have been reviewing opportunities to refine
portions of the design now that the actual con construction unit pricing is
known. And fortunately, it's looking like there may be some um you know,
minor opportunities for small tweaks to the design to save money. Um so that's
positive news. On utilities coordination for that same project, staff recently
met with P Gen on site, uh Comcast San District number five, Marin Water, uh
Gordon Ball, the contractor, and the city's consultants to coordinate
infrastructure work associated with the project. Uh and I am happy to report
that P gen has scheduled its undergrounding utility modification
which was an important part of the project. Uh they've asked for
encroachment permits for the week of June 15th. Um also Marin Water has
already begun preparatory work for the project as well. So overall uh the
coordination with the different phases of construction appears to be on track.
Uh again uh in terms of the permits, you may recall that all regulatory permits
for the projects have been approved with the exception of the Army Corps of
Engineers. Uh their process is taking longer than expected. Uh Tony and the
city's permanent consultant are watching this closely and they're doing what they
can to expedite that approval. Uh staff is also gearing up for public outreach.
A focused neighborhood meeting for the directly impacted Beach Road residents
is scheduled for May 19th and a broader community workshop is tentatively
planned for early June to provide project information and answer questions
from the public. In addition, staff is working on expanding the project web
page to improve public access and project materials on on ongoing basis.
And then finally uh we will be dividing in uh diving into some more details on
these points with the seaw wall subcommittee. Tony reached out to the
members today and scheduled another update uh meeting which we're hoping to
put in place in the next couple of weeks. That's all I have for now. I'm
happy to take questions. >> Any questions?
» Uh thanks Robert for that. A quick quick
one um related to Malard. Uh you mentioned the relo relocation consultant
that you've engaged. Do you have a sense or does Rebecca have a sense of how many
uh tenants this might apply to? >> Not not very many from what I have
heard. Yeah. >> So two are one is confirmed um disease.
I think the other one is also I I don't have that paperwork yet. And then there
are two um active people who have moved out of Malard. But um I just talked to
their both both their sons today and they are interested in pursuing the
relocation benefits and so I they're in contact with the consultant.
» So does that have a similar timeline that if because if they're they're no
longer living there but but the fact that they were there at a certain point
they they are um well I think I was I I was looking for that word eligible for
those benefits. >> Yes. Yes. And I'm not an expert on uh
housing relocation, but yes, they are eligible, I believe, to some of the
benefits. >> Okay. Thank you.
» Any other questions? Um I guess I have uh one just to be clear. If for them to
bring um a full final map to us in June, when would um everything be filed with
need to be filed with the city? So updated subdivision all all the
components of the checklists and all that. How how much in advance would we
expect that to happen before Um, unless Rebecca or Robert have
anything else to add, I expect we would have included the regular agenda packet
publication timeline, but if that's something the council wants to address
with staff, I'm sure we'd be open to input.
» Okay. >> I do recall from Maller Point for some
previous projects, we tried to get the packet out early, you know, perhaps a
week in advance to give the public full opportunity to review. I was wondering
about the public having availability to see
» all the components that are still outstanding because
» when you look at it it appears like there's a lot and so I would assume that
to get it on on from today that everything would have to be to you for
your making sure everything's done >> within two or three weeks from now. I
don't know. That's what I'm asking. Yeah, I think it's there might be a
little bit of confusion out there because there's, you know, we're trying
not to conflate the final map with the demo plans and the infrastructure plans,
right? There's certainly a lot of documents that are still outstanding per
that third um incompleteness review letter for the building permits. The
final map has very specific um requirements that um we are we're pretty
close to getting those those documents.
» Okay. In in that case if they are a finite checklist so to speak from what
you're saying is that list regardless of whether it's all in there or not is that
something that we can see earlier? Is that something that's already published?
Is there a list somewhere that goes into the final map that would be helpful for
us to even know what that is? >> Yeah. So, those would be the conditions
of approval and the tenant of map resolution. However, there is a little
conflation with the demo and the infrastructure building permit. So, you
just have to kind of read through it and I can we can connect this week and go
through it if you want. >> Okay. Thanks.
» Any other questions? No. Robert, I was just curious and I know this is coming
to a committee, but when you talked about potential savings on the Beach
Road project, can you give us a ballpark of what you're talking about?
» Yeah, I wish I could. It's really, you know, Tony and I, there's a couple
design elements that um, you know, particularly related to those gangways,
if you recall, in front of the the waterfront properties. We may have some
flexibility in how we design the seaw wall around those gangways to avoid some
of that de demolition work or not demolition, I should say removal and
replacement work of those gangways. So, that's really what's concerning and the
contract that we were considering putting forward with Hadley. Um, I can't
put a dollar amount on it yet, but that's something that Tony and I are
working on. >> Okay, thank you. Um, okay. Let's open
this for public comment. Anybody in the room? Nope. Anybody online? Beth,
» I see none. >> Okay, great. So, we will close 3B and
move on to item 3C, which is a presentation from Jean Dela Zoper, CEO
and managing director of Nor Valley Refuge Service. Jean, welcome back.
right now. Can you hear me? Awesome. Um, so the purpose of me being here today is
uh Milvi Refuge Service is adjusting its rates through a CPI based adjustment. So
that comes out to 2.2% and that CPI is based on uh CPI and all
items was San Francisco, Oakland, Hayward. Now, through the last 5 years
in terms of rate increases, we're looking at 3.64%
as a 5-year average. So, this rate increase is slightly below that. Um, in
terms of customer impact for a 32gallon residential, uh, the new monthly rate
would be a monthly increase of $162. And then for 20 gallon, it's $1.31.
Um, part of why the increase is needed is we have a collective bargaining
agreement with all our drivers and their hourly rate is going from $44 an hour to
$47 an hour. So, that's a 6% increase. We're also seeing a lot of uh increase
in costs with respect to health insurance and benefits. Just for this
year alone, we're looking at a 7% increase there. Um in terms of pension
that also gets adjusted through uh CPI escalated contributions. Now with uh our
disposal contracts um our garbage and compost disposal
contract expires at the end of this year. Um so for 2027 we haven't started
renegotiations with that yet but I am expecting increases on the composting
side. Um, in terms of fuel, uh, there's a lot of diesel volatility going on
right now given macro and global economic conditions, but I'm hoping that
will get stabilized in the next quarter. Hopefully, best case scenario. We did
get a favorable offset where our recycling dual stream processing rate
did get adjusted from $93 to $66. So, a lot of that is through the
effectiveness of our source separated dual stream recycling program. So our
contamination residual rate for that is still really low at around 10%. So you
know I commend all of our customers for source separating the papers and bottles
and cans. Um an operational update is uh this year we're celebrating 120 years of
being in service. Um it's very humbling to be a part of a company with that many
years of service. But I also kind of recognize we're changing and modernizing
with the times. So, part of our, you know, long-term strategy is going to be
uh really a lot of capital reinvestment with our fleet. And we're still
expanding upon our camera systems within the trucks. We're using AI for better
safe driving habits, trying to get that data and figure out better ways to
service our customers. And we also put field tablets in the trucks. So, we're
starting to get more uh modernized across our operations. Um, so that's all
I have for the presentation, but um I'm open for any questions or feedback and
I'm happy to answer any >> any questions.
» Uh, thanks Jean. Just real quick, you mentioned the CPI increase. Is that a
new change in approach? Is and if so, is that going to stay consistent going
forward? >> That's a great question. So part of our
contracts with the city of Belvadier when we go through um a base rate
change, that's a maximum adjustment to the rates. the following two periods in
the Belvadier contract. It's a it basically allows us to do a CPI based
increase but it's capped at 3%. Now part of our strategy is we have to be very
cognitive of how rate increases work and you know during CPI based years um it
forces us to be uh more cost-effective when it comes to analyzing operations
trying to gauge efficiencies. Um it's it's part of our strategy where you know
when we do base rate change the next couple years have to be CPI based
adjustments because you know I'm I'm trying to do everything I can to keep
the rates as low as they possibly can even dealing with you know inflation and
other types of cost drivers. >> Yeah.
» Any other questions? No. Um I have uh just one um which is in relation to the
separation of food waste into green bins. What has been your experience of
that since it's been implemented? Meaning are people uh honoring that? Are
you actually doing searches of the other bins to see if there's contamination and
are you imposing any fines? >> Yeah, that's that's um that's a good
question. So part of I'll say our material stream I'd say 90% of it is
really yard waste and then that 10% is food waste. Um we do have we do have
participation with food waste on the commercial side that's through the food
to energy program. So we essentially haul food waste very clean and we bring
it over to uh REN sanitary service where it gets part of their uh food to energy
program. they're basically using the food waste to generate electricity. Um,
in terms of SP 1383 with route reviews, if we do find an issue where a customer
isn't um, say that they're constantly contaminating the compost bin, we have
uh, processes in place where, you know, we able to send them an email. We're
able to track that data. If it's something consistently that's above what
we'd expect, we have an outreach person with our CSR team to contact that
person. Part of the route reviews, we are uh subcontracting it out and we work
very closely with Zero Waste Man to just make sure that everyone is SP 1383
compliant and then if they don't have that compliance, they have to have a
waiver and then we go through that waiver process. So it's it's been we're
dealing with a lot more I would say data sets in terms of who ha who has what
kind of compost bin and why. We understand every customer has you know
unique needs for that and we have to be able to deliver upon that service.
» Okay. Thank you very much. Um okay let's open for public comment. Beth is there
anybody online? >> I see none.
» Okay. I apologize. We have Mr. Ro. >> Oh hello. Can you bring him through?
Good evening, Dr. Hoffman. >> Uh, can you hear me?
» We can hear you. >> Thank you very much. Um, this involves a
Tibbron, but rather than Belvadier because we don't have uh multif family
uh residences like they do in Tibrron up on the hill there. Uh but since you were
discussing your practices and desirable practices with respect to recycling, I
would like to know and there's a tremendous number of those condos and
whatever on the hills of Tibbron. Could you tell me to what extent in those
buildings there is the separation of uh of the different uh components of the
composting? You know what I'm saying? the like we have the three we have the
three bins uh we have the green and we have the uh the metal and the and the
plastic etc. Are they able to do that in those buildings?
» Well, hello uh Dr. Rothman. Um that's a good question. So part of the
multifamily is I think the biggest uh constraint with having multiple compost
bins meaning let's say if it's a 30unit building there's 30 compost bins we have
to work with the space that's kind of limited but at the same time we offer uh
you know the same three material streams of service so garbage mixed recycling
and compost. We haven't fully integrated our dual stream recycling program with
multif family. those are on dedicated recycling commercial routes. It still
goes to the uh same MURF facility. Um but in terms of like food waste bins, it
has like food waste bins specifically has to be requested upon the property
manager. Um but if it is if it is something that's brought to our
attention through Zero Marin when they do their site visits um we tend to take
a closer look in detail and I can um terms of like I guess specific site
numbers you know we have you know 54 sites in Tibberon for apartments and
then with Belvadier we have eight so it still is a lot of you know units
obviously but if there's opportunity where we can kind of improve upon that
diversion in terms of if you want to look at like a volumetric basis um we're
happy to look at that. >> Excuse me. Well, when they
when when they I'm unclear about whether they have the bins for paper and uh food
waste and uh metals and plastics. Do they do they or do they not in the
multiple family buildings? Do they have those facilities
or does it you just have single stream? And if you do have single stream, where
does it go? Because Marin Sanitary is set up to deal with
dual stream. >> Yes, it's a uh it's a it's a it's a good
question. So, yes, they do have they do have uh you know, trash carts or a trash
container, and they have mixed commercial recycling bins. Those are all
blue. And then they have compost bins. And we also uh especially for uh you
know multif family, we have done events where we've provided kitchen pales to
just make it easier for composting within their uh apartment unit.
» Okay. Thank you so much for the presentation and thanks for your time.
» Awesome. Thank you guys so much. Appreciate it.
» Okay, so we will close 3C and we're going to move on to the consent
calendar. Um, the consent calendar consists of items that the city council
considers to be routine or council has discussed previously and do not require
further discussion. Unless any item is specifically removed by any member of
the city council, the consent calendar will be adopted by one motion. Council
will take public comment on all items on the consent calendar when the calendar
is called. Robert, I believe there's an update you want to give us in relation
to 4E. >> Yes, thank you, Mayor. uh item 4E which
was TAM's measure AA expenditure plan. You may recall this topic came up during
council reports at a previous meeting and during that discussion council
conveyed that they wanted to make it clear that the city doesn't support any
they would support this expenditure plan but wouldn't support any future uh
redistribution of AA funds where they are pulled away from cities particularly
small agencies that rely on these funds for road improvements like Belvadier.
Um, but I did want to point out that I plan to include a letter that outlines
this along with uh your approval of a resolution this evening. Um, but I don't
think the resolution needs a change necessarily, but I did want to make that
point. >> Okay. Thanks, Robert. Okay. Does any
member of the council want to remove any items from the main consent calendar for
A through 4G? No. In that case, can I get a motion um
on those items? I can make a motion to approve the consent calendar items 4A
through 4G. Do we want to say with the uh additional letter that Robert
» I don't think there's any specific >> we don't need to. Okay, great. I do
remember I forgot to ask for public comment on this. Can I please get public
comment before we get a second? >> Mayor Wilkinson, there are no hands
raised. >> Great. Can I get a second?
» Second. >> Uh all in favor?
» I >> I motion passes. Okay, we're now going
to move on to the individual consent calendar items. Um, the individual
consent calendar consists of items that the city council considers to be routine
or council has discussed previously and do not require further discussion but
are separately listed because a council member or members have a conflict of
interest which require them to recuse themselves from participation in the
decision. So we will first go to 5A >> and I will recuse myself as I live
within the 500 foot um from uh the house on community road.
» Thanks. Um and so does anybody have any uh questions or wish to pull this for
discussion before a vote? >> So I'd like to pull 5A.
» Okay. Well, we will go ahead with that. What would you like to discuss?
So, um, as I look at this revocable license, um,
the revocable license includes 8 ft of city property.
Um, and that 8 ft could support a 4-ft sidewalk for pedestrian safety that
could in the future connect to a sidewalk along community road. The
reason why I'm doing this is I'm thinking that we need to perhaps have a
global look at this area of the city since Community Road is facing a
doubling of housing um with Maller doubling of housing in
the Maller Point um section and that will increase the traffic at least four
times more than what's there currently. And currently folks mainly walk in the
street which will become much more hazardous
with the development in the area. And I thought that um we should have a
discussion and consider a um broader look at how we want the community park
area um and its use and safety. Um since um there's 8 ft of city property that
we're talking about on this um I know that the property on the corner had
gotten an RL for plantings but um having a sidewalk that currently now wouldn't
connect but hopefully in the future we might as a city council want to look at
a sidewalk for additional um safety for um children
um the general public are seniors um who
work walking in the road may not become um the the correct
path for them. So, I wanted to bring this up as a point of discussion and see
if um we wanted to
have that discussion and to consider um granting um a revocable license for 4T
and then um keeping um the uh 4 foot um for the sidewalk. Um, I also reached out
um today to our director of um
public works to speak uh to him and of course it was um uh last minute um in
the discussion. Nothing was determined but um it was acknowledged that you know
the the that area of the city is going to be changing.
