[0:05] Great. Um, I will call to uh order this
uh city of Bvad Council meeting of
[0:10] Monday, May the 11th, 2026. Can I get a
roll call, please?
[0:15] » Council member Cooper
>> here.
[0:16] » Council member Burke
>> here.
[0:19] » Mayor Wilkinson,
>> present. Council member Carropet,
[0:22] » here.
>> For the record, Council Member Mark will
[0:24] be joining us momentarily.
>> He's right there. Perfect.
[0:32] » Okay, with with that, we're going to be
moving to item two, which is the close
[0:35] session.
[0:40] » Perfect timing.
[0:51] Crazy.
[1:17] » Are we Are we live? Okay, great. Um, do
I need Beth? Do I need another roll
[1:22] call? No. Okay, great. So, I'm reporting
out from the close session on the uh
[1:29] conference with labor negotiator and
public employee performance evaluation.
[1:32] There is nothing to report. Um, so we
are now going to move on to item number
[1:37] three, which is reports and
presentations. Uh, firstly starting with
[1:41] city council reports. Does any council
member have an update?
[1:48] Oh, sorry. Um, so I want to report that
uh Jane and I attended the wildfire
[1:53] preparedness forum on Saturday, May 2nd
in San Rafale. Um, and um they there
[2:01] they presented a new Marin County
Community Wildfire Protection Plan and
[2:09] the acronym is CWPP.
And this evaluation outlines the seven
[2:15] areas that need an action plan. And they
actually had one for the town of um
[2:21] Tibbron which included Belvadier.
And um
[2:27] I've reached out to the uh Tibberon um
fire department to ask how this is um
[2:34] how they're going to interact with
Belvadier on this uh report. And I think
[2:38] in the future it would be good to have
them come and give us a um an
[2:43] explanation and an update on their
action plan.
[2:48] Um we also had a um get ready I guess I
should ask Jane did you want to add
[2:54] anything to that? No. Um, we also had a
get ready 9492 meeting or um I'm sorry
[3:02] uh get ready 9492 um has a class um on
May 20th um at the library from 1 to 3
[3:11] if anyone's interested in attending
and we had a be ready Belvadier meeting
[3:17] um where we were still focusing on our
event prior to the Belvadier film
[3:22] festival on October 6 and we'll be
having um more um details to follow in
[3:28] the coming months.
>> Thank you, Jane.
[3:33] » More emergency preparedness. I attended
the April Belvadier Chibron Emergency
[3:38] Preparation
Council prep. Yes, I think that's it.
[3:43] And learned that Chief Woo, our actor
and resident, and Lori Nilson are
[3:49] creating many videos focused on
emergency preparedness.
[3:53] Um the first video will show how to put
a go bag together and as the videos are
[3:59] finished um we'll link them to our B
Ready Belvadier website section and I
[4:05] think they're supposed to be just around
30 seconds long and they'll go there
[4:09] will be a series of them and um uh
different people from the community will
[4:14] get involved and and participate in
making the video. So I think it'll be a
[4:19] great addition to our uh B Ready
Belvadier area. people can click right
[4:23] on it and get a quick 30 second little
message on how to do things. So,
[4:29] and um the in-depth training happening
at the library on May 20th will be
[4:34] announced in the breeze this coming
week. That's all I have.
[4:42] » Nobody else? Um okay, I will open this
for public comment.
[4:49] » Mayor Wilkinson, there are no hands
raised.
[4:51] » Okay. Thank you. Okay, moving on to um
item 3B, which is our city manager
[4:57] report.
>> Yes, thank you, Mayor Wilkinson. I do
[5:00] have a couple of updates this evening.
Uh first, I'll start with Malard. Uh
[5:04] staff continues to meet uh regularly
with the Malard team to work through the
[5:08] remaining items identified in the city's
incomplete incompleteness letter. In
[5:12] parallel with those discussions, the
city attorney has been reviewing the
[5:15] subdivision improvement agreement,
affordable housing agreement, and
[5:20] regulatory agreements. Based on their
current schedule, the applicant is
[5:23] working towards and still hopes to bring
the final map forward to council for
[5:27] council consideration at the June for a
June hearing, I should say. um on the
[5:32] relocation component for the project.
Rebecca's team is working with our
[5:36] consultants to prepare the relocation
benefits analysis and an action plan
[5:41] that shows practically how the
relocations will occur. Our objective is
[5:46] to have that work substantially complete
in the next 30 days so the city can
[5:50] ensure the process is transparent for
the tenants and of course that it's
[5:54] meeting the state's tenant protection
laws. Uh in parallel, staff has also
[5:59] begun the onboarding for Eric Sebrook,
who will serve as the city's uh project
[6:03] coordinator. One of the immediate
priorities that's been discussed was
[6:06] improving organization and public
accessibility of project materials,
[6:11] particularly through the website,
uh including other supporting documents.
[6:16] Uh that effort is currently underway.
Rebecca is also coordinating a meet and
[6:20] greet community event with Mr. Sebrook.