» Okay. before before getting other council members to comment if it's okay.
Um I would like to see whether either our public works director or our
planning director would like to make any uh provide any further information in
relation to >> Yeah, I I had the same question uh
council member Cariet and so I reached out to engineering and um they indicated
that it you know it's such a short amount of space and that it would really
essentially be kind of a sidewalk to the park. Um, and I believe I just and Tony
can um, come up and talk probably better than I can about this, but that given
the cost of the project to the applicant that we couldn't require a sidewalk.
» We require sidewalks to other applicants and we never question
» based on the valuation of the work. But Tony can come speak to it if
I don't have the exact uh valuation of the of the project but uh speaking to
Chris so Chris Barry associate engineer um
um looks at all uh RL's and uh his thoughts on this one um as far as a
sidewalk uh go um were that um it was unrealistic to um to connect
to anything there would there was nothing and this is before uh Pat
brought this up today of course um that that he that he made these observations.
Um but the reason that a sidewalk wasn't required for the project was because the
valuation of the project was uh was quite low. He said it was less than
$20,000 and and maybe planning have a or building maybe have a an exact number.
Um so it wouldn't be um reasonable to uh request a construction of a sidewalk at
the same time. Um but it seems to me we're talking about two different things
here. we're talking I think you're uh discussing the RL and the space that's
that's um being requested for the RL versus um a requirement to to build
something but maybe um uh Council Member Carropad could clarify if you're if
you're talking about pulling the RL back four feet for a future sidewalk um or
requiring a sidewalk at this time. So, um, well, I guess I would be willing
to go either way. Um, keeping the four feet for the potential for a future
sidewalk. I think this project, while um has uh had a few um phases, um was um
more than a $20,000 project when you add everything together that they've done to
the property. Um, but if we are not able to ask for them to do
the sidewalk, I I would feel keeping 4 feet from the curve over which would
give them four feet for plantings would allow us for um future to look at a
sidewalk because I think once um Malard Point comes in, this might become a
critical issue and once we give the property away on an RL um it's very hard
to gain it back. So, it's it's sort of looking forward um
on that particular area of the city as far as the development that's going on
with future additional developments um in other locations along Community Road
that turn into Sanfell. So, that that was my thought that um uh
8t is quite a bit. I mean, we might have something like that up on the island
because of a slope that goes down that no one has any use for the property, but
generally around um the flat area of the city, I mean,
I think the typical RL tends to be like four to five feet or
less. So, I just felt that the city council
should think about it and um consider um uh future needs that the
city might have um going forward and um not agree to the RL where a sidewalk
potentially could go because even though there's no sidewalk from the corner of
Leard, um it's still an area when we have concerts in the park or other um
projects that there's a lot of people walking around and um in the street and
a sidewalk would um connected to another sidewalk would be beneficial.
» Certainly I can chime in that um um you know where the city sees a future
benefit um of of having access to that to to a piece of or an area. Um it does
make sense to me to um uh to not allow people to have RLS for those areas
because um you know Lagoon Road is a good example and I think I'd mentioned
that to you uh earlier today where you have it's kind of a choppy with some
some areas with sidewalks and some with with landscapes kind of an inconsistent
um uh section of of road there. Um, yeah. And once an RL has been um
provided for for a certain area, it's hard to to pull it back.
» Kevin, I think you had a question. >> Yeah, I did. Just so I'm clear. Um, so
what the RL would allow is for the driveway and for the walkway. No other
building, >> nothing else would be built in that
space. So the 8T it's not they're not proposing
putting anything in the RL 8 feet except the driveway and the walkway.
» Correct. >> And so I guess the question is is do we
» Well, they're putting plantings, aren't they?
» No, the plan Oh, according to the plan, it looks like they're on the property
line. >> Yeah.
» Yeah. >> Once we give the RL, then it's, you
know, we got to revoke it. >> Well, we're giving them a revocable
license just for two uses. One is the walkway and the driveway. So we're not
saying you now can do anything you want in the RL.
» Correct. >> But it covers the whole area.
» It covers Yeah, it's shade. The whole exhibit is shaded. So essentially, we
would be >> It's the whole shaded area. So it goes
across the whole front. >> You know, I get the shaded area, but so
then the RL would allow them to do whatever they want in the RL. They could
build anything they want. >> Well, not build, but
» No, they could put plantings there if they chose to.
» Yes. Not without our approval. >> No, they'd have to come back through
design review and then we would relook at the revocable license and see that
they didn't have a revocable license for landscaping.
» What what the RL is is is giving them is the ability to have the driveway um
access in the sidewalk or the walkway access.
» Yes. >> Yeah.
» Well, I don't mind the driveway and the walkway. It's it's just, you know, in um
I mean, if you look at the pretty picture, if you look at the pretty
picture here, I mean, you know, they have plannings. They don't have anything
here. So, for us to keep 4 feet here is not impacting them. They could still
have their plantings or whatever they're going to do with their um with their
fence. Um they have no new landscaping. They have existing landscaping. So,
keeping allowing the walkway is fine. And I don't have an objection to that
and I have no objection to the driveway, but I'm talking about 4 feet along the
front of the street just to keep it um in control of the city.
» Then don't we need to give them the RL 8T out for the driveway and 8T out for
the walkway because they'll be going over it?
» Yeah. >> Yes. So it would be it's really a carve
out for that one area either. So you exclude that from the RL
or you just put in the RL. You can't nothing else can be placed in the RL
except the sidewalk >> and the driveway.
» We're still questions, right? So just just just to clarify, an RL is more than
just giving them access to that >> property. It's it's it's transferring
liability and and maintenance obligations to the homeowner. Um so the
reason you do the whole stretch of the property is to maintain be maintained
both from an appearance perspective but and a liability perspective away from
the from the city which we're not actively using. Um,
» is is the applicant online or is it >> the architect is? Yeah.
» I guess that's the public comment. Sorry.
» I'm going to see whether she I think we're going to see whether we can get
the architect first so that we can >> Hi, I I'm actually for the next
» agenda item. Oh. >> Um, one one further before we get to
even the applicant, but still on questions. Um, Rebecca, couldn't uh I
understand once you issue a revocable license that it may be difficult to to
uh improve that property without revoking the license and re and re um um
hearing it. But couldn't you, given the fact that this area and other areas are
uh may have a need for public sidewalks in the future, couldn't we put a
condition that this revocable license is subject to um public works adding a
sidewalk um should they deem it necessary? I mean, couldn't that be a
simple inclusion in the revocable license, which would in sense, you know,
solve this problem without necessarily adding it? Because I can't imagine we're
going to get
a thorough if if if it became an imperative city imperative to put in a
sidewalk here, I can't imagine we're going to get the timing or the or the or
the um resident buyin to do it themselves in association with with with
renovations or significant renovations. So, if if we're going to do it, we're
going to do it ourselves as a public works project. So, I would think that we
should add it as a as a um line in the in the RL agreement where we have the
right to do so. Obviously, working with their design with their design
professionals in and around their their improvements to our to our city standard
uh I imagine that's possible. It's a question still. So, I imagine that's
possible. >> Is it legally possible?
» Well, right now this revocable license, like all the revocable license that I've
seen in my years here, say the license is fully revocable at the pleasure or
discretion of the city council. So we can revoke these license for any reason.
» Yeah, we've never done it and it's always
» but certain but certainly if we want to specify that one of the reasons could be
for to your point council member Caripad to the for the construction of public
sidewalk. We can illustrate that. We can say specifically one such instance may
be if the city wishes to install a public sidewalk
» but we would have to go through revocable. Could we just not do it so
that the >> if the sidewalk goes in
» condition? Add a condition. I think it's Peter's I
think what Peter's getting at is can we just add another number to the revocable
license with some language that said should the city want to put in a
sidewalk >> we would have the right to do so
» we have a right >> without without altering the rest of the
the license yeah >> and not have to revoke it but rather it
just goes away bye-bye >> I mean either I mean I guess that they
both saw the problem yes >> right I it's I suppose it's up to you
whether you want to sort of revoke sort of that be a specific instance in which
the license will be revoked or you want to have some sort of middle ground as a
possibility. I guess I'm not quite clear where you want to land.
» I'd rather just see if we decide to put in a sidewalk gets revoked. I mean, I
don't think that the city should have to go through any more process than what
we're going through right now if we're putting in a sidewalk.
» I mean, it does feel to me that this is a bigger policy issue and while we're on
the council, we might do this and but there if there isn't a policy outline
for the future, um it's just hap, you know, it's just chaos. Um, and so
we can deal with this today, but it does feel like we have to bring back a a
broader discussion around RLS, which I'm >> Well, I think the RLS need a broader
discussion all all over. >> Yes. Um, okay. So, if we don't have any
other uh questions, let's bring this back for public comment just to see
whether there's any public comment. >> We have Mr. Rothman.
» Great. >> Hi, Dr. Rothman.
» Yes. Thank you very much. I would caution you about putting a particular
stipulation in this revocable license about and if we want to put a sidewalk
then we can put one because that might suggest that in any other issue any
other site of a revocable license where you don't have that written down
specifically that it really isn't so revocable.
uh because if you stipulate that one is revocable
then the question is is one that doesn't say that you could do something in that
is that not so revocable so I would suggest you just leave it uh as it is
and I frankly with all the places that need sidewalks uh Belvadier Avenue etc I
would hope that in future we would have more sidewalks
so that people with pushing baby carriages or elderly, whatever it is,
don't find themselves having to jump out of the way of uh of speeding pickup
trucks. Uh so I would not I wouldn't put something special on this revocable
license because I think it weakens your case, your legal case in other sites
where you may want to do things but you haven't put a stipulation about the
future. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Um, Andrew, can you comment
on that in terms of the pros and cons of specifically spelling something out for
this RL? >> Uh, frankly, I think it would would be
better to specify if we have a condition in mind or an instance in mind we would
revoke the license. I would think that's better for all parties involved.
» But to Dr. Rothman's point, does it therefore weaken the case if we want to
be doing that elsewhere or we haven't spelled it out? I mean, RL's RLS have
been very consistent in saying they're all revocable at the discretion of city
council. And so, I don't think we would change that position. And the fact that
we added a condition or slightly different language to this one doesn't
to me mean that the other ones are legally defective or weak or or
something along those lines. >> Okay. Right. Let's bring this back for
discussion. >> One followup question, but Andrew, just
following up that same point, would it would it be uh
» perhaps to Mr. Rothman's pum point there. Might it be as effective um if
not more effective in a sense to uh change our policy and put a line in the
policy with regard to revocable licenses that one of the reasons that the the the
license would be revoked would be for a tra a pedestrian improvement project um
adjacent to you know through the license something like that which would in a
sense handle this case but all cases as well. Uh yeah, that would be another way
to deal with it and I think that would be a completely legitimate way to deal
with it as well. But I'm just not sure if our policy, if we do move to a
revised policy, we'll frankly be able to capture all those details in all those
specific instances going forward. Maybe we can, maybe we can't. I don't know. I
think we're just going to start the discussion tonight,
» but I don't I don't know if that's just one of many instances which we would
revoke an RL or or not. >> Thank you.
» All right, let's bring this back for discussion. Kevin.
» Um, sure. I I totally understand the the issue that Pat raised and and I do at
some point hope that we can deal with the sidewalk issue near the park. Um, I
feel like the RL is already constructed in such a way that it gives us the right
to provoke it if and when it's necessary. Um, and it, as staff said,
uh, there's no permission being given or granted to put anything in the um, RL
except for the driveway and the sidewalk. So, I think we're covered. We
just revoke it when and if we need it. >> Okay. Peter.
» Yeah. The um I don't and I'm not suggesting Pat's suggesting this. Um but
it wasn't clear. Uh I I I would not impose or require them to put a sidewalk
here. Um even if we could um given the scale of the project. Uh and I agree
with Kevin that I would I think we have the language in there if not specific
enough if if not so specific. But I would I would try to address our policy
as our mayor talked about um specifically for this because I do think
this is a a broader need from a pedestrian um passageway perspective
that we should have it in our policy that that is one of the uh reasons why
we would ro something and this could be a good opportunity to do so should we
get the um uh further further opportunity with other properties there
as well. So going back to Pat, are you um on the
basis that we will bring back a broader RL discussion soon to address this on a
on a global basis, are you comfortable moving the RL as it's currently
described? I just think we're missing an opportunity to take this as a beginning
and put something in saying that this is a very specific property. And I don't
know how many other properties would fit into this kind of requirement. Um
because the sidewalk is, you know, four feet. I mean, we have eight feet there.
That's that's why I thought, well, we could get a sidewalk in. they still get
four feet for what whatever plantings or development they might want to do there.
Not that it would be a structure or anything. Um, and I just think that, you
know, starting now for the specific property to say, you know, if we choose
to put a sidewalk in in the future that, you know, we reserve the right for the
first four feet of the revocable license for that purpose. Um, I think is a good
step. I think going forward I think it's a bigger discussion and it's a global
discussion and it needs to be vetted out better than the conversation here but I
think this is an opportune opportunity for this specific project um
for this specific property that it makes very clear um for a condition to go in
um specifically for this property. Um, so that I continue to be my um,
stance on this that I think that it's unusual enough of a a property that um,
uh, we should carve out something for a potential for a a sidewalk.
» Okay. Um I think I am whilst sympathetic to the argument I think I'm more aligned
with addressing this through a revision to the overall policy um rather than an
individual carve out here. So um I think with that I would ask somebody to make a
motion. >> So let me can I just ask one qu I'm
sorry one question of um our legal council. So, if we change our global
stance in the future on RL's that carves out something for um future sidewalks
that we could revoke on future sidewalks, how does that affect RLS that
have already been signed without that carveout?
» Yeah, that's an excellent question. So I think to the extent that we are looking
or going to make any policy changes, one of the key decision points for council
is whether those changes will be perspective only or we are going to
apply them across the board. >> So we can make changes across the board
and even though it's not in their RL that it would change their RL. My
understanding >> that's a policy question for council to
consider and then obviously would think about how to take care of that
implementation. >> But legally it can be done is my
question. Legally, all these revocable licenses can be revoked at any time in
the discretion of city council. So, if push show, we can require additional
terms. >> All we'd be doing is is in a sense
defining or adding adding additional um um
» language to uh uh clarify an additional need why someone might why the city
council might choose to revoke a license.
» That would be one way to execute the policy. And then again, we may it would
be I would suggest that when we get to that point, we be explicit about whether
we're doing it going forward or again across the board.