Uh we're trying to work that in towards
[6:25] the end end of May and we'll put some
meeting details in this week's breeze
[6:29] once we have those dates ironed out. Um
switching gears to the seaw wall. Last
[6:34] month city council approved the seaw
wall strengthening project along Beach
[6:38] Road. They chose to award the
construction contract to the lowest
[6:42] bidder Gordon NB who's a general
engineering contractor. The contractor
[6:47] has completed execution of the contract
documents including the submission of
[6:51] the required insurance and bonding and
the project is now moving into the
[6:54] pre-construction coordination phase. Uh
as part of that effort, the city
[6:59] contractor, the engineering team uh have
been reviewing opportunities to refine
[7:04] portions of the design now that the
actual con construction unit pricing is
[7:08] known. And fortunately, it's looking
like there may be some um you know,
[7:12] minor opportunities for small tweaks to
the design to save money. Um so that's
[7:18] positive news. On utilities coordination
for that same project, staff recently
[7:22] met with P Gen on site, uh Comcast San
District number five, Marin Water, uh
[7:28] Gordon Ball, the contractor, and the
city's consultants to coordinate
[7:32] infrastructure work associated with the
project. Uh and I am happy to report
[7:36] that P gen has scheduled its
undergrounding utility modification
[7:40] which was an important part of the
project. Uh they've asked for
[7:43] encroachment permits for the week of
June 15th. Um also Marin Water has
[7:48] already begun preparatory work for the
project as well. So overall uh the
[7:52] coordination with the different phases
of construction appears to be on track.
[7:56] Uh again uh in terms of the permits, you
may recall that all regulatory permits
[8:00] for the projects have been approved with
the exception of the Army Corps of
[8:03] Engineers. Uh their process is taking
longer than expected. Uh Tony and the
[8:08] city's permanent consultant are watching
this closely and they're doing what they
[8:12] can to expedite that approval. Uh staff
is also gearing up for public outreach.
[8:17] A focused neighborhood meeting for the
directly impacted Beach Road residents
[8:21] is scheduled for May 19th and a broader
community workshop is tentatively
[8:26] planned for early June to provide
project information and answer questions
[8:30] from the public. In addition, staff is
working on expanding the project web
[8:34] page to improve public access and
project materials on on ongoing basis.
[8:41] And then finally uh we will be dividing
in uh diving into some more details on
[8:44] these points with the seaw wall
subcommittee. Tony reached out to the
[8:48] members today and scheduled another
update uh meeting which we're hoping to
[8:52] put in place in the next couple of
weeks. That's all I have for now. I'm
[8:55] happy to take questions.
>> Any questions?
[8:59] » Uh
thanks Robert for that. A quick quick
[9:03] one um related to Malard. Uh you
mentioned the relo relocation consultant
[9:09] that you've engaged. Do you have a sense
or does Rebecca have a sense of how many
[9:14] uh tenants this might apply to?
>> Not not very many from what I have
[9:20] heard. Yeah.
>> So two are one is confirmed um disease.
[9:25] I think the other one is also I I don't
have that paperwork yet. And then there
[9:29] are two um active people who have moved
out of Malard. But um I just talked to
[9:37] their both both their sons today and
they are interested in pursuing the
[9:42] relocation benefits and so I they're in
contact with the consultant.
[9:47] » So does that have a similar timeline
that if because if they're they're no
[9:51] longer living there but but the fact
that they were there at a certain point
[9:54] they they are um well I think I was I I
was looking for that word eligible for
[10:01] those benefits.
>> Yes. Yes. And I'm not an expert on uh
[10:05] housing relocation, but yes, they are
eligible, I believe, to some of the
[10:09] benefits.
>> Okay. Thank you.
[10:14] » Any other questions? Um I guess I have
uh one just to be clear. If for them to
[10:21] bring um a full final map to us in June,
when would um everything be filed with
[10:31] need to be filed with the city? So
updated subdivision all all the
[10:36] components of the checklists and all
that. How how much in advance would we
[10:42] expect that to happen before
Um, unless Rebecca or Robert have
[10:48] anything else to add, I expect we would
have included the regular agenda packet
[10:51] publication timeline, but if that's
something the council wants to address
[10:56] with staff, I'm sure we'd be open to
input.
[11:00] » Okay.
>> I do recall from Maller Point for some
[11:04] previous projects, we tried to get the
packet out early, you know, perhaps a
[11:07] week in advance to give the public full
opportunity to review. I was wondering
[11:10] about the public having availability to
see
[11:14] » all the components that are still
outstanding because
[11:19] » when you look at it it appears like
there's a lot and so I would assume that
[11:23] to get it on on from today that
everything would have to be to you for
[11:29] your making sure everything's done
>> within two or three weeks from now. I
[11:34] don't know. That's what I'm asking.
Yeah, I think it's there might be a
[11:38] little bit of confusion out there
because there's, you know, we're trying
[11:43] not to conflate the final map with the
demo plans and the infrastructure plans,
[11:47] right? There's certainly a lot of
documents that are still outstanding per
[11:52] that third um incompleteness review
letter for the building permits. The
[11:57] final map has very specific um
requirements that um we are we're pretty
[12:04] close to getting those
those documents.
[12:08] » Okay. In in that case if they are a
finite checklist so to speak from what
[12:16] you're saying is that list regardless of
whether it's all in there or not is that
[12:22] something that we can see earlier? Is
that something that's already published?
[12:26] Is there a list somewhere that goes into
the final map that would be helpful for
[12:31] us to even know what that is?
>> Yeah. So, those would be the conditions
[12:35] of approval and the tenant of map
resolution. However, there is a little
[12:39] conflation with the demo and the
infrastructure building permit. So, you
[12:43] just have to kind of read through it and
I can we can connect this week and go
[12:47] through it if you want.