» But when we come to that point in time, you're not going to then say, well, we
we don't recommend you do this retroactively. You're you're standing
here today saying we have the ability to do that and there's not going to be a
different legal interpretation when we bring that forward.
» Yes, that's the question. You're not going to change your mind. We're putting
you on the hot seat here. Um I will state that the language of our
the city regarding these revocable licens has been very consistent on this
point. >> Okay.
» To the extent any individual property owners push back in that
» I think I will just respond. The city's position has been very consistent
» and defensible. >> Yeah, of course.
» Okay. All right. Can I get a motion? Uh, I move to approve the revocable license
for existing and proposed private improvements in the public right ofway
along community road for property at three community road.
» Second. >> All those in favor?
» I. All those against. >> I Oh, I'm sorry. I went back backwards.
I'm I'm going to pass the RO. I'm not saying I to the no.
» Okay. So, we're all in favor of this. >> All in favor. Sorry. Thank you.
» Okay. We are now moving on to item 5B, which is a motion to approve revocable
license for existing private improvements in the public right of way
along Belvadier Way and Belair Way Lane for the property at three Belvadier Way.
Um, I am going to be recused from this item because I live within 500 ft of the
property and Kevin will be leading this item.
» I am also recused from this for the same reason. Thank you,
» Sally. So, there is no staff report uh on this
um given it's a consent item uh on the agenda. Uh I'm going to now turn it over
to my colleagues. Does anyone want to pull this item?
» I'd like to pull item 5B. >> Thank you. Um and I will turn it back
again to my colleagues and ask what questions or comments you might have.
» Uh yes. So my question is is that the RL that's before us includes
a section along the lane um
and um that was not part of
the RL that the planning commission looked at.
So why why are we being asked for an RL along the lane? Now
» that portion of the RL came as a result of the planning commission discussion.
Um there was some discussion about let's I don't know what it's called. So I'm
going to call it the Westshore Lane portion of the city right ofway and then
we'll call Belvadier Way the other RL exhibit that they're asking for. So at
the planning commission hearing there was discussion about that retaining wall
that hillside who has responsibility for it
etc. And as a result of the planning commission hearing it was decided that
the property owners should take on um the responsibility of all that
landscaping because they're not changing anything down there on that portion of
their of the property. Um and so that's why it
is before the council. Now there was also a condition added to the planning
commission resolution as a result of a discussion with the um parks open space
lane. I think they're here. Char I think
Charlie was at that planning commission hearing um and the property owner. And
so they agreed on a condition to monitor the retaining wall during construction
and prior to building permit final, they would reassess the structural integrity
of that wall and then work with the city if something were to happen. I have
that. So did that answer your question? It's a long way to
» Yes. So um >> can I ask one clarifying comment, Pat?
Is the retaining wall you're referring to? The wooden
» the short wooden retaining wall. >> Yeah. Okay. Thanks.
» I have a picture. >> You do.
» I can bring it over. >> There was a picture in the packet.
» We have We have the picture, too. I just want to make sure it was the same. Yeah.
» I don't know. >> Sure. Bring it.
So, um the staff report um talks about the original um application
for the RL which was just along Belvadier Way.
And so we have two exhibits A one and two. No, no, there a well two exhibit
A's on two separate sheets of paper. So is the first exhibit which is along
Belvadier Way where the driveway is um in front of the property, is that the
exhibit that the planning commission looked at?
» Yes. >> Okay. And then the second exhibit is
something the applicant brought in as a result of um staff's
recommendation. They should um maintain the plantings along the lane.
» Yes. And then um
it on the second exhibit it's a little hard to see, but are I mean are
they taking all of the land up to that concrete
tallish 18 in 2 in two foot concrete curb? I
don't know what to call it. Then then there's a a pipe and then
another little rolled curb. So they're just taking from the dirt back.
» They're taking the landscaping only. No concrete, no wall, no curb. It's
landscaping only. So, because I went to um well, maybe
this might be for the applicant, but I went to visit the site and it appears
where the wood um retention wall is was actually um
put in because dirt was built up there. And um and that wood retention wall is
holding back the dirt that someone not the current applicant but someone in the
past added dirt and changed the actual natural slope of the land.
» Um I would say that it so there's a drainage um uh ditch right beneath it.
Um, so I don't know if the the slope was changed above the the wall, but but
certainly it's it's very possible that it was added to uh capture debris and
stop it from going into the into the drain. Um, it it doesn't appear to have
been built as a um it it it's not holding the slope up or anything.
» So if that wood wall went away, nothing would happen except debris into the
drain. >> Yes. Yeah. that there would be there
would be debris falling into the drain. Um and the but the slope itself is um it
would would probably um not be affected. There would be there would continue to
be debris uh from time to time, but um yeah, it's it's not a it doesn't appear
to be a structural retaining wall. >> No, it's not structural.
Do you have any other comments or questions?
» No, not that I can take up. >> Okay,
» thank you. Um, so, uh, I guess what I'd like to clarify is that
they're, um, with your suggestion asking for that RL only for the plants so they
can, is it to keep privacy? They want the plants to stay alive. They want to
be able to trim them. Is it because they're located in in uh public
property, they wouldn't be able to do that legally or is that sort of what it
is? >> I I Yeah, I mean, I think it's a
wellestablished grove of plantings that will are stabilizing that hillside and
they're doing all these improvements above it and
» they had just planned on not amending those that portion of it of the
property. >> Right. I mean, I I was just trying to
understand why what what the reason for the RL is if they're not planning on
touching it. What why would they even ask for it?
» I think we asked them to >> maintain it to take on the liability and
responsibility and maintaining that plant those plantings.
» Okay. So, you asked them to maintain those plants. Okay. So if um
if they didn't take on those plants and the city needed to do repairs, we could
conceivably go into that um dirt and plant area and pull some of those out or
we could change them or we could cut them or we could do whatever we want
with them. >> Yep.
» And so this way it allows them to keep on top of those plants without
us necessarily making changes there. I'm I just recall from the meeting that the
owner was um very concerned that the plants would be there for privacy so
that the public walkway people wouldn't just be looking in at them and their
pool etc. So I see it as a benefit to them to be able to keep the um plants
alive and you know thick in that area.
» Yeah. >> Yeah.
» Um Okay. And then um
I I was looking at the plans and I don't have any comments about
their plans. I just had one question which was um I noticed that there's a
pool that's going to go in quite close to that dirt area. And in in your
experience of constructing a pool and creating surrounding vegetation, which
they show on their plans, would would um construct would a truck
or people need to be below the pool? I mean, do you work around a whole pool
that's in a location like that, create a retaining wall for it? I couldn't tell
from the plans. I don't know how they're creating that pool. It just seems like
they would have to do some They're demolishing the whole thing. So, I'm
assuming they'd be creating a retaining wall. I'm just concerned that
I I would assume trucks would have to go in near that dirt area. That's all.
» Oh, I >> But I don't know.
» I haven't seen a construction management plan. You know, we're not going to issue
a building permit that's not structurally sound to hold up that pool
on a hillside. >> Okay. Okay. Great. Um, so I think those
are my only questions. >> I have a new question. Sorry.
» Okay. >> So my new question is is that um
who's who will be responsible for that retention wall if it fails and it needs
to have some kind of replacement in its current location or a future location.
if we give them the revocable license because the retention wall is in the
dirt right in front of the plants. It's not on the other side of the concrete
curb. I'm calling it. >> Well, I I mean, have you read the
condition of approval from the planning commission approval?
So it it says if the retaining wall is altered or compromised during
construction, the applicant shall work with the city on an agreement to remedy
the movement of the retaining wall prior to building permit final. So I think it
was at the planning commission hearing that property owner didn't want to
commit to building a whole new wall because he had no idea how much that was
going to cost. And so the agreement was like, well, yeah, we'll we'll monitor it
and see what happens and then we'll revisit it. This is all prior to their
building permit final. However, the architect is online. I you know, I don't
want to speak for them. Um the retaining wall is not in the revocable license
that they're asking for. Um so it would be our responsibility.
» So I'm not talking about con I'm talking post construction. Let's get past the
construction. But let's say
they finish their construction now and in two years for some reason that wall
fails and some the dirt's moving and it has that has to has some kind of a
retention something. >> Um yeah, I can speak in general um about
what um how it would be addressed. Um if uh if the cause of the of the uh failure
was something that the property owner had had done um then
I think the city would approach them and and um talk about uh replacing the wall
and um sh having some kind of agreement on on
how that would be done. um if the wall was uh you know if it failed because the
wood had rotted and um there was nothing in particular the that the owner did
that um had any effect um then it would be the city's responsibility um um alone
» so can can Rebecca I understand that the public benefit is is that they're
maintaining the vegetation there um but um other which basically for their
privacy. Um, what is the other public benefit that we're going to be getting?
» Well, I mean, at least from the the city standpoint, we're
they're taking on the liability and responsibility of
maintaining all of that landscaping. So, it's hold which is holding the hill,
you know, it's all holding that the hillside in and so it won't if
the hillside won't fall into the lane >> if they're not.
» If you look at the language though, Andrew, I don't think maintenance is
specifically called out in the RL, our standard RL.
I think it's more about indemnification versus maintaining.
I mean,
» are you talking about the language of the RL, Kevin?
» Well, yeah. I mean, because I think the question is is that and I just want to
clarify. So, that that short retaining wall that's in the RL.
» No, >> it's on the prop uh the owner's
property. >> No, it's in the right of way.
They are not asking for an RL for that retaining wall. They're asking for
license for what's behind it. Yeah.
» Okay. So, my my legal question is the same. Is is there any language that
actually requires So, in the case of this, there's landscaping that's
currently on city land and I don't think there's anything in the RL specifically
that says they need to maintain it. >> Yeah, I think that's a fair point, uh,
Vice Mayor. So I think one thing if you want to make that explicit is in section
three or paragraph three we we normally address you know if they're erecting or
installing a building fence wall or other structure they have a duty to um
maintain that in all in good condition repair. I think to your point excellent
point maybe we should include um installation of landscaping to ensure
that they also need maintaining landscaping as well in that area. Well
» it's the current landscaping right
» the existing landscaping. Yeah, >> because I think that's that's the bene
or I believe I mean that's the benefit is that they would be taking
responsibility for maintaining that landscaping,
» right? And so I guess given the nature of the RL requested in this instance, we
can include a reference to landscaping in in that section three,
» right? But the wall itself is not there's nothing since it's not part of
the RL. The retaining wall would be somewhat related to or it's related to
the condition from the planning commission, but that's not clear as to
is there really a direct responsibility on the part of the applicant that they
should have to do anything if the wall fails. It's like we will discuss and
then maybe agree on something or maybe we won't.
» Yeah, correct. Well, I guess if we go with that
thinking and looking at the photo that was in our packet and if they're taking
over all the dirt literally just in front of the
» little retention wall there, what is causing that retention wall to
fail is the dirt behind it. So, it seems to me that no matter what
we're saying here, unless, as Tony said, the wood just
starts disintegrating, if there's any movement at all, it's
going to be due to that dirt behind it. So, therefore, it seems to me that from
day one, they're going to be responsible for that wall, whether they want to be
or not, because it's the dirt that's pushing it and causing it to move. So, I
I just I guess I'm confused why this is not a retaining wall. It's really just a
retention wall or something like that where like you said, it's just holding
the dirt back. I I I think yes to repair it or help it to be
more um structurally standing up and really holding all that dirt back whe
whether it was brought in more than it should have been or whatever happened in
the past. Um, I I guess I don't understand and I don't have any clue how
much money it would be, but it isn't really an entire retaining wall where
you're putting in all kinds of huge structures 10 feet down and you know,
whatever. So, it just seems to me that we're kind of cutting off our nose to
spite our face with this because no matter what, this is going to wind up
being attributed to them and then we're going to have to go back and have an
argument with them. And it seems to me this is the time to just ask the
architect knowing that it's just a retention wall and not a true retaining
wall with steel, etc. if that's something that they might consider while
they're doing all the construction. Anyway,
» hi. Thank you. Can you hear me? >> Hi. Yes. Great. Um, I think I would like
to defer to the agreement that was made um with the commission um that's written
in the in the um resolution that if there was an issue with the retaining
wall that we would address it at that time instead of committing the owner
right now to it. I think since the owner was present at that time and that was
the agreement I I would like to hold to that.
» So I think that you should understand that the planning commission just makes
a recommendation to city council and it's city council here is deciding on
the actual revocable license and um it's I I'm not sure but it may come to the
point that if you want the revocable license it may include the retention. So
if it's something that you need to consult with your clients on perhaps we
need to continue this. So you could consult with your clients.
» So let me let me jump in here. So I think we have two options in front of
us. Thank you Pat. Um is we either consider this as it's currently drafted
that the wall the retain wall is excluded from the RL or we send it back
and we say that the RL either is inclusive of the wall it's all or
nothing. Um, right now it feels I think a bit peacemail is what I'm hearing from
everyone on the the council. So, um, I mean, we can open up for a public
comment in a second, but I think right now, unless you can tell us differently,
there doesn't seem to be a reason to be considering this as just a portion of
the RL versus like why wouldn't we just include the whole thing? So, if you want
the RL, you can have it, but it includes the wall.
So, why don't we open up to public comment?
» October.
» Hi, I'm Charlie. I'm the chair of the parks open spaces lanes committee. Um,
as part of being chair, we're notified or meant to be notified when there's
projects impacting lanes. This project is touching a vital artery which is
called Belvadier Way. This is the only lane connecting West Shore Road to the
rest of the upper end of the island. Um we were not notified when this first
came up. I found out about it day of the planning commission. I sent in a letter.
That's what we're hoping to pull up. I took a few photos. Um and then after the
after the meeting, I was basically told that we would be contacted about the
next steps. Um we were not. So this again I was surprised to learn that this
was up. I was sort of waiting for that email to come through about when we're
going to be talking about it next. Um, we can get that picture. This is again a
critical artery. Um, and the photo I have really shows how it's bulging out.
Um, I appreciate that we're working to sort of collaborate on this and I love
that we're we're thinking creatively. Um, monitoring the retaining wall. I
think if if I had been talked about that, I would just have some questions
about how we're going to do that. If we say that it's maybe the other one too,
Sammy or um the second photo, if we're saying it's bulging out right now like
12 inches, if we look again and it's bulging out by like 13 inches, is that
sufficient for them to have to repair it? My other question is if the wall was
perfectly erect and it ended up in the current state that it's in now, would
that be deemed sufficient for repairs? Um I think speaking to the public
benefit, the vegetation as it stands right now, I think that vegetation is
non-native plants. I I don't know that it's particularly beneficial to the
public per se, more so than um making sure that that lane doesn't collapse and
that dirt and debris and wood doesn't go off that. That's again that lane is wide
enough for a car to go down. I think I remember in the report they were
actually asking for the ability to drive vehicles up that lane. So this is really
important. I look at this photo here and I I I think this is a good opportunity
for an uh a rethinking of this uh this this issue. I this looks like an issue.