>> Okay. Thanks.
[12:51] » Any other questions? No. Robert, I was
just curious and I know this is coming
[12:56] to a committee, but when you talked
about potential savings on the Beach
[13:00] Road project, can you give us a ballpark
of what you're talking about?
[13:05] » Yeah, I wish I could. It's really, you
know, Tony and I, there's a couple
[13:09] design elements that um, you know,
particularly related to those gangways,
[13:13] if you recall, in front of the the
waterfront properties. We may have some
[13:17] flexibility in how we design the seaw
wall around those gangways to avoid some
[13:22] of that de demolition work or not
demolition, I should say removal and
[13:26] replacement work of those gangways. So,
that's really what's concerning and the
[13:30] contract that we were considering
putting forward with Hadley. Um, I can't
[13:34] put a dollar amount on it yet, but
that's something that Tony and I are
[13:37] working on.
>> Okay, thank you. Um, okay. Let's open
[13:41] this for public comment. Anybody in the
room? Nope. Anybody online? Beth,
[13:46] » I see none.
>> Okay, great. So, we will close 3B and
[13:49] move on to item 3C, which is a
presentation from Jean Dela Zoper, CEO
[13:55] and managing director of Nor Valley
Refuge Service. Jean, welcome back.
[14:07] right now. Can you hear me? Awesome. Um,
so the purpose of me being here today is
[14:12] uh Milvi Refuge Service is adjusting its
rates through a CPI based adjustment. So
[14:17] that comes out to 2.2%
and that CPI is based on uh CPI and all
[14:24] items was San Francisco, Oakland,
Hayward. Now, through the last 5 years
[14:29] in terms of rate increases, we're
looking at 3.64%
[14:34] as a 5-year average. So, this rate
increase is slightly below that. Um, in
[14:40] terms of customer impact for a 32gallon
residential, uh, the new monthly rate
[14:46] would be a monthly increase of $162.
And then for 20 gallon, it's $1.31.
[14:53] Um, part of why the increase is needed
is we have a collective bargaining
[14:59] agreement with all our drivers and their
hourly rate is going from $44 an hour to
[15:05] $47 an hour. So, that's a 6% increase.
We're also seeing a lot of uh increase
[15:10] in costs with respect to health
insurance and benefits. Just for this
[15:14] year alone, we're looking at a 7%
increase there. Um in terms of pension
[15:19] that also gets adjusted through uh CPI
escalated contributions. Now with uh our
[15:26] disposal contracts
um our garbage and compost disposal
[15:31] contract expires at the end of this
year. Um so for 2027 we haven't started
[15:37] renegotiations with that yet but I am
expecting increases on the composting
[15:42] side. Um, in terms of fuel, uh, there's
a lot of diesel volatility going on
[15:47] right now given macro and global
economic conditions, but I'm hoping that
[15:53] will get stabilized in the next quarter.
Hopefully, best case scenario. We did
[15:57] get a favorable offset where our
recycling dual stream processing rate
[16:02] did get adjusted from $93 to $66.
So, a lot of that is through the
[16:08] effectiveness of our source separated
dual stream recycling program. So our
[16:12] contamination residual rate for that is
still really low at around 10%. So you
[16:18] know I commend all of our customers for
source separating the papers and bottles
[16:21] and cans. Um an operational update is uh
this year we're celebrating 120 years of
[16:29] being in service. Um it's very humbling
to be a part of a company with that many
[16:34] years of service. But I also kind of
recognize we're changing and modernizing
[16:39] with the times. So, part of our, you
know, long-term strategy is going to be
[16:44] uh really a lot of capital reinvestment
with our fleet. And we're still
[16:50] expanding upon our camera systems within
the trucks. We're using AI for better
[16:55] safe driving habits, trying to get that
data and figure out better ways to
[17:00] service our customers. And we also put
field tablets in the trucks. So, we're
[17:05] starting to get more uh modernized
across our operations. Um, so that's all
[17:11] I have for the presentation, but um I'm
open for any questions or feedback and
[17:16] I'm happy to answer any
>> any questions.
[17:21] » Uh, thanks Jean. Just real quick, you
mentioned the CPI increase. Is that a
[17:25] new change in approach? Is and if so, is
that going to stay consistent going
[17:28] forward?
>> That's a great question. So part of our
[17:31] contracts with the city of Belvadier
when we go through um a base rate
[17:35] change, that's a maximum adjustment to
the rates. the following two periods in
[17:40] the Belvadier contract. It's a it
basically allows us to do a CPI based
[17:44] increase but it's capped at 3%. Now part
of our strategy is we have to be very
[17:49] cognitive of how rate increases work and
you know during CPI based years um it
[17:56] forces us to be uh more cost-effective
when it comes to analyzing operations
[18:02] trying to gauge efficiencies. Um it's
it's part of our strategy where you know
[18:09] when we do base rate change the next
couple years have to be CPI based
[18:14] adjustments because you know I'm I'm
trying to do everything I can to keep
[18:18] the rates as low as they possibly can
even dealing with you know inflation and
[18:23] other types of cost drivers.
>> Yeah.
[18:28] » Any other questions? No. Um I have uh
just one um which is in relation to the
[18:34] separation of food waste into green
bins. What has been your experience of
[18:39] that since it's been implemented?
Meaning are people uh honoring that? Are
[18:44] you actually doing searches of the other
bins to see if there's contamination and
[18:48] are you imposing any fines?
>> Yeah, that's that's um that's a good
[18:52] question. So part of I'll say our
material stream I'd say 90% of it is
[18:58] really yard waste and then that 10% is
food waste. Um we do have we do have
[19:04] participation with food waste on the
commercial side that's through the food
[19:08] to energy program. So we essentially
haul food waste very clean and we bring
[19:12] it over to uh REN sanitary service where
it gets part of their uh food to energy
[19:18] program. they're basically using the
food waste to generate electricity. Um,
[19:22] in terms of SP 1383 with route reviews,
if we do find an issue where a customer
[19:28] isn't um, say that they're constantly
contaminating the compost bin, we have
[19:35] uh, processes in place where, you know,
we able to send them an email. We're
[19:40] able to track that data. If it's
something consistently that's above what
[19:43] we'd expect, we have an outreach person
with our CSR team to contact that
[19:48] person. Part of the route reviews, we
are uh subcontracting it out and we work
[19:53] very closely with Zero Waste Man to just
make sure that everyone is SP 1383
[19:59] compliant and then if they don't have
that compliance, they have to have a
[20:03] waiver and then we go through that
waiver process. So it's it's been we're
[20:08] dealing with a lot more I would say data
sets in terms of who ha who has what
[20:13] kind of compost bin and why. We
understand every customer has you know
[20:17] unique needs for that and we have to be
able to deliver upon that service.
[20:23] » Okay. Thank you very much. Um okay let's
open for public comment. Beth is there
[20:27] anybody online?
>> I see none.
[20:29] » Okay. I apologize. We have Mr. Ro.
>> Oh hello. Can you bring him through?
[20:34] Good evening, Dr. Hoffman.
>> Uh, can you hear me?
[20:40] » We can hear you.
>> Thank you very much. Um, this involves a
[20:45] Tibbron, but rather than Belvadier
because we don't have uh multif family
[20:50] uh residences like they do in Tibrron up
on the hill there. Uh but since you were
[20:56] discussing your practices and desirable
practices with respect to recycling, I
[21:01] would like to know and there's a
tremendous number of those condos and
[21:05] whatever on the hills of Tibbron. Could
you tell me to what extent in those
[21:12] buildings there is the separation of uh
of the different uh components of the
[21:20] composting? You know what I'm saying?
the like we have the three we have the
[21:24] three bins uh we have the green and we
have the uh the metal and the and the
[21:31] plastic etc. Are they able to do that in
those buildings?
[21:37] » Well, hello uh Dr. Rothman. Um that's a
good question. So part of the
[21:42] multifamily is I think the biggest uh
constraint with having multiple compost
[21:48] bins meaning let's say if it's a 30unit
building there's 30 compost bins we have
[21:53] to work with the space that's kind of
limited but at the same time we offer uh
[21:58] you know the same three material streams
of service so garbage mixed recycling
[22:03] and compost. We haven't fully integrated
our dual stream recycling program with
[22:07] multif family. those are on dedicated
recycling commercial routes. It still
[22:11] goes to the uh same MURF facility. Um
but in terms of like food waste bins, it
[22:18] has like food waste bins specifically
has to be requested upon the property
[22:22] manager. Um but if it is if it is
something that's brought to our
[22:26] attention through Zero Marin when they
do their site visits um we tend to take
[22:31] a closer look in detail and I can um
terms of like I guess specific site
[22:36] numbers you know we have you know 54
sites in Tibberon for apartments and
[22:41] then with Belvadier we have eight so it
still is a lot of you know units
[22:46] obviously but if there's opportunity
where we can kind of improve upon that
[22:52] diversion in terms of if you want to
look at like a volumetric basis um we're
[22:57] happy to look at that.
>> Excuse me. Well, when they
[23:02] when when they I'm unclear about whether
they have the bins for paper and uh food
[23:09] waste and uh metals and plastics. Do
they do they or do they not in the
[23:15] multiple family
buildings? Do they have those facilities
[23:21] or does it you just have single stream?
And if you do have single stream, where
[23:25] does it go? Because
Marin Sanitary is set up to deal with
[23:31] dual stream.
>> Yes, it's a uh it's a it's a it's a good
[23:36] question. So, yes, they do have they do
have uh you know, trash carts or a trash
[23:42] container, and they have mixed
commercial recycling bins. Those are all
[23:46] blue. And then they have compost bins.
And we also uh especially for uh you
[23:53] know multif family, we have done events
where we've provided kitchen pales to
[23:58] just make it easier for composting
within their uh apartment unit.
[24:03] » Okay. Thank you so much for the
presentation and thanks for your time.
[24:07] » Awesome. Thank you guys so much.
Appreciate it.
[24:09] » Okay, so we will close 3C and we're
going to move on to the consent
[24:12] calendar. Um, the consent calendar
consists of items that the city council
[24:16] considers to be routine or council has
discussed previously and do not require
[24:20] further discussion. Unless any item is
specifically removed by any member of
[24:25] the city council, the consent calendar
will be adopted by one motion. Council
[24:29] will take public comment on all items on
the consent calendar when the calendar
[24:33] is called. Robert, I believe there's an
update you want to give us in relation
[24:37] to 4E.
>> Yes, thank you, Mayor. uh item 4E which
[24:41] was TAM's measure AA expenditure plan.