It doesn't seem safe. I'm glad we're looking at it. But um you know, these
trees have roots, too. These roots are going to be pushing against this and um
I would love to work with whomever in the city wants to about um the thoughts
of the of the parks, open spaces, and lanes committee, but this was the first
I heard of it. So, I wanted to just chime in and give an update from my
perspective for why I think it's really important to make sure that we look into
this and also um I'm just not sure how we're going to measure impact on that.
Like, how how far bulging is it right now? Is it 13? Is it 14 inches? Um and
and how do we make sure that that monitoring really happens? And I'm I'm
concerned about that. >> Thank you, Charlie.
MA.
» Hi, I'm Ma Bergson. I am on the parks open space and lanes committee, but I'm
here speaking as an individual because since I am not chair and we were not
notified of this, we don't have sort of a consensus, so I can't speak on behalf
of the committee, but I wanted to speak up as an individual. Um, with regard to
that, um, I would agree with all that has been said, um, here by the council,
um, as well as by Charlie and that we are really happy that this is is coming
up and being considered. He mentioned that it is the access, you know, sort of
upward to the island from West Shore. It's also the only westside access from
the island off the island down to the water. So, I think it's we need to
acknowledge it as a really important evacuation route as well as a super
commonly used lane. Um, as we could see from the photos uh that Charlie had
submitted to um the city back in October, the amount of damage is much
more extensive than I think is shown really by the photo that was in the
packet today. Um, and that is whether it's caused by soil being, you know,
pushed down or I think if you look at all of the photos, it actually is a lot
by not only um roots but actually also even just the trunks. I mean, one of the
photos showed that there's some sort of um you know, conifer that's sort of
leaning against it. So, my concern is that if you grant an RL saying that we
approve the existing landscaping when what you have is landscaping and a slope
situation that has clearly already adversely impacted the city's wall
there, then you're basically saying we're good with what we have and now
we're having to try to measure when it's bad. And I don't think that's
appropriate to be letting them sort of ex sort of acknowledging it and
accepting it as it is when in fact part of those plants were clearly planted not
by this applicant but that's what they they purchased. Um, and if they're
looking for a a a revocable license because they want the the benefit of
maintaining their privacy, then I believe that the public deserves the
benefit of having it repaired, that area repaired because that public benefit is
what we will get in exchange for giving them a public benefit of preserving
privacy. The public benefit to the rest of the public is to ensure that the wall
that is holding that stays. And not just that it's not damaged during
construction, but that it extends that it stays for the long term. Um, it
doesn't matter really who caused it to get to where it is now. The question is
is it's being a privilege is being requested and we should be grant looking
at the public benefit as well as the, you know, to the public use. To me, this
is very similar to somebody who who plants a tree in their front yard and
that tree damages the city's sidewalk or other city property and the city comes
to them and says, >> you have a few seconds left.
» The city comes to them and and says you have to address this. And so I think
that is the way we should be looking at this not as an oral accepting the way it
is now. Thank you. >> Great. Thanks.
» One second. Other public comment.
» There are no hands raised. >> Thank you. So, I'll bring it back to
councel. Any additional thoughts for
deliberation? >> Um, I think I think we pretty well
covered it. Um I I agree with our uh public comments that um the revocable
license should be granted when there is a public benefit as determined by the
city council. Um and we do generally try to discourage just the benefit of
private use. Um, I I get that the plants are also beneficial to the public
because they um hopefully hold up that hillside and they make a nice um border
for that road. Um but I think in the past we have also had
uh I'm sorry that our um parks open space and lane meets
unfortunately infrequently and so when these things come up it's
difficult to postpone it and wait for that group because the owner wants to
move forward and is on a time frame. So, I think we get that. But, um, certainly
from October to now, it would have been nice to follow up on that and have had
some kind of meeting with, uh, Chair Harrington on this. Um, I don't see I
think that right now, yes, it would be difficult to determine unless we're very
careful how we measure what it looks like now, what it might look like um,
during construction. Um, I don't I think we've tried in the past whenever there's
a lane next to the property and I would say that we've been very fortunate with
our community and they always seem to want to help the city and help make the
lane better. I don't think we've had too many people stand up and who are next to
a lane and say, "I'm doing full construction, but I'm not going to even
though you're asking, I'm not going to help out that lane at all." I think
we've been, like I said, fortunate that most of our community is very generous
that way. So, I I don't see this as being a huge expense, but again, it's
not I don't know, so I can't comment on that. It is next to a lane. It's um
especially important to the entire community and um I think I would uh
agree with our vice mayor that without a commitment to um repair that wall that's
obviously failing um that I could not support the RL.
that. >> So, um
I also feel that I agree with um council member Cooper. Um it's very hard to
separate out an RL granting an RL when there's a component there that actually
is I know it's not a structural wall, but
um retains um
the dirt and the plants. um from uh failure. And I think it goes the the
retention wall, whatever you want to call it, uh goes with the plantings.
It's um uh just part of the um
area that it's in. I mean, if the retention wall was in front of the
concrete curb, I'm calling it, um I wouldn't have um questioned it, but it's
actually behind the curb, right in front of the plants. And obviously,
it's a component of um that whole area and all the plantings. And so I would
not be able to approve the RL without the so-called retention wall um being
repaired or replaced whatever is necessary
by the applicant. >> Thank you. Uh I agree and don't need to
add anything further. Do I hear a motion?
» So should we ask for continuance or just deny it or modify it?
» Yeah. How do you want to handle it? >> You want to ask?
» I think a continuence would be the most uh favorable. Um but we can ask the
applicant if >> we should ask the applicant if they're
interested in that. Otherwise, we'll deny it.
» Um yes, we'd definitely like a continuence. Does that just essentially
extend to the next meeting? Could you elaborate on what that means?
Uh I think you'd have to say the process.
» It depends on yeah if you on the conversations around based on what
happened this evening and if you can revise the plans and we can get
everything in time for the next agenda packet.
» Got it. That sounds good. >> Yeah. And as soon as that timing is met,
it will come back to the council. Um, >> and I think that if it all the
conditions are met, I'm surely this could go on a consent calendar once we
see everything is proper.
» Thank you. And does it extend for both exhibits along Belvadier Way and
Belvadier Way Lane or do those get separated out?
» Well, the resolution is uh or the revocable license is written as one
document. Okay. currently. Um, so you could come back with just uh one portion
of it if there isn't agreement on the portion we discussed tonight.
» Got it. Thank you for clarifying. >> Sure. Uh, no, sorry, Charlie. Public
comments closed.
» Duly duly noted. Thank you. All right. I think we are done with that item. Let's
move on. We can call our other commissioners back, our other council
members back into the room.
» I know. >> Feels like that, doesn't it?
I'm now turning it back to you, Sally. Thank you so much.
» Okay, we are moving on to item number six, which is public hearing 6A. receive
an annual report on the status of vacancies and staff retention to fulfill
Assembly Bill 2561. Helga, thank you, Mayor Wilkinson. This hearing
is being conducted in accordance with Assembly Bill 2561, which was signed
into law by Governor Nuome on September 22nd, 2024, and took effect January 1st,
2025. The legislation added section 3502.3
to the California government code requiring public agencies to present the
status of their vacancies in a public hearing before their governing body at
least once per fiscal year. The presentation must be made prior to the
adoption of the final budget. This is an annual public hearing item to present
the vacancies and allow the city's one bargaining unit the opportunity to make
a presentation. The city has one bargaining unit, the Belvadier Police
Officers Association, which includes six budgeted positions and no vacancies for
fiscal year 2627. Also, under this legislation, the city
must identify any modifications to policies, procedures, and recruitment
practices that affect its initiatives to minimize vacancies. The city partners
with much more than consultant to strengthen our recruitment efforts and
we have not identified any necessary changes to our current policies,
procedures or recruitment activities at this time and staff are available for
questions. >> Does anybody have questions?
» No. Um that's open for public comment. >> Um there's no motion on this. Is just we
just have to receive it. Correct. >> Sure. Uh, excuse me, Mayor C, if I could
just make one comment for the record. Um, just to slightly add to Helga
statements, uh, the BOA was provided with an opportunity to pro provide a
presentation tonight and they did not take us up on the offer just for the
record. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you very much. Um,
okay, that was nice and brief. We'll move on to um,
seven other schedule items 7A, which is a preliminary review and discussion of
the annual operating budget and capital improvement program for fiscal year
2627. And Hoga, this is again yours.
» Thank you again, Mayor Wilkinson and council members. Before you today is the
preliminary operating and capital budget for fiscal year 2627.
To begin with some revenue highlights, the general fund revenues are projected
to increase by 10.2% or approximately 979,000.
Property tax revenues remain the primary driver with overall growth of 5.62% 62%
over the current year budget or about 439,000
based on the county's estimates. Other property tax revenues are expected to
remain flat while fire tax revenue is projected to increase by approximately
3% pending final state data which comes out in early May.
Development related fee revenues have increased due to the new user fee
schedule that went into effect July 1st, 2025 and continued development activity,
particularly large-scale projects and increased encroachment and road
closures. Despite a slight decline in permit volume, fees are projected to
recover approximately 89% of the city's cost of service. The city council also
approved a CPI based adjustment for the user fees schedule which will be
effective July 1st, 2026. Fee performance in the first year has
largely met the 92% cost recovery target. Therefore, no additional
incremental revenue is assumed in the outer years. Consistent with best
practices, no revenue increases were assumed in the first year of the
implementation and staff will continue to monitor cost recovery trends over
time as they may fluctuate with broader economic conditions.
One-time increase in building permit plan review and road impact fee revenue
is anticipated in fiscal year 2728 from the Malard Point project. Based on
the current timeline, timing remains uncertain and staff will refine revenue
projections as the project advances. No grant funding is included in the
proposed budget at this time, though staff will continue to pursue
opportunities through partner agencies. Overall, revenue projections remain
strong, but are intentionally conservative to support long-term fiscal
stability amid the economic uncertainty.
And now on the expenditure side from the general fund for fiscal year 2526 was
the last year of a three-year contracts with the city's represented and
non-represented groups. The city is currently engaged in labor negotiations
and anticipates reaching an agreement in the coming weeks. The fiscical year 2627
budget incorporates the results of a compensation study and a 2 and a.5% cost
of living adjustment. A 3% salary increase has been assumed across the
outer years. The fiscal year 2627 budget includes
235,000 for a temporary police officer position
over a three-year period to support operations during the police department
evaluation. The budget The budget includes 150,000
for implementing the housing element goals, programs, and policies along with
funding for general legal costs and ongoing litigation. It also allocates
50,000 for the city's 2030 climate action plan implementation.
Expenditures related to the Meard Point project include 150,000 for a special
project manager, 10,000 for a relocation specialist, and 45,000 for city engineer
services. These costs will be reimbursed in accordance with the agreement with
the developer. Timber on fire is estimating a 7 and a half% increase in
our contract costs again this coming fiscal year due to increase in district
expenditures related to station 10 costs from the capital fund. The budget
includes 70,000 to replace an aging public works utility truck,7,000 for a
police handheld radar unit, and 13,500 for replacement of several staff
computers, a server, and backup power systems.
from the capital improvement fund. The budget includes the beach road
stabilization project scheduled from June through October 2026 with a total
cost of 4.97 million. Of this 4.68 million will be funded from the critical
infrastructure reserve with 345 from other sources to close the gap. An
estimated 2.48 48 million will roll over from fiscal year 2526
and the construction contract was approved by council on April 13th. The
5-year CIP includes ongoing annual funding of 80,000 for lane improvements
and 15,000 for vegetation management and fire fuel reduction. Key projects next
year include the Harry B. gallon stair repair, community park restroom
renovations, redrilling of the community park well, and police department
improvements. The budget also includes 60,000 to complete the infrastructure
assessments will which will inform the fisc year 2728 capital budget. Several
projects are expected to be partially funded through partner agencies and
private donations.
A large part of the city's expenditures are staffing costs. Personnel costs are
projected to increase in fiscal year 2627
over estimated actuals primarily due to staffing additions and compensation
adjustments. Regular salaries are increasing by 21% approximately 535,000
driven by higher staffing levels with 21 staff headcount in the proposed bud
budget verse 18.4 actual headcount in 2526
which is an increase of about 14% over estimated actuals. Implementation of the
compensation study is estimated at a 4% increase or 124,000 and a 2.5% COLA or
about 75,000. The compensation study amounts reflect
potential adjustments which are part of the ongoing labor negotiation process.
Lower fiscal year 2526 staffing and expenditures reflect vacancies in
police, administration, and public works during the current fiscal year. These
positions have all been filled with the latest position being filled at the end
of April for the administrative technician.
Health insurance costs are projected to rise by 22% reflecting a 9% increase in
premiums as well as the addition of family rate coverage for the new police
position. The city's unfunded acred liability contribution is increasing by
45% approximately 104,000 under over the fiscal year 26 actuals
consistent with fluctuations driven by CalPER's investment performance actuary
assumptions and retiree experience.
Other personnel costs are also increasing, primarily due to the
addition of the one and a half positions in the police department impacting costs
such as holiday pay, shift differential, and education incentive pay.
This next slide highlights the city's required pension related payments to
Kalpers, including contributions toward the unfunded acred liability and
payments associated with the pension obligation lease lease back debt. The
fiscal year 2627 UAL payment is based on the most recent Kalpers actuarial
valuation as of June 30th, 2024, which reflected an investment return of 9.3%.
However, prior years continue to impact current and future contribution
requirements, including a negative 6.1% return for the period June 30th, 2022,
and a 5.8% 8% return for the period ending June 30th, 2023,
both of which fell below the Kalpers's assumed rate of 6.8%.
As a result, UL contributions are projected to remain elevated over the
5-year forecast period. Again, UL costs may fluctuate annually based on
investment performance, changes in actuary assumptions, and retiree
experience. The pension related debt obligation will have a final payment of
123,000 in fiscal year 3132. We are also planning a re review of the
city's pension funding strategy for this coming December, including whether some
section 115 assets should be transferred to Kalpers.
And this slide shows the anticipated transfers from the general fund that are
part of the budget. FIRE is 1.42 million, the pension 115 trust fund, the
300,000, pension related debt, 237,000. The budget includes a 100,000 transfer
to the insurance and legal reserve fund to cover ongoing uninsured legal
expenses with a reduction in transfer amount reflecting an anticipated
decrease in legal costs and bringing the fund to its minimum required balance.
The capital improvement fund 184,000 and a 705 transfer to the critical
infrastructure reserve was budgeted in 2526 to support the beach road
stabilization project. The fund will also be renamed the long-term capital
planning fund and receive a 1.1 million transfer to support future capital needs
identified through the upcoming infrastructure assessments. And finally,
the equipment replacement fund transfer of 89,500.
And this brings us to a summary of the proposed budget. The proposed budget
anticipates total operating revenues of 11.86 million and total operating
expenditures of 11.16 million, resulting in an operating surplus of just over
700,000. Capital revenues are estimated at
545,000 while capital expenditures are projected
to be 3.31 million leading to a capital fund deficit of 2.77 million primarily
due to the 2.23 million in expenditures for the Beach Road stabilization project
next year. In summary, revenues are projected at 12.41 million and
expenditures at 14.48 48 million resulting in a 2.07 million deficit.
This is primarily due to one-time costs for the beach road stabilization project
largely funded by the critical infrastructure reserve. Following this
one-time expense, the budget is expected to return to more typical operating
levels.
And this slide shows projected fund balance as of June
30th, 2027. The general fund begins fiscal year 2627 at 7.21 million above
the reserve target and after plan transfers for fire capital pensions and
reserve is projected to end the year at 5.63 million. The critical
infrastructure reserve fle reflects a 2.49 million transfer out and a 705
transfer in resulting in a remaining balance of 1.1 million. As mentioned
previously, the fund will be renamed the long-term capital planning fund to
support future capital needs through the infrastructure assessments.
The budget, as submitted, anticipates returning to a more normal state,
allowing the city to replenish the newly renamed long-term capital planning fund
to over 1.85 million by the end of the forecast period.
And this brings us to the general fund reserve. The reserve policy is to
maintain a reserve equal to 50% of the projected general fund expense plus fire
transfer plus pension debt service. This budget incorporates the policy with the
reserve goal at 50% of fiscal year 2728 projected general fund expense plus fire
transfer plus debt service which is 5.21 million. The projected general fund
balance at the end of next fiscal year is 5.63 million. The projected general
fund balance is over the policy goal by 417,000
or 54%.
And this slide shows the history of the general fund's actual ending balance.
The fiscal year 2526 estimated general fund balance of 7.21 million and it
shows the 5-year projections. The green line reflects the council's reserve
policy goal. As you can see, the budget reflects that it does meet the reserve
policy goal for the next five years. And in conclusion, a few highlights of
this budget are that the general fund reserve policy is met over the 5-year
forecast period. We continue with annual contributions to our 115 trust fund. We
contribute to the critical infrastructure reserve to fund the beach
road stabilization construction with plans to replenish the fund in future
years. And the budget reflects a fiscally conservative approach that
prioritizes maintaining staffing levels and supporting the city's operational
needs.
So tonight, we are asking you for your input and we'll take your suggestions
into consideration while we continue to refine our budget projections and we
will bring the budget back to council for adoption on June 8th after we
conduct the public hearing. And with that, I'd be happy to answer
any questions.
» Helga, thank you very much for the detailed presentation. Um, let me open
this to the city council first for questions for Helga.
» Of course, Brian. >> Well, Helga, that was masterful. Thank
you very much. I know it was a lot of work for you. It was a lot of work for
me to read it, too. So, so well done. Um,
basically I guess the first question I'm going to ask is should the public be
worried about the 2 million plus deficit that you highlighted?
» Uh, no. Because the majority of that is covered by the transfers from the
critical infrastructure reserve fund to cover.
» So the reserve fund is not included in your math. And so that comes in and
essentially takes care of that deficit. >> It does. Yes.
» Okay, great. I just wanted to clarify that. Um,
so on page four, I was just curious and I I may be off on this, so that's what
I'm going to ask is I noticed that in chart three it said
over-the-counter revenue trends. So why would um 26 27
why why would you anticipate that to be what looks to me to be lower than what
was even in 2425 which was before we had the new fee
structure. Is is this have something to do with the fee structure or not?
So,
so in the proposed budget, it does reflect the new fee schedule. However,
» we only have like a half a year's worth of
» data on the new fee schedule revenue. So, I didn't want to overestimate the
revenues in this first year. And once we have
better historical data on the revenues under the new fee schedule, then we can
um have a better >> little Yeah. realistic number. Okay.
» Okay. It just seemed like it was a little bit low because it was even under
two years ago. >> Yeah.
» Anyway, if that that was a question I had. So, let
me see. Um,
I I did notice there was a $7,000 um expenditure for coyote and rat
mitigation, but um I don't know. I really don't know
anything about the rat mitigation. So, is that something we're going to discuss
at some point or how how does that happen? Yeah, that's uh something that
the mayor and I are looking into currently and we'll have a proposal that
we'll bring to city council in the future. Um we're not quite sure where
that's going to land yet. We're still gathering our facts, but um we did want
to make sure that something was in the budget in case it goes the direction we
think it might. >> Okay. And then,
and I may be wrong, but um do you recall what our um coyote uh contract is with
Marin Humane? >> Uh I want to say it's 2500 a quarter.
» That's is that >> Yeah.
» Okay. So that's more than 7,000. So this doesn't
count. This is separate from our contract with Marine Humane. This 7,000
is a separate. >> Isn't that under the
That's sep I believe that's separate. Okay. From min Yeah, the animal control
is >> right
» under the non-dep departmental. So >> Oh, okay.
» It's a separate line item. >> Oh, okay. Great. I wasn't sure. I
thought maybe we were saving money. That's really been nice. Um,
let's see.
I know you brought up um pensions and the change in
in those figures and I I was looking in the list of unfunded expenditures on
page 13 and would would pension issues be considered an unfunded expenditure or
they again a separate >> um that's separate because um you know
we have our required contribution that Kalpers says that we have to pay each
year and then the um the unfunded acred liability is
something that is determined on an annual basis from Kalpers through their
valuation and that's and our section 115 fund is
is there to offset that. >> Okay. Thank you.
Um, okay. That's all I have. Kevin,
» sure. Um, thank you, Helga. Helga. Uh, it's a great presentation, very thorough
as always. Um, just three questions for you. On page five, it's uh somewhat
related to Jane's question. Is the revenue that you're projecting for
licenses and permits um for this coming fiscal 785 785,000?
Um and my question was is so the 265 for malad's included in that 765, right?
» Um no >> it is. So that's separate.
» It's separate because the malard is in fiscal year 2728.
» Oh, so it's the year forward. Okay, thank you. That actually helps quite a
bit. So my question was the same as Jane's is just it seemed low compared to
especially last year. But again, it's just mainly because of a conservative
approach. >> Yes. So, if we were to trend in the same
level, how much higher would that be, do you think?
» Um, I I don't really know at this time, but you know, once
» 25% I mean it could be 25 to 30% more than
» Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. We could come close to maybe
what we did last year. >> We would theoretically theoretically
» it's just good to know. Can I just jump in there because isn't it also the case
that we've seen just a lot of unusually large projects and so we're normalizing
for that as well in terms of your forecasting?
» Yes, that's true. >> Thank you.
» True. >> Well, if you walk around town, you're
still seeing a lot of unusually >> so I'm not sure it's a
» Yeah, it's a conservative number for sure.
» It is. Yes. >> Okay, great.
» I I just didn't want to overestimate. >> Yeah. No, I appreciate that. I think
that's actually kept us in good standing, that type of approach. Um, on
page eight and nine, um, just in terms of capital expenditures or operating
expenditures, I'm sorry. What are your thoughts in terms of contingency
planning, especially as it relates to Beach Road? Like what's baked in here?
» 11%. >> Oh, yes. In
» Yeah. Yeah. That's 11%. I'm getting the nod from Tony.
» And you're feeling good about that. >> Yeah,
I'll take that answer. I'll take that and run. Um, okay. Last question.
» It'll read better in the in the minutes than the audio.
» Um, on page 13, last question is just the unfunded expenditures. any sense of
what this could be from a ballpark standpoint, like what our potential
exposure is here?
» That's for Tony, I think. >> Um, yeah, I I wouldn't guess. I I think
Robert or Tony could answer that. >> I'll take it from anyone.
» Just a ballpark. million dollars projects from
» you'll have to give me a minute to just uh take a look.
» We can come back to why don't you think for a moment and we can go on to other
council members. >> Great.
» Thank you. >> Uh Peter, any questions?
» Uh just just a quick um clarification. you were talking about the uh the
reserve for for the um 2627 fiscal year and you talked about the 56 over the 52
um calculation with $400,000 some odd the 56 it was you know a slide a few ago
that's the the year ending projections right
» I think I think you had it as July of 26 >> oh
» I think I'm just just I don't know whether I read that wrong or but it
should be the year ending >> it should be the
Um, just two things I mentioned in the finance committee meeting. Uh, I do
think and I know Kevin brought this up. I do think we should strive going
forward and it may even need to be done somewhat retroactively layer on a
separate P&L for Malard because I think there's tentacles in a lot of different
places. You've got costs for uh the consultant. You've got costs for legal
work. You've got costs for um cost recover cost for for a number of things
that we assume we're going to be paid for. Uh and we're actually are are have
already collected fees with no no real benefit go into some of the fees that
we've already identified. So they are in there in from an actual perspective
going backwards and they will be in this year you know assuming that that there
are some projects for this year. So I would hope and think that at some point
we build a standalone um fee structure, standalone expense structure including
potentially staff costs and so forth so that it all feeds into over budget but
you can look at it in it in its isolation. Um I know we talked about it
before. Um second thing is uh I do also think that
25 26 permit fees were augmented by the um um permit renewals as we talked
about. um >> yes,
» which which aren't really accounted for going
forward either. So, I think that might need to be layered out or broken out as
a separate line item in the future because it doesn't take, you know, more
than three or four or five permit renewals to be a decent number.
» Yes. >> In relation to $700,000 total line item,
» right? I am planning to work with planning and building on the Malard to
have a better schedule for that. And then I have worked with um the building
official for those building extension fees. I do
have a list for those and I'm planning to break those out. There's it's about
28,000 that we've >> collected in this current fiscal year so
far to date. And so I am going to break those out so that they will have a
separate line item going forward. >> Wonderful. Thank you,
Pat.
Nice thing about being fourth in line is all my questions were answered.
» Thank you. >> Thank you, Helga. I appreciate um a lot
of my questions were answered in advance by multiple emails from um Helga and uh
which I greatly appreciate and thank you for all your work. You're welcome.
» Um I do not have questions. I attended the finance committee meeting and asked
my questions then. So um let's open this for public comment. Is there anybody in
the audience who would like to make a public comment? Okay, let's go to um
online >> there are no hands raised.
» Great. Okay, so let's bring this back for discussion or a motion or actually
we don't need a motion. This is justformational.
Um would anybody like to give any specific direction um that isn't already
included in this memo? I'd like us to make more money and spend less money.
» Okay. And let's let's actually go back to Tony in terms of the question that
was asked about the potential very large number in terms of our capital
expenditure needs. >> Um yeah,
» can you hear me? Yep. There we go. Um yeah, it's it's really hard to say
without looking into these more more closely. Um and I just checked with
Robert on one of them, the as far as the undergrounding goes. Um and you know so
going back going up uh the the list here starting with undergrounding um about 5
million um sustainability plan implementation which would be
sustainable fleet LED lighting and so on. Um my guess would be uh between half
a million and 1 million. um critical infrastructure project, earthquake and
utility protection for levies. Um I'd say um between 5 and 10 million and then
roadway adjustments related to emergency evacuation planning. Um I I have not
seen any of those uh proposed uh changes. So, um it depends if we're
talking about big retaining walls or if we're uh just talking uh smaller
projects, but uh anything from uh 3 to 5 million, I'd say. So, um I'd say between
10 and 15, uh million in total. >> This this is in this is part of your
capital needs assessments that you're currently uh going through or is
» No. Uh so those are all uh those assessments are all for existing
infrastructure. Um these are uh proposed new uh infrastructure items.
» Okay. Does that answer your question? Were you looking for the bigger number
of the all-in >> No, no. I I think that does um I think
I'm sure it's something you're already talking about at the finance committee.
I mean those are big numbers obviously and how we think of those in addition to
the infrastructure project. I mean the numbers get even bigger and you know
obviously we have a very modest budget. So
yeah it's just it's a lot of exposure if those things ever become critical.
» Yeah. I mean my understanding is that once we have a better idea of the
numbers we then need to think about how we might be planning for that
financially over the next 30 years or whatever those however long those
assessments go out. But but you're still planning to bring that back to us next
fiscal year. You'll have completed all the assessments. Is that right?
» Correct. >> Yes. Yeah.
» All right. Thank you. So, unless there's any other comments or questions from
council members, we're going to close this item um and move on to
item 7B, which is a review and discussion of revocable license policy
and application to the beach road strip. Um who is put this Rebecca? Is this your
item? >> Yes.
» Okay, go ahead. >> Thank you. Good evening, mayor, council
members. This item um includes a discussion of how the city manages
revocable licenses, also known as RL's on the beach road parcels known as the
strip. The goal of this discussion is whether the current public benefit
framework is sufficient or if a more structured approach is required. Under
um our current administrative policy manual, the council grants RLS based on
public safety and infrastructure protection, aesthetic improvements,
validation of long-standing existing encroachments.
Um as we discussed previously, they are discretionary in nature and can be
revoked at any time by the council. Uh the staff reviewed the 21 residential uh
parcels along the strip. Um, it is a highly utilized area of the 21 parcels,
17 hold RLS. These types of encroachments include stairs, retaining
walls, fences, decks, landscaping, and elevators. These improvements mostly
exist solely to facilitate private access to the 17 peers and docks from
those residential homes. Um, while these public while these benefit the
homeowner, the public benefit is is often indirect, which include things
like the owner stabilizing a hill the city would otherwise have to manage and
improved landscaping in some cases. Uh, recent shoreline cleanup efforts
mandated by regulatory agencies underscores the city's obligations and
costs for maintenance of the strip. This development provides good reason to
consider whether the current framework should be more clear should more clearly
align private use of public land with a measurable public benefit. A few general
approaches for the council to consider are one expanded maintenance.
So this would include licences maintaining their improvement plus the
adjacent public strip including vegetation management, debris removal
and general upkeep. Secondly, an annual fee structure is
something to consider. This would include changing a recurring charging a
recurring fee while the RL primarily um benefits private interests. This fee
would create a dedicated fund for shoreline maintenance and regulatory
cleanup costs. A third approach would be to continue with the current approach
but undergo a closer examination of the revocable licenses standard provisions
and or addition of provisions specific to the strip. The city um has used the
current revocable license for several years and staff could examine other uh
similar approaches taken by other jurisdictions in the area.
The fourth approach would be to stop issuing RLS in the strip where the
primary aim of the improvements is to provide access to private peers and
docks. The council could decide in its discretion that this provides little to
no public benefit. Um the fifth approach could be to revoke
all RLS for the strip where the primary aim of the improvements is to provide
access to private peers and docks due to the potential lack of public benefit. a
lease agreement arrangement could be considered as an alternative in that
case. Uh tonight we are seeking uh direction on whether to pursu pursue
further analysis and potential amendments to the administrative policy
manual 11.7 um to address these issues identified
and I am available for questions should you have any.