You may recall this topic came up during
[24:46] council reports at a previous meeting
and during that discussion council
[24:50] conveyed that they wanted to make it
clear that the city doesn't support any
[24:53] they would support this expenditure plan
but wouldn't support any future uh
[24:58] redistribution of AA funds where they
are pulled away from cities particularly
[25:03] small agencies that rely on these funds
for road improvements like Belvadier.
[25:07] Um, but I did want to point out that I
plan to include a letter that outlines
[25:11] this along with uh your approval of a
resolution this evening. Um, but I don't
[25:16] think the resolution needs a change
necessarily, but I did want to make that
[25:19] point.
>> Okay. Thanks, Robert. Okay. Does any
[25:22] member of the council want to remove any
items from the main consent calendar for
[25:26] A through 4G?
No. In that case, can I get a motion um
[25:32] on those items? I can make a motion to
approve the consent calendar items 4A
[25:38] through 4G. Do we want to say with the
uh additional letter that Robert
[25:44] » I don't think there's any specific
>> we don't need to. Okay, great. I do
[25:48] remember I forgot to ask for public
comment on this. Can I please get public
[25:52] comment before we get a second?
>> Mayor Wilkinson, there are no hands
[25:54] raised.
>> Great. Can I get a second?
[25:56] » Second.
>> Uh all in favor?
[25:59] » I
>> I motion passes. Okay, we're now going
[26:02] to move on to the individual consent
calendar items. Um, the individual
[26:06] consent calendar consists of items that
the city council considers to be routine
[26:10] or council has discussed previously and
do not require further discussion but
[26:13] are separately listed because a council
member or members have a conflict of
[26:17] interest which require them to recuse
themselves from participation in the
[26:20] decision. So we will first go to 5A
>> and I will recuse myself as I live
[26:27] within the 500 foot um from uh the house
on community road.
[26:34] » Thanks. Um and so does anybody have any
uh questions or wish to pull this for
[26:39] discussion before a vote?
>> So I'd like to pull 5A.
[26:42] » Okay. Well, we will go ahead with that.
What would you like to discuss?
[26:46] So, um,
as I look at this revocable license, um,
[26:53] the revocable license includes 8 ft of
city property.
[26:58] Um, and that 8 ft could support a 4-ft
sidewalk for pedestrian safety that
[27:05] could in the future connect to a
sidewalk along community road. The
[27:10] reason why I'm doing this is I'm
thinking that we need to perhaps have a
[27:15] global look at this area of the city
since Community Road is facing a
[27:22] doubling of housing
um with Maller doubling of housing in
[27:28] the Maller Point um section and that
will increase the traffic at least four
[27:33] times more than what's there currently.
And currently folks mainly walk in the
[27:39] street
which will become much more hazardous
[27:43] with the development in the area.
And I thought that um we should have a
[27:50] discussion and consider a um broader
look at how we want the community park
[27:59] area um and its use and safety. Um since
um there's 8 ft of city property that
[28:07] we're talking about on this um I know
that the property on the corner had
[28:14] gotten an RL for plantings but um having
a sidewalk that currently now wouldn't
[28:22] connect but hopefully in the future we
might as a city council want to look at
[28:28] a sidewalk for additional um safety for
um children
[28:34] um the general public are seniors
um who
[28:41] work walking in the road may not become
um the the correct
[28:46] path for them. So, I wanted to bring
this up as a point of discussion and see
[28:52] if um we wanted
to
[28:57] have that discussion and to consider um
granting um a revocable license for 4T
[29:05] and then um keeping um the uh 4 foot um
for the sidewalk. Um, I also reached out
[29:14] um today to
our director of um
[29:20] public works to speak uh to him and of
course it was um uh last minute um in
[29:28] the discussion. Nothing was determined
but um it was acknowledged that you know
[29:33] the the that area of the city is going
to be changing.
[29:40] » Okay. before before getting other
council members to comment if it's okay.
[29:43] Um I would like to see whether either
our public works director or our
[29:47] planning director would like to make any
uh provide any further information in
[29:51] relation to
>> Yeah, I I had the same question uh
[29:55] council member Cariet and so I reached
out to engineering and um they indicated
[30:01] that it you know it's such a short
amount of space and that it would really
[30:06] essentially be kind of a sidewalk to the
park. Um, and I believe I just and Tony
[30:13] can um, come up and talk probably better
than I can about this, but that given
[30:18] the cost of the project to the applicant
that we couldn't require a sidewalk.
[30:24] » We require sidewalks to other applicants
and we never question
[30:27] » based on the valuation of the work. But
Tony can come speak to it if
[30:41] I don't have the exact uh valuation of
the of the project but uh speaking to
[30:46] Chris so Chris Barry associate engineer
um
[30:50] um looks at all uh RL's and uh his
thoughts on this one um as far as a
[30:58] sidewalk uh go um were that
um it was unrealistic to um to connect
[31:07] to anything there would there was
nothing and this is before uh Pat
[31:11] brought this up today of course um that
that he that he made these observations.
[31:16] Um but the reason that a sidewalk wasn't
required for the project was because the
[31:22] valuation of the project was uh was
quite low. He said it was less than
[31:26] $20,000 and and maybe planning have a or
building maybe have a an exact number.