» Thank you Rebecca. Um, who would like to uh start with questions if there are
any? >> Okay, Jane, go ahead.
» Thanks, Rebecca. I really enjoyed reading this report and I especially
liked having a lot of choices. It was a really thorough analysis of
seemingly so of what our options are. Um, so
one of the things that was mentioned was the doc lease payments. Do have we been
collecting those every five years? Okay. And so that goes up and you just collect
it and the nod was fine.
» Yeah, but we do send out the notices for payment each year and then we increase
them every five years. >> Oh, oh, each year. Okay, thanks. Good to
know. Um
if if we were to decide to create a lease situation for those uh that strip
area, how would that affect or impact the open space and
public access requirement of the open space? Do you see that the lease would
have an impact on that? >> Yeah. So I think one potential advantage
of the lease approach is frankly that I would have a more defined term for how
long the you know arrangement is in place. I don't think it I don't see it
as necessarily although certainly if Robert Rebecca or others have thoughts
I'm not sure if it necessarily impacts the nature of the open space access
requirements or principles that the city has followed. But I think the the
principal difference between a lease and a license is that as you know the
licenses or at least a revocable license I've seen since being attorney don't
have any defined end date or term whereas leases obviously do.
So you don't anticipate you're saying you could write into the lease whatever
you wanted to to cover the public access and
» yeah similarly I think in approach in terms of you know what our ask could be
so to speak um I think in either instance a lease or license it would be
pretty much the same because at the end of the day it is public property right
and obviously the public agency to decide what it wants to do with it own
public property. >> Okay. Um
so again um unfortunately parks open space and lanes was not brought into
this discussion. I I think because the item came at a time when between their
meetings, but certainly um I think in it would be great to keep them involved
going forward with any discussions or any anything that goes on. Um, I think
this uh this is our group that oversees all those areas and uh so I'm hopeful
that we pay attention to that and not um continue to kind of ignore it. So that's
all the questions I have.
» Just one is uh so some have everyone has an RL and some have leases or does
everyone have an RL and a lease? I think some all have RLS,
» some have leases. Most have those who have docks have leases as well.
» So why why both? Because you were just saying, Andrew, you could just solve
this with one. >> Well, the Yeah, the dock leases are for
the overwater structures. Got it. >> The RLS are for um improvements on the
strip. >> Got it. Okay. Thank you.
Thanks, Rebecca. Um, of the 19 and this is relating to our conversation just
just an hour ago at this point, two hours ago maybe. Uh, of the 19 L leases
that ex RLS that exist, are they for the entire um, property beneath
property line or property line on the strip or just for the improvements
within that area? >> I'd say the majority are for the
improvements within the area. >> Okay. So, so unlike what we do normally
on community road in that case or whatever the case might have been, um we
license that in like the whole grade out area of their of the um city right away
adjacent to their property property line to property line. We don't do that here.
We do it just for the area that they're specifically looking to improve.
» Correct. >> Got it. Thank you.
» I I would I would say that I think it you'd have to go back and look at them.
Some of them actually the RLS are quite large and they do take over. Um if you
go if you look at Cliff Lane at the bottom there, well that whole lane is
between three RLS, three different homes and the one at the bottom has an
actually quite large all the way covering the beach as well as um part of
the pier and the bottom of the lane versus another one that has the lane and
the other one that has. No, it is it's confusing
» the lane. Well, the lanes I've seen the RL covers the whole lane, but in terms
of the strip, I don't know. >> Yeah, I'm just talking about these
particular on the strip that we're addressing right now.
» I think
» so Rebecca, great report, very thorough. So the question is is that as we as I
look at some of the options that you gave us um to have them take over
maintenance obligation of as Peter described from lot to lot
um and to either have an annual fee or a lease
it seems and with the maintenance. So the
question is is and you may not have done that and that might be something we need
to do is is there one approach that has a greater benefit to the city
as as far as
like the maintenance would cover quite a bit. I don't know if we would ever be
able to get a lease that would cover all the
benefit of the maintenance of the entire parcel.
» Yeah. While Rebecca's looking, I would say if
you're if the objective is to try and get the maximum benefit,
if we are to give an RL, then yeah, it would be I would say a combination of
both. It' be a maintenance agreement for the entire slopes and it also be a
either a fee in Luffy or it' be a lease for for the square footage of the actual
improvements whether that be a hill elevator or a staircase or whatever.
» And so then my next question I guess goes to our legal counsel.
So the question is is that um we all know these license are revokable.
Um, do you see legally one, and I I'm not I'm sure
you're aware of all the five options, but is there an option there that
either legally is more advantageous or one that is definitely
more a disadvantage for the city to um
pursue, >> one that might be fraught with issues.
Uh so let me let me try to answer this way. I would say legally the one that
would require the most homework so to speak, the most preparation would be the
fee. um as noted in the staff report and as you know from other other fee
discussions in terms of user fees and regulatory fees and all those sort of
stuff you know that does require some sort of study
um exactly how you get to the cost to the city in terms of staff time or
otherwise and then figure figure out how much to pass on to you know private
residents within the city that are participating you know are partaking
that particular benefit. So I would say to the extent that we want to go down
that road, it requires more again sort of homework or leg work to put put
ourselves on a good legal footing. >> So that's one consideration perhaps for
council. >> Okay. So, and if we revoke the license
and come up with a new plan, whatever that plan is, um, and someone doesn't
want doesn't agree with what our new plan is, we just revoke it and they
can't gain access to their doc. >> Well, I again, revocable licenses
adopted and approved by city councils deep into the histories of Belvadier say
what they say. Um, but I think that certainly you could expect some push
back as a speaking as a practical matter depending on the length of which they've
had that revocable license and to the extent of what we are taking away and
perhaps how much they've invested in that property as well.
So again, I certainly understand the city's position. I believe the council
does as well. We will obviously maintain that position, but you know, there could
be some disputes along the way. >> Okay. Thank you,
» Andrew. Can I just follow up on that? Because
if I'm an existing homeowner with one of these RLS and now I'm being asked to um
maintain the entire lot to lot um
RL >> that could be a significant expense to
the homeowner. Um,
and our only they can say no, we're not doing that. But the only recourse is to
just say, well, you can't actually cross that piece of land to access your dock
anymore. That's where we'd be stuck. Is that
right? >> Well, they can cross they can cross a
piece of land like any other member of the public could cross the land,
» right? >> But under our revocable licenses, we can
request that they remove the improvements on those the private
property. I mean, they can still walk down there,
» but it's all the other stairs and elevators and all the other stuff that
they use. That's what is creating, I I assume in the initial instance, the need
for the RL. If they simply walked down to their docks,
that's fine. Access the dock. It just may be more
difficult to do so. >> I mean, are are we potentially burdening
them with a big expense here? I have no idea what that looks like in terms of
maintaining all of these different areas. I don't know how disrepaired
there they are. I don't >> sorry.
» Do we spend any money? Does anyone spend any money maintaining it? Does the city
» 310 312 beach as an example? We asked them, you know, they're asking for that
elevator. It's not before council. And we said, well, you might be, you know,
council might ask you to maintain the entirety if you draw those imaginary
property lines down. and they were fine with it. So, I don't know, you know, if
it's going to add if there's certain properties, sure that have had slides
and um you know, that are very steep and you know, maybe if that were to happen
that then yeah, they would it would be a high cost at that point.
Yeah, I I would just add on to what Rebecca mentioned then uh to the point
uh we have had some we don't we don't proactively maintain the hill hillside
or the slope along the along the strip. Um we have had recent instances where we
had material that fell down and BCDC enforcement action with this which the
city is um most likely on the hook for. Um, and there's other areas along Beach
Road that fall in that same category since some of the structures on there
are very old and not covered in an RL exclusively. So, that's one thing to
consider. Um, also I just want to mention too that oftent times the
problems that happen on the slope uh they're the result of the improvements
along the uh from the property above. you know, if there's drainage that comes
disconnected or some other feature that wasn't maintained, that causes a slide
that's in city property. And sometimes, you know, certainly in an emergency
situation, it's public works getting out there, the city identifying the problem
and trying to, you know, during poor weather trying to get out there and
cover the slide until they can figure out who's responsible for it. Um, and
then the recovery aspect of that can be challenging, too, because people argue,
okay, what came first, the chicken or the egg here? Is it was it the water uh
problem that caused the slide or was the slope instable to begin with? So yeah, a
more clearly defined, you know, ownership or I should say maintenance uh
responsibility would be beneficial. >> Can I follow up real quick and and
Rebecca, correct me if I'm wrong. uh you I think highlighted this item well
initially by identifying that this came up as a real question
about the public benefit that uh clearly when you're talking about a revocable
license for a property pretty much anywhere else in the city for city
rightway the appearance the the um the improvements the um uh uh maintenance is
the public benefit um there's very little public benefit for these
properties um city property behind someone's
property other than their access and someone occasionally walking by it even
if they're able to. So I think our planning commission in u making
recommendations city council for these licenses have had a hard time justifying
the public benefit for that license. So I I think the question I guess I'll keep
it as a question. Am I phrasing it correctly? Is is I mean is is that
really the issue? The issue is is is is how we can rationalize the lack of
public benefit for these licenses. >> Yes. You what is the public benefit of
private improvements to access your own personal peer doc?
» And so I think and similar to maybe our other discussion maybe it's a policy
level >> I'll still keep it as a question. Maybe
it's a policy level uh uh discussion because arguably
the public benefit is the question here. And if we can if if if if a broader
maintenance agreement or one of these options is added to it on a policy on a
policy level to the to to these type of licenses on this in this area, it
justifies that benefit somewhat more so than it is now because I I think the
planning commission has a hard time and justifiably so. I used to have the same
question down there. Why are we granting this this license for someone? Let's do
it in in another form. We just never got around to doing it. Um because you can't
really articulate a public benefit um versus, you know, the maintaining
maintenance responsibilities, improve landscaping, you know, hill
stabilization, reduce liability. That's hard to justify, you know, for the
benefit that that individual gets by having that particular improvement. We
haven't even got into the definition of structure, right, which is a another
issue on this. Um so I I I think that that's the gist of
the the issue is is how we need to describe what the public benefit is. And
if we can rationalize it within the same um um um bag that we see licenses,
that's that's I think why we thought about some other form lease or something
because you you don't need the public benefit for a lease.
» Yeah, I think it's um I mean because pretty much every house has uh or I
would guess most houses have an RL most homes and and and we should be they
should all be treated the same way. I mean, this the strip shouldn't be, you
know, um, pulled out and treated differently, good, bad, or or or
neutral. Um, but I guess my question is why now? Um, I mean, the leases don't
expire till 2039. So, that's another 13 years,
» but they're different. They're docks. >> Those are the docks.
» Well, but I mean, yes, yes and no. But, I mean, if you're a homeowner, I mean,
that's you're the RL's only so you can use the dock. I mean, so it's
it feels like why are we I mean, maybe are we trying to figure
this out for people who may be coming before the council in the near future?
Um or well, I guess you're asking or do we want to step back and think of it
holistically? I just feel um well, I guess I'm starting to deliberate which
I'll just stop there. So, the the one thing is is I'm sorry, but the one thing
is is not everyone that has a revocable license has a dock. Some people just
have some retaining walls or
decks or plants or something. So, they're very few, but there are a few
that don't have the dogs. >> And Rebecca, the impetus for this right
now is because we have a potential RL coming before us in the strip. Correct.
Yes. And as Peter mentioned, it's something that we've discussed
historically. It's just >> So that's that's why it's coming now.
Okay. >> Um All right. Let's open it for public
comment before we bring it back for discussion. Ra,
» there are no hands raised. >> Oh, I'm sorry.
» We actually have someone here in person. Um, hi, I'm Ma Bergson and I
am speaking again as an individual. Although I do want to acknowledge that
um, I am a member of the parks, open space and lane committee. So I speak
through that lens and also mentioned that unfortunately Charlie could not
stay. So I am sort of although I'm not the chairperson, I'm also sharing um
somewhat of his input as well. So I say that in that this context. Um I want to
start by saying um that unfortunately we were not given notice of this item at
all in advance. So we for saw it um when it came up in the agenda um uh for the
city council meeting. So none of us have been included and I think first and
foremost we wanted to acknowledge I want to acknowledge and Charlie I know it
feels the same way that we are very happy to have be having this discussion
um because we think it's really really important and really really valuable and
we do hope that um that the parks open space and lane can be included in it. Um
the strip is actually open space. So this is actually directly in our um in
our area and um we would be happy to have a subcommittee which is what we do
um in order to participate you know in a sort of a ongoing basis outside of the
meetings um and bring things to meetings. So I just encourage I hope
that you will uh make that request and that direction because we'd like to be a
part of it. Um the other piece that I wanted to mention is that um we um have
as you know I believe from Charlie been working on a survey. We did a big survey
of the lanes last year and this year um part of our goal is to do the same thing
for the open space. So of course actually the strip and this area has
been part of what we are looking at and ironically we are looking at have been
looking at the revocable licenses which impact basically all along there and so
this was something we were already looking at and as such we have looked at
quite a few of them just sort of spot looking at them looking them up and spot
looking at them. Um and we want to call attention to the fact that they are all
very different. For one they have been brought about at very different times.
Some of them are large, some of them are small. I mean, we have the one at uh
whatever it is 270 covers like the whole basically the whole property. They have
taken over the whole tide lot. Um and then versus the one that's at 310 to 312
are looking at um this elevator and then some stairs. So I think one of the
things that we request is that as you we look at all of these suggestions, we
really need to sort of get a do a really good job and be part and really look at
what exists there. Um oversight has not been been being done. That just has not
been part of the city's priority. Um and I think it's because they are all very
different. So you know there's been no direction. There are things that fall
into the onto the beach. And the number one thing here is that the policy 11.8.2
is for um the public to have um free it to be a public park and for the public
to have free passage along the beach. And I want to note that a lot of these
including accessing either their dock or the ones that don't have a dock, they
might have a shared dock. They also include steps to get down to the beach.
They're not just crossing to their dock. They all want to get to the beach. And
the idea is that this open space area and the way these docks and these
various RLS sort of connect to the beach and their docks not be done in a way or
their maintenance of the hillside is done in a way that adversely impacts the
ability of the city to fulfill this important policy of public access. We
want everybody to be able to have free passage. And if you haven't ever done
it, um I I know Charlie and I would be happy to show you what an amazing trip
it is to go down. Right now we can go down the Harry Bell Allen steps and to
walk along there and we would both love to give anyone that uh that option. So I
will retire. That's sort of all of my questions. Thank you.
» Thank you very much. Ma, um Bethy said nobody online. Correct.
» Correct. Oh, I apologize Mr. Rothman. Okay, he's back. Bring him in.
Hi, Dr. Rothman. >> Hi, thank you very much. U could you
tell me whether the city has a similar strip
of its own land on the side of the island that looks out
towards Saucelo? >> No, we don't.