[31:32] Um so it wouldn't be um reasonable to uh
request a construction of a sidewalk at
[31:40] the same time. Um but it seems to me
we're talking about two different things
[31:44] here. we're talking I think you're uh
discussing the RL and the space that's
[31:48] that's um being requested for the RL
versus um a requirement to to build
[31:54] something but maybe um uh Council Member
Carropad could clarify if you're if
[32:01] you're talking about pulling the RL back
four feet for a future sidewalk um or
[32:06] requiring a sidewalk at this time.
So, um, well, I guess I would be willing
[32:13] to go either way. Um, keeping the four
feet for the potential for a future
[32:18] sidewalk. I think this project, while um
has uh had a few um phases, um was um
[32:27] more than a $20,000 project when you add
everything together that they've done to
[32:32] the property. Um, but if
we are not able to ask for them to do
[32:40] the sidewalk, I I would feel keeping 4
feet from the curve over which would
[32:46] give them four feet for plantings would
allow us for um future to look at a
[32:51] sidewalk because I think once um Malard
Point comes in, this might become a
[32:56] critical issue and once we give the
property away on an RL um it's very hard
[33:02] to gain it back. So, it's it's sort of
looking forward um
[33:09] on that particular area of the city as
far as the development that's going on
[33:14] with future additional developments um
in other locations along Community Road
[33:19] that turn into Sanfell.
So, that that was my thought that um uh
[33:26] 8t is quite a bit. I mean, we might have
something like that up on the island
[33:31] because of a slope that goes down that
no one has any use for the property, but
[33:36] generally around um the flat area of the
city, I mean,
[33:42] I think the typical
RL tends to be like four to five feet or
[33:49] less.
So, I just felt that the city council
[33:54] should think about it and um
consider um uh future needs that the
[34:01] city might have um going forward and um
not agree to the RL where a sidewalk
[34:09] potentially could go because even though
there's no sidewalk from the corner of
[34:13] Leard, um it's still an area when we
have concerts in the park or other um
[34:20] projects that there's a lot of people
walking around and um in the street and
[34:26] a sidewalk would um connected to another
sidewalk would be beneficial.
[34:32] » Certainly I can chime in that um
um you know where the city sees a future
[34:37] benefit um of of having access to that
to to a piece of or an area. Um it does
[34:44] make sense to me to um uh to not allow
people to have RLS for those areas
[34:50] because um you know Lagoon Road is a
good example and I think I'd mentioned
[34:54] that to you uh earlier today where you
have it's kind of a choppy with some
[34:59] some areas with sidewalks and some with
with landscapes kind of an inconsistent
[35:03] um uh section of of road there. Um,
yeah. And once an RL has been um
[35:10] provided for for a certain area, it's
hard to to pull it back.
[35:15] » Kevin, I think you had a question.
>> Yeah, I did. Just so I'm clear. Um, so
[35:19] what the RL would allow is for the
driveway and for the walkway. No other
[35:25] building,
>> nothing else would be built in that
[35:29] space.
So the 8T it's not they're not proposing
[35:33] putting anything in the RL 8 feet except
the driveway and the walkway.
[35:38] » Correct.
>> And so I guess the question is is do we
[35:42] » Well, they're putting plantings, aren't
they?
[35:44] » No, the plan Oh, according to the plan,
it looks like they're on the property
[35:46] line.
>> Yeah.
[35:49] » Yeah.
>> Once we give the RL, then it's, you
[35:53] know, we got to revoke it.
>> Well, we're giving them a revocable
[35:57] license just for two uses. One is the
walkway and the driveway. So we're not
[36:01] saying you now can do anything you want
in the RL.
[36:05] » Correct.
>> But it covers the whole area.
[36:07] » It covers Yeah, it's shade. The whole
exhibit is shaded. So essentially, we
[36:11] would be
>> It's the whole shaded area. So it goes
[36:14] across the whole front.
>> You know, I get the shaded area, but so
[36:17] then the RL would allow them to do
whatever they want in the RL. They could
[36:20] build anything they want.
>> Well, not build, but
[36:23] » No, they could put plantings there if
they chose to.
[36:27] » Yes. Not without our approval.
>> No, they'd have to come back through
[36:29] design review and then we would relook
at the revocable license and see that
[36:33] they didn't have a revocable license for
landscaping.
[36:36] » What what the RL is is is giving them is
the ability to have the driveway um
[36:40] access in the sidewalk or the walkway
access.
[36:43] » Yes.
>> Yeah.
[36:45] » Well, I don't mind the driveway and the
walkway. It's it's just, you know, in um
[36:50] I mean, if you look at the pretty
picture, if you look at the pretty
[36:53] picture here, I mean, you know, they
have plannings. They don't have anything
[36:58] here. So, for us to keep 4 feet here is
not impacting them. They could still
[37:03] have their plantings or whatever they're
going to do with their um with their
[37:08] fence. Um they have no new landscaping.
They have existing landscaping. So,
[37:13] keeping allowing the walkway is fine.
And I don't have an objection to that
[37:17] and I have no objection to the driveway,
but I'm talking about 4 feet along the
[37:23] front of the street just to keep it um
in control of the city.
[37:29] » Then don't we need to give them the RL
8T out for the driveway and 8T out for
[37:34] the walkway because they'll be going
over it?
[37:36] » Yeah.
>> Yes. So it would be it's really a carve
[37:40] out for that one area
either. So you exclude that from the RL
[37:45] or you just put in the RL. You can't
nothing else can be placed in the RL
[37:48] except the sidewalk
>> and the driveway.