» In other words, it goes from private property to what? To state
» state property.
Is that right? It just goes from property to state.
» Thank you very much for for that information.
» Yeah, I'm looking right now. Um, it's the it's the state from the end of the
island working eastward, sorry, northward, westward. Um, and then around
before it gets to cliff, it becomes county property.
» Oh, but it's never city property. >> Never city property.
» Thank you very much for that information. Thank you. Um,
okay, this is getting more complicated, but um, let's bring this back for
discussion. Um, who wants to Peter, do you want to kick off? Yeah, I'll just
touch again on what I mentioned before that uh
uh
I believe it was Don brought it up in the last planning commission meeting in
reference to the hiller that he was talking about the discrepancy or the the
hypocrisy almost between uh public benefit and and you know when you're
looking at a at a revable license anywhere else on the island, you you
don't allow private privatization of the property. You can't put a fence there.
You can't even put a garbage enclosure. And there's all these guid guidelines
that we've um uh pushed out over over the years to make sure that there really
is a public benefit to that, you know, 6 foot by 20 foot 200t stretch along the
front of their property. and those all seem to go out the window when you're
addressing um significant private improvements and private benefits and
private exclusive use of this revocable license area on the strip. So he was
having a hard time with that and I think it brought it to everyone's attention
that uh
is an RL the best form of this you know do we want to keep it in the same
structure because it's not necessarily apples to apples when you when you look
at what um that private benefit versus public benefit is for that property
behind them versus something somewhere else. Uh and I think I think that was
the impetus for this discussion. uh and I think to the parks and open
space committee um comments broadly about uniformity is we don't have it
there and it might be an opportunity to design it going forward so that we can
we can use it going forward and make an attempt to retroactively try to improve
it. Uh and certainly we have leverage going forward to get broader maintenance
agreements either with a a a specific revoke license which has a different
calculation between public and private benefit or at least that doesn't even
contemplate that uh and have uh a better understanding of of those licenses and
then seek to to to get them all aligned which isn't that unreasonable and I
don't know that we would need to go as far as to require someone to cover their
whole property if they haven't covered with the whole property before. We
obviously want to um have as much as a status quo as possible, just have it be
a more consistent approach um where we can. So, I'm open to a lot of ideas. I I
I just recognized um as Rebecca presented this uh the the the
differences that that the planning commission has to face when they when
they try to recommend these licenses to us.
» Kevin? >> Yeah, sure. I mean, I I guess I I'm
still struggling with just RLS in general across the community. Um, I
think it's always been a very thin argument to say that they are delivering
true public benefit. I mean, for many, at least when I was on planning and even
since I've been on council, um, I mean, they're not really. I mean, we say, "Oh,
well, the this is going to get a street a car off the street." Well, you know,
or, you know, this is going to they're not things that are truly creating
community benefits where people are going to congregate or, you know, play
in the park in front of their house or whatever it might be. And so, I know
even at our home, um, I think, you know, we bought it this way, but there's a
wall and a gate and so forth. I mean, nobody's getting the benefit of that
except for us. And so, I think that's probably true of many RLS around the
island for whatever reason. And I don't know why um the city was planned in this
way many many many many years ago. So that's one piece is I think that it's a
holistic question about RLS and I think we have to be careful not to um try and
apply a different discipline to this particular part of the city um over RLS
that are have been approved throughout the city. So that would be one. And then
the second is is I also feel very uncomfortable about um anything that
might be retroactive or would be affecting people who are currently for
whatever reason uh have the benefit of these RLS and leases through to 2039. I
mean, that's the only sort of event that's in the future where, you know,
there's a moment where these these uses will be reconsidered and have
to be renegotiated, I would imagine. Um, and so I would rather we be thinking
about how to make it co-terminous with the lease. like if this is something
we're going to tackle, that feels like the most appropriate time so we don't
sort of dilute or diminish something that's already been promised or given to
um residents,
» James. >> Okay. Sure. Um well I guess trying to
comment on some of the others I I don't I think I do see the strip RLS as
different in some ways from the rest of the city because every house on there or
at least everyone with access is has to cross open space not just city land but
o designated open space to be able to get to their
um doc or peer, however you want to call it. And in a way, there might be some
similarities in that we we give RLS for people to get to their stairs to get to
their front door. This is them getting an RL getting to their property of some
sort. I think um I think it would be you know it it would be hard to balance
the logic of taking away access to the docs that
exists and have a lease until 2039 by saying um you know we're not going to
give you an RL unless you do this that and the other thing and take take
whatever five was take we're just revoking all of them that that doesn't
seem logical or make any sense to me at all. Um
so I think because it's open space and
because along this particular um open space and strip area, we do have
I think four lanes that are also involved in this. So it isn't just you
know where where do these come in? A lot of the RLS are um like I said, one lane
has three RLs from three different houses that connect with it. And so, you
know, I think we'd be opening can of worms if we
if we try to make it um the same as other areas in the city where those RLS
really are specific to every single home. There there's not a lot of
overlap. In this in this case we do it they are different. I I do see the open
space and the strip as being different. um how we handle those differences. You
know, again, I think um I would hate I I think it would be no matter whether we
decide to do research with the lease idea or if we um amend the RL
specifically for the strip because it is so different and it doesn't have
anything else anywhere that that matches it. Um, I think we just have to be
really careful about public access because that's one of the main things
for our open spaces. And, um, as far as public benefits,
um, I've taken that walk with MA once, the whole strip and once um, just
part part of it. And um the p the public benefit is that you can get along our
whole all our open space by having access provided by these homeowners that
connect to their peers and allow um stairs to go over huge boulders that you
normally would have to scramble over or um and and it's not just low tide. Low
tide you can get a get through with anything, but it's um in case of
emergencies, if it's a moderate tide, high tide would be tough anyway, but
there are a lot of tides in between. And these um uh additions to the peers
really do help with that access. So, um I I think we need to get parks, open
space, and lane involved going forward. definitely even if it's just a
subcommittee so they can meet at the time that is more convenient for the
rest of the city and then I think we have to from my perspective I do see the
strip is um requiring some additional thought and differences from what goes
on in the rest of the city.
So, um, the RLS in the strip are totally
different than most other RLS that the city uses. And I
think the first off the I don't want to call it generic, but the revocable
license um that we use
for the strip is doesn't fit in with what the strip is
all about. So I think at least the very least we should be or initially looking
at that revocable license for the strip and
how it's worded and what it's included. Um,
I I I look at the strip as city property and um and we're we're giving away a
portion of the city property for the benefit
of the people that own those homes. And it was done
me many many many years ago. And um and probably there were times that
um people just put in the staircase and didn't realize it was open space. Um but
I think it's time the city take a look at it and figure out the best way to go.
Um you know I I remember a prior attorney
saying that we shouldn't be giving away our city land. we should be collecting a
fee for what we give away. Um, which I find hard as Kevin says, you know, a lot
of properties, you know, your gate, your driveway. I mean, of course, people have
to have that. Um, well, maybe not your gate. You wouldn't get that now, but
your driveway you definitely need. Um, but the strip is totally different and I
think it needs to be handled different and the right process to go through. I
mean, you know, there's a a balance there between the city benefit
and the individual benefit that I think we have to weigh. And I think this is
also a greater community discussion. Um it may be that we need to schedule this
discussion again and maybe hear back from some of the people that have the
RLS um just to hear their input um so we can balance everything out. Um but I
think we should investigate um you know some of the suggestions here. I'm not
calling to spend a lot of money. Um but I would say um we should look at you
know um is a fee schedule better than a lease and or you know do we maybe not
say you have to pay for the whole area of your the strip that you're using
but you're going to have to share in some of the costs. I I don't know what
the right balance is, but I definitely think that this is something we're going
to have to um investigate and um
probably a task force would be a good idea just to get some
parameters and and hopefully we can hear from some of those RL people um to get
their their feedback.
Thank you, Pat. Um,
Rebecca, part of the reason this is coming forwards now is that time crunch
associated with a couple of one property or two properties that's looking that
are looking to get an RL on the strip. Right now,
» it's two properties, one RL. >> Okay.
» Well, it could be two RLs, but it's the same improvements. They're looking for a
shared elevator.
And if we um I mean I agree with Pat that this you're not going to want to
hear this Rebecca, but this needs more thought and some form of uh a couple of
council members working with uh parks and urban spaces um might make
sense, but how far can we push back these homeowners because that isn't
going to happen overnight. >> Yeah, they were a little frustrated.
They were originally going to be agendaized tonight. Um, we've pushed it
back twice now. I think it would >> Is it part of a bigger project that
they're doing? >> No.
» No. Andrew, do you have any comment on that in terms of our obligations?
» Legally, I think you can you can seek more time to ponder this issue and
figure out the best way forward. Uh I don't know if they have any legal
expectation to have their application decided by certain day one or the other.
I'm not aware of any. I I don't think that we that we um
uh I think we have a responsibility to to act in a timely fashion with with any
applicant, let alone these applicants who've already been put off. Uh I would,
as Pat pointed out, this has been going on for a long time. I'm not sure we we
we are making a huge mistake um hearing and granting ultimately um upon review a
a license for them even if we have to say you know this this as as an
additional condition of that license that we're we're we're going to look at
the ultimate form and it could be revoked if if the change if the item is
changed which we have the right to do anyway but I I can't imagine that that
this process should hold them up because if this process takes on the type of
scope that we've just contemplated tonight they're not going to come up
before us for a year um And I don't I don't think that's that's appropriate
for them. >> Can I agree with Peter? I mean, I think
it's our best practice. >> Well, but just going back, I mean, when
this was initially um worked on, it took 24 public hearings in five years.
» Um and so, you know, >> no, no, no.
» I think it was the dock leases. >> The dock leases took took that long. And
so, I mean, it's it's >> it took 5 years and 24 public hearings.
It took the council 24 public hearings over a period of five years to resolve
all the issues and concerns that were raised by the dock owner, city attorney,
and other members of the city staff. >> It was before the internet. That's why.
» Right. Right. AI could get that down to 22 meetings in four years. Um but uh but
again, I think to your point, I would say we should proceed with 310 and 312.
um because this is going to we shouldn't hold them hostage to um a policy um
evolution desire by the city. Uh which could take quite a while. Um and I think
it's yeah similar to the sidewalk issue that you raised earlier today, Pat. It's
like I mean yes, we probably should have a sidewalk policy and we probably should
have sidewalks along the park, but we can't hold up that homeowner until we
get our policy work done. So that do you have a comment on that or does that make
sense just to we'll bring them forward and we are going to do a broader review?
» Okay on that one specifically um they've also agreed to maintaining the entirety
of the strip. So, that's one thing. We've also walked with Ma and Charlie um
with the homeowner, one of the property owners, and they've agreed to do some um
raising of a platform so that people can pass through that to give it the public
better access. >> Okay. So, it feels like that'll just
come forward as as planned next month. Um, but I have a question for for Jane
in relations because it sounds like um, Parks Neighbor Spaces is looking to sort
of revitalize the strip and so that's part of what's playing into this
discussion. Correct. Well, I think it's important to realize that they are a
very active parks open space and lanes committee and I would say lucky for us
because they're really doing a phenomenal job of um documenting every
lane and next the next um focus area is going to be on the open space and with
that documentation and database I really see and I think Tony has mentioned
before that it's a great asset because We don't have um the ability in our
staff to be looking uh on a regular basis at what's needed for every single
piece of lane and open space. But they have the ability to do that and that
could be easily given to them as an annual job to go along and document are
people um are are the ladders falling apart?
Can you still walk down a lane? Can you get to the strip as uh stated in their
uh revocable license? Are they keeping it up? And that is something that would
be doable um as an enforcing um issue that we always struggle for. So
I I think the parks open space and lane because they have renewed energy and
focus and um they're really tackling what they're supposed to be doing and
yeah so I think that is a part of it but I think it's a great benefit.
» Okay. So it sounds like there's broad consensus that the strip is different
from other RLS except for Kevin who dis disagrees with that. So it does feel
like there is more work to do and then the question is really how do we do that
work and not take five years and however many meetings. Um so I if people have
specific suggestions and it's I know Pat suggested a task force if it's very
narrow I would certainly support that. I don't know how other council members
feel.
I think if if if you reread number one, uh it's pretty it's almost an exact
model of what Rebecca is proposing for >> 310 312.
» Okay. >> Which is our existing license and you're
threading the needle by having increased responsibility over the whole stretch
and the um increased um obligation for maintenance. that can provide the
planning commission and ultimately us with a greater sense of public benefit
that works well within our our our existing licensing structure. Um because
uh you know you read our policy with the vocal licenses not specific to the strip
or anywhere else. It talks very extensively about a significant public
benefit. Uh so I think that approach going forward meaning guidance from us
in in a conversation just like this um solves decent part of the problem as far
as um giving the planning commission clear guidance as far as how they can um
recommend these licenses in this area for us going forward which might be not
too many going forward but nonetheless gives them that guidance which liberates
us I believe to think about this more holistically and maybe we push that back
to the parks and open space committee to think about it as um in in in concert of
their survey of the open spaces going forward, in particular this area, what
recommendations would they make to the city council uh in further licensing
this this area? What's the what's the um periodic uh review um survey updates and
then contact home owners how they need to maintain it and so forth. I mean,
there could be a whole schedule they could put together um that could go
forward. I mean, I don't know that this is something we need to invest a
subcommittee beyond what's already in place in the parks committee. If we if
if we go with a general direction that these ongoing maintenance obligations um
for the broader um borderto border responsibility and take out the going
backwards, we're not going to necessarily look at that right now. that
that'll become become a recommendation of of how out of sync we might be with
with older licenses as you look through those or as parks look looks at them one
by one across the total property. >> I'm a bit confused. So you're saying
going forwards we should impose broader requirements but in terms of the the
existing licenses you're saying leave them be?
» Leave them be. I think parks open space part of their open space survey is not
only to look at the physical um um um condition of the of the strip, but
examine the licenses to see how they how how they correspond into the maintenance
that that exists on the strip and come back to us and say these these six
licenses are in good shape. These six licenses are in bad shape. Here's how
you could potentially improve them. >> They're in good shape or bad shape.
Meaning that they're not maintaining the whole the whole
» they're either not they're not they're not they're not maintaining as they're
supposed to maintaining it or the license doesn't cover the area that
needs to be maintained. You know, if I were to do it, I I would look at the the
three or four three properties that exist there and have a good
understanding of all the licenses and have a database that identifies uh where
the problems are. Are they covered by licenses? And if they are, um then the
the homeowner is not living up to their obligation as a LE. And if if if if an
area that's neglected or needs needs some some attention is not covered by a
license, either the city needs to address that problem short of a
landslide or something like that or we need to go to that homeowner, talk to
them about broadening their their responsibility, revoke the license, or
if we don't see that as a plausible option, we need to, you know, step in
and and and recognize that is a a an obligation or a liability, you know, for
our further assessment of our property. So the only thing I would say there is
this sounds like it gets into a little bit of the Milzac stuff where you don't
actually see the annual uh reviews taking place or or it just falling
apart. And so to me, you have to cover if you're going to do it forward
looking, you do it backward looking to you issue everybody with with the new
requirements and then park and then parks and urban space can come and say
when those on they're not honoring those agreements. I'm just responding to to
both Jane and and and and the parks open space based committee wanting
a a seat at this table to to to continue the assessment process just as they do
the lanes um that these open space including the strip becomes part of
their ongoing um active review of of city property.