[37:51] » We're still questions, right? So just
just just to clarify, an RL is more than
[37:54] just giving them access to that
>> property. It's it's it's transferring
[37:57] liability and and maintenance
obligations to the homeowner. Um so the
[38:01] reason you do the whole stretch of the
property is to maintain be maintained
[38:04] both from an appearance perspective but
and a liability perspective away from
[38:08] the from the city which we're not
actively using. Um,
[38:12] » is is the applicant online or is it
>> the architect is? Yeah.
[38:23] » I guess that's the public comment.
Sorry.
[38:28] » I'm going to see whether she I think
we're going to see whether we can get
[38:30] the architect first so that we can
>> Hi, I I'm actually for the next
[38:35] » agenda item. Oh.
>> Um, one one further before we get to
[38:40] even the applicant, but still on
questions. Um, Rebecca, couldn't uh I
[38:45] understand once you issue a revocable
license that it may be difficult to to
[38:50] uh improve that property without
revoking the license and re and re um um
[38:55] hearing it. But couldn't you, given the
fact that this area and other areas are
[39:01] uh may have a need for public sidewalks
in the future, couldn't we put a
[39:06] condition that this revocable license is
subject to um public works adding a
[39:10] sidewalk um should they deem it
necessary? I mean, couldn't that be a
[39:13] simple inclusion in the revocable
license, which would in sense, you know,
[39:18] solve this problem without necessarily
adding it? Because I can't imagine we're
[39:22] going to get
[39:26] a thorough if if if it became an
imperative city imperative to put in a
[39:30] sidewalk here, I can't imagine we're
going to get the timing or the or the or
[39:33] the um resident buyin to do it
themselves in association with with with
[39:37] renovations or significant renovations.
So, if if we're going to do it, we're
[39:40] going to do it ourselves as a public
works project. So, I would think that we
[39:44] should add it as a as a um line in the
in the RL agreement where we have the
[39:49] right to do so. Obviously, working with
their design with their design
[39:52] professionals in and around their their
improvements to our to our city standard
[39:56] uh I imagine that's possible. It's a
question still. So, I imagine that's
[39:59] possible.
>> Is it legally possible?
[40:02] » Well, right now this revocable license,
like all the revocable license that I've
[40:05] seen in my years here, say the license
is fully revocable at the pleasure or
[40:09] discretion of the city council. So we
can revoke these license for any reason.
[40:13] » Yeah, we've never done it and it's
always
[40:14] » but certain but certainly if we want to
specify that one of the reasons could be
[40:18] for to your point council member Caripad
to the for the construction of public
[40:22] sidewalk. We can illustrate that. We can
say specifically one such instance may
[40:26] be if the city wishes to install a
public sidewalk
[40:29] » but we would have to go through
revocable. Could we just not do it so
[40:33] that the
>> if the sidewalk goes in
[40:36] » condition?
Add a condition. I think it's Peter's I
[40:41] think what Peter's getting at is can we
just add another number to the revocable
[40:45] license with some language that said
should the city want to put in a
[40:48] sidewalk
>> we would have the right to do so
[40:50] » we have a right
>> without without altering the rest of the
[40:53] the license yeah
>> and not have to revoke it but rather it
[40:56] just goes away bye-bye
>> I mean either I mean I guess that they
[41:01] both saw the problem yes
>> right I it's I suppose it's up to you
[41:04] whether you want to sort of revoke sort
of that be a specific instance in which
[41:07] the license will be revoked or you want
to have some sort of middle ground as a
[41:12] possibility. I guess I'm not quite clear
where you want to land.
[41:15] » I'd rather just see if we decide to put
in a sidewalk gets revoked. I mean, I
[41:19] don't think that the city should have to
go through any more process than what
[41:22] we're going through right now if we're
putting in a sidewalk.
[41:26] » I mean, it does feel to me that this is
a bigger policy issue and while we're on
[41:29] the council, we might do this and but
there if there isn't a policy outline
[41:32] for the future, um it's just hap, you
know, it's just chaos. Um, and so
[41:40] we can deal with this today, but it does
feel like we have to bring back a a
[41:43] broader discussion around RLS, which I'm
>> Well, I think the RLS need a broader
[41:48] discussion all all over.
>> Yes. Um, okay. So, if we don't have any
[41:53] other uh questions, let's bring this
back for public comment just to see
[41:56] whether there's any public comment.
>> We have Mr. Rothman.
[42:00] » Great.
>> Hi, Dr. Rothman.
[42:05] » Yes. Thank you very much. I would
caution you about putting a particular
[42:10] stipulation in this revocable license
about and if we want to put a sidewalk
[42:16] then we can put one because that might
suggest that in any other issue any
[42:23] other site of a revocable license where
you don't have that written down
[42:28] specifically
that it really isn't so revocable.
[42:34] uh because if you stipulate that one is
revocable
[42:37] then the question is is one that doesn't
say that you could do something in that
[42:44] is that not so revocable so I would
suggest you just leave it uh as it is
[42:51] and I frankly with all the places that
need sidewalks uh Belvadier Avenue etc I
[42:58] would hope that in future we would have
more sidewalks
[43:02] so that people with pushing baby
carriages or elderly, whatever it is,
[43:07] don't find themselves having to jump out
of the way of uh of speeding pickup
[43:13] trucks. Uh so I would not I wouldn't put
something special on this revocable
[43:19] license because I think it weakens your
case, your legal case in other sites
[43:24] where you may want to do things but you
haven't put a stipulation about the
[43:29] future. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you. Um, Andrew, can you comment
[43:35] on that in terms of the pros and cons of
specifically spelling something out for
[43:39] this RL?