» But does that answer the full question that we're being asked tonight? I mean,
that's talking about maintenance. And I think we're sitting here saying, you
know, we have private development on public land that
we've given RLS to, and are those RLS the correct vehicle we should be using?
And if they are the correct vehicle, does it cover everything that needs to
be covered? Because the R the the strip is different. So, I think there's, you
know, I mean, I think it's great park and open space wants to go out and take
a look and see, you know, who's maintaining, who's not maintaining, who
needs to do this, who needs to do that. But I think that we're at a higher level
here asking the question, you know, how how are we going to address this private
development on public land and, you know, a a greater question of, you know,
who's responsible for what. And I think that no offense to anybody, but I think
it goes beyond park and open lane for that discussion. So I just thought that
if there was a task force, we could look at you know what could a lease look
like? What you know how how are we going to come up with the FIA? There's
somebody else out there that, you know, we can look at how they have it
structured. I think we're very unique in what we have. So I I I don't know if
we'll find somebody that has the same situation, but I think it just takes a a
broader look to see the potential of what we can and can't do. And you know,
with alongside respecting our community and the members who have their RL and
how we're going to mesh this all together so that we can all get the
greatest benefit. They get the great benefit, we get a great benefit.
The only thing I would add to that though is that the city has already
decided assuming that these structures comply with what was approved by the
city. I mean the city has already decided that these people can build what
they've built. So I mean I would just be cautious about reopening decisions that
have been made and settled for many many years. I mean, if there are things that
we want to do on a going forward basis that addresses some of these issues that
were raised tonight, um I can understand that, but but I don't think that we want
to create a narrative that we're going to um at least in my opinion um
re-examine what we've already decided. That would be like someone coming and
saying, "Hey, you know, we've changed our mind and you can't have your second
story if it was approved or whatever." It's like that's that's settled. That's
settled. I I can see where you're coming from, but I'm also thinking, okay, so
someone has had a revocable license for 15 years, and you know, somebody, you
know, I mean, I don't want to pick on any single property.
» Don't, >> but I mean, you know, we had this
arrangement, it no longer is working. Now we want this new arrangement. Well,
okay, they had a revocable license, but that revocable license they had, they
don't want anymore. So now we got to give them a different revocable license
because they're doing reconstruction or changing the whatever. That is when we
could go to someone and say, "Okay, you know, this is how we're going to
structure it, >> right?" But that's different. I mean,
like a catalyst for change like at 310 and 312 to me is different because
they're coming to the city saying, >> "Pard me,
» no properties mentioned." >> Well, no, no. I mean, but that one we we
have because it's the one that we said we should bring forward. But that's to
me uh it's a catalyst for change and so therefore it's required to go through
this process. It's being you know they're saying hey we'd like the city to
actually give us something. Um and so I think it's a fair thing to discuss um
you know what's the best and most balanced approach to that. I just again
I'm just cautioning about you know being very careful about navigating decisions
that have been made made for many many years. um experiences people are relying
on and counting on because the city's granted those experiences and so we ne
we should just be very careful and I would be very respectful of those
settled decisions. Yeah. And I I recommended that approach or just
throughout that approach number one without the retroactive element um just
doing my informal headcount um I didn't see a great will to among I guess at
least the four of us to to change much of the methodology uh leases fees um
structure- wise um other than trying to improve the maintenance um
liability and potentially the public benefit um And
then to consider that what what what what Pat and Rico talked about is is
having um the parks and space committee sort of continue their their their
broader oversight of this of these of this space just like they do the um the
lanes and everything else. >> But then maybe that would be helpful if
we're going to have folks think about this. Maybe we need to be clear on the
parameters like I mean is this screen space uh or is this you know here are
some parameters to operate within or to ideulate within. Um again I I'm maybe
there aren't but I I think we we haven't I don't think aligned on that tonight.
Um and maybe that's worth coming back
and agreeing to it might make it a more productive all
over the place. Um as Peter said, do we mostly have
agreement that that before discussing whether it's just uh
going forward or retroactively an an idea of it's the maintenance obligations
that we want to uh pass over is that is a broad agreement that that's the core
issue that we have here.
Well, I mean, I think the maintenance is part of it and then it's um
uh I mean, I don't want to take anything away from anybody that has anything. Um
I'm not, you know, advocating for that. Um but a lot of it is is just, you know,
um uh when people redo their staircase um down to the dock, sometimes they
change it. Sometimes it was like a direct, you know, like kill her down and
now they want to kind of do a meandering thing. Well, that's kind of a new
revocable license and that's where we can open up the discussion. So, um I'm
not advocating that we take anything away from anybody, but I'm just thinking
that we need to think of this in a longer term how we're going to um look
at maintenance and and and you know, is is the revocable license the right term
we should use or should the revocable license switch to something else? I
don't know. I wonder if we've had task force before
that have had um finite dates on them and I don't know if that's a possibility
just to get a little bit more information from the community greater
community as well as having parks open space and lane representatives
there and maybe you know so that it doesn't take five years
make it a three month >> meeting schedule kind of like the seaw
wall is not going on forever and they have a a small subcommi committee that's
meeting as needed and getting through whatever it is they need to get done and
perhaps we can use that as a model for something
more finite in time. >> Rebecca, I feel like we're giving you no
direction here whatsoever because we're all over the map. I think I think what
some things I'm hearing are I think parks open space lanes committee would
you know they have the energy they have the momentum it would be great if they
could assess each revocable license and like Jane and Pat were saying that some
of them cover the entirety of the strips some of them only cover the stairs right
so then that can give us sort of a basis of what we're looking at right and I
don't think I think we're looking at ways is to
move forward with these revocable licenses. You have to remember we have
all those 21 properties. There's 19 RLS already. So the chances of a new RL
coming back are pretty rare, >> right? Unless somebody sells a property,
demos a house, and red does it. Those, you know, that you know that's probably
going to happen. It's happened once in the 10 years I've worked here. So I
think we could move forward with pars space
lane doing an assessment and then coming back and reporting on that and seeing if
there's anything that we can do to sort of you know improve getting more
maintenance out there. I also think that keeping the existing RL might be a road
we want to go down and enter into and enter new language for RL's in the strip
that discusses maintenance moving forward,
» right? similar to what might be coming next month,
which to me seems pretty clean, but I don't know if it goes as far in depth as
Pat is suggesting, but it seems like it would sort of help
us move move forward, >> right? Um, so I guess the only question
is in terms of asking parks and open spaces to do that, obviously Jane would
be working with them on that. Is there any reason to include any other council
member in this in that part of this or not? Meaning do you feel like you're do
you do would that be helpful? >> No, I I think it's fine unless someone
wants to do it. I don't think it's necessary.
» Okay. So does that seem like a good approach that first parks and open
spaces does that assessment and at the same time as they're providing that
information we really start to think about what the policy will be around
whether we're just requiring maintenance obligations or
whether we have to open this up more more broadly. Well, I guess yeah, the
question, you know, the question is po. What is the point of them doing that? We
already have they already exist. These RLS, we're not we're not going to go
retroactively back. So, I don't know. No, maybe that's not the best use of
their time. >> Well, sorry, not helpful. But now that
I'm thinking about it, we don't want to waste their time on
» I believe the way forward is to do a a a slightly modified uh uh robo license
addressing the the the the additional uh stabilization landscaping maintenance
aspects of this particular pieces of piece pieces of property. Um which which
gives gives this the city the more the security relative to stabilization but
also helps thread that needle which I talked about relative to the public
benefit. That seems the right approach going forward. I'm responding to parks
open space um existing and already planned survey of open spaces in the
next year whenever they decided to do that whenever they hope to do that. And
it wouldn't be that difficult in that survey of these open spaces to um
include information about whether it's licensed or not, whether there's whether
there's full full coverage of the property, whether there's um landscaping
um um responsibilities to the homeowner. whatever three or four or five questions
they come up with to identify where there's additional risks relative to
that public space um as it relates to the the public's use of that space. And
if and if one one property doesn't have a license on it covering anything more
than just the stairway up the up the hill and there's a lot of loose loose
soil with no with no vegetation there, I might say in that survey, this is this
poses some risk of of slide in the future and maybe maybe that gets rolled
over to Tony and then and they do a more sophisticated assessment because that
could become the same situation where we had with BCDC, you know, this past year.
But but the issue I have with that is that while we have an active parks and
open spaces right now, we might not do in five or 10 years time and then
nobody's doing those assessments. >> But I think it's a onetime survey just
like your like your lane survey. I don't know that it needs to be readressed that
often. >> But but that would be a peacemeal
approach. So you're saying some we would apply this retroactively to some
depending on the circumstances and not all.
» No, it's just a it's just an assessment. It just it just tells you where we are
because that that way you file it not only in the in in the parks archives but
Rebecca has it so she knows the history of where everything is
» but we're not expanding their obligations retroactively under your
model with Kevin on that. I don't think we we
can or should necessarily sort of impose new requirements on people imposing new
requirements but within the RL it does talk about maintaining. So if they have
an RL and the maintenance is not occurring then it would give the city
leverage to be able to say we've noticed that the stairs are crumbling and you
haven't kept them up and this is now dangerous for the public. You know what
» it would also provide a good basis if they did come back for a new RL for new
improvements we could say well we have this study and here's what you know
» and could could we ask MA if this seems okay
» ma come back up. >> So, she's right there.
» We're sort of telling her what she's doing.
» Yeah. So, I I would Yes. >> Oh, it's green. Is it Is it on? Yeah.
Okay. Um Yeah. I think so what we were looking to do is as part of this open
space that we did commit to work on this year because we did the lanes one last
year. So, we're heading into fiscal year whatever July 1. um is to and so we've
already started is to look at all of the open space not just the strip but all
the open space and to do a similar survey that we did with the lanes um
which is looking at sort of all the different aspects to create this sort of
catalog for the city and sort of a baseline you know look into what they
have and one of the big things that has come up for us was of course these uh
RLS particularly in the strip and so what we realized is we did look at a
handful of them and I will say recent projects encouraged us to do that. So we
did look at a couple and they are the ones that are there are very different
and there are bits that one um would I believe the city give the city if the
city had that survey they would know what the existing obligation is under
existing RLS and whether they're being fulfilled and so I think that is a
benefit and it's not retroactively creating anything it's really looking at
what exists and you know are they doing it an example is you know giant giant
trees that have fallen down and now are blocking the beach. And the question is,
uh, it came up earlier, you know, is that the city's maintenance obligation
or is this happen to be one of the RL's that's bigger and it actually should be
the homeowners and and I don't think anybody knows because they're not easy
to find. Um, that's, you know, they're they're buried and they're not easy to
find. Um, and so, uh, I mean, I looked at them up at the county assessor's
office because I was there waiting for my jury duty. So um so that's the one
thing. The other piece that I just want to bring up um that this has been a big
focus on maintenance at the core of this and a big piece as to why we are you
know looking at this and why we're looking at open space and lanes is about
public access. And so to the extent that the city has allowed um has given RLS
where there are stairs to get to to get to the beach and to get up and over the
dock and we've and people have put in docks or developments that block
people's access their walkway across the public area. Um and there are places
where stairs that were there are no longer there. This is an example and I'm
not, you know, I don't I couldn't even tell you the numbers, but there are
stairs that were clearly there that would have given people passage that
were probably part of the original development in RL and now they're gone.
And so that at certain tides that prevents the public from having public
access across that land because it's not just that they're maintaining an unsafe
land area, it's that they're not protecting public access across the city
city's land, which is part of all RL's. So I I didn't want us to lose track of
that in this focus on maintenance. Um because there's a ton of different
things down there. There's decks, there's steps, there's doc connections
to doc that are up high, there's connections to docs that are down low,
and the down low ones block access. Um, we did mention the proposals for the
upcoming one. Well, we met with them. We had a great meeting with them and
realized if they um what they're proposing, if they raised sort of did
some sort of an adjustment of how they laid out the stairs, you could easily go
behind it. So that's an example of not changing the obligation of existing RLS
but really looking at what was the obligation to start out with and are
they still fulfilling it both for maintenance as well as for access. Okay,
» Ra that was very helpful. So thank thank you for that. So does the approach seem
to be that we going forwards we're going to do what we do with this with the this
new property that we're going to require them to cover the whole lot. Um that's
all that we're going to do right now in relation to RLS, but we are going to
have parks and open spaces do a review of everything existing and come back to
us. Do you have an idea in terms of time horizon? Do you want to bring that back
to the city council directly or how would you want to approach that?
» I will say this is brand is a new sort of a timeframed assignment. So I think
you know we would be happy to you know get the direction from you. um it it
will take a while so we don't want to delay. We're very eager to do it and we
had given ourselves this year to sort of do it. You know that was and we've
already you know gotten started so we will be on it and so you give us the
direction if you gave us a a timeline we would look forward to meeting it because
this is our top priority one of our top priorities for the year. I think this is
and as you can see even just from today's meeting um and and recent events
it's it's very critical and we want to be a partner. So what's the shortest
timeline you feel is realistic? I guess that's a question. I
» I think the summer is very difficult because everybody, you know, all of our
members are coming and going. So I would say that to expect us to come back um at
some time in the fall, I'd have to even I have to look at our meeting schedule
because the other thing is we only have so many meetings. So I would need to
look at the meeting schedule that I don't have um at hand. Maybe
» maybe Tony does. So by the end of the year
» or or at your next meeting, why don't you um
» you know come up with come up with a date and have a meeting in June.
Yeah, we have a meeting. We do have a meeting in coming up in June. So we
could do that and and Jane could report back.
» Perfect. And you always have the option for special meetings if you need more
meetings as you know. >> Absolutely. And we do have um just so
you know this whole project is being done by a subcommittee, you know. So we
have a subcommittee who who are working on this and working on it in between the
meetings. >> Okay. Great. Okay. Do do we we don't
you're just looking for feedback here. We don't need any specific motion on
this. No. >> Correct. Did I take public comment? I
can't remember. >> I did. So, okay. I think we are done
with that item. Moving on quickly to our last item which is open forum. Um I'm
not going to read the whole verbiage. Um is there anybody here for public comment
for the open forum? >> Uh Mayor Wilgson, there are no hands
raised >> and I see nobody in the audience. So
with that, I think we can adjourn. Thank you to everybody.
» Thank you. Thank you.