>> Uh, frankly, I think it would would be
[43:43] better to specify if we have a condition
in mind or an instance in mind we would
[43:47] revoke the license. I would think that's
better for all parties involved.
[43:51] » But to Dr. Rothman's point, does it
therefore weaken the case if we want to
[43:54] be doing that elsewhere or we haven't
spelled it out? I mean, RL's RLS have
[43:59] been very consistent in saying they're
all revocable at the discretion of city
[44:02] council. And so, I don't think we would
change that position. And the fact that
[44:06] we added a condition or slightly
different language to this one doesn't
[44:09] to me mean that the other ones are
legally defective or weak or or
[44:13] something along those lines.
>> Okay. Right. Let's bring this back for
[44:16] discussion.
>> One followup question, but Andrew, just
[44:19] following up that same point, would it
would it be uh
[44:22] » perhaps to Mr. Rothman's pum point
there. Might it be as effective um if
[44:27] not more effective in a sense to uh
change our policy and put a line in the
[44:31] policy with regard to revocable licenses
that one of the reasons that the the the
[44:36] license would be revoked would be for a
tra a pedestrian improvement project um
[44:43] adjacent to you know through the license
something like that which would in a
[44:47] sense handle this case but all cases as
well. Uh yeah, that would be another way
[44:51] to deal with it and I think that would
be a completely legitimate way to deal
[44:54] with it as well. But I'm just not sure
if our policy, if we do move to a
[44:57] revised policy, we'll frankly be able to
capture all those details in all those
[45:03] specific instances going forward. Maybe
we can, maybe we can't. I don't know. I
[45:06] think we're just going to start the
discussion tonight,
[45:08] » but I don't I don't know if that's just
one of many instances which we would
[45:12] revoke an RL or or not.
>> Thank you.
[45:15] » All right, let's bring this back for
discussion. Kevin.
[45:20] » Um, sure. I I totally understand the the
issue that Pat raised and and I do at
[45:26] some point hope that we can deal with
the sidewalk issue near the park. Um, I
[45:29] feel like the RL is already constructed
in such a way that it gives us the right
[45:32] to provoke it if and when it's
necessary. Um, and it, as staff said,
[45:38] uh, there's no permission being given or
granted to put anything in the um, RL
[45:44] except for the driveway and the
sidewalk. So, I think we're covered. We
[45:47] just revoke it when and if we need it.
>> Okay. Peter.
[45:52] » Yeah. The um I don't and I'm not
suggesting Pat's suggesting this. Um but
[45:56] it wasn't clear. Uh I I I would not
impose or require them to put a sidewalk
[46:01] here. Um even if we could um given the
scale of the project. Uh and I agree
[46:06] with Kevin that I would I think we have
the language in there if not specific
[46:10] enough if if not so specific. But I
would I would try to address our policy
[46:14] as our mayor talked about um
specifically for this because I do think
[46:18] this is a a broader need from a
pedestrian um passageway perspective
[46:22] that we should have it in our policy
that that is one of the uh reasons why
[46:27] we would ro something and this could be
a good opportunity to do so should we
[46:31] get the um uh further further
opportunity with other properties there
[46:36] as well.
So going back to Pat, are you um on the
[46:40] basis that we will bring back a broader
RL discussion soon to address this on a
[46:45] on a global basis, are you comfortable
moving the RL as it's currently
[46:50] described? I just think we're missing an
opportunity to take this as a beginning
[46:57] and put something in saying that this is
a very specific property. And I don't
[47:05] know how many other properties would fit
into this kind of requirement. Um
[47:10] because the sidewalk is, you know, four
feet. I mean, we have eight feet there.
[47:16] That's that's why I thought, well, we
could get a sidewalk in. they still get
[47:19] four feet for what whatever plantings or
development they might want to do there.
[47:24] Not that it would be a structure or
anything. Um, and I just think that, you
[47:29] know, starting now for the specific
property to say, you know, if we choose
[47:34] to put a sidewalk in in the future that,
you know, we reserve the right for the
[47:38] first four feet of the revocable license
for that purpose. Um, I think is a good
[47:43] step. I think going forward I think it's
a bigger discussion and it's a global
[47:47] discussion and it needs to be vetted out
better than the conversation here but I
[47:54] think this is an opportune
opportunity for this specific project um
[48:00] for this specific property that it makes
very clear um for a condition to go in
[48:08] um specifically for this property. Um,
so that I continue to be my um,
[48:18] stance on this that I think that it's
unusual enough of a a property that um,
[48:24] uh, we should carve out something for a
potential for a a sidewalk.
[48:33] » Okay. Um I think I am whilst sympathetic
to the argument I think I'm more aligned
[48:39] with addressing this through a revision
to the overall policy um rather than an
[48:44] individual carve out here. So um I think
with that I would ask somebody to make a
[48:49] motion.
>> So let me can I just ask one qu I'm
[48:54] sorry one question of um our legal
council. So, if we change our global
[49:00] stance in the future on RL's that carves
out something for um future sidewalks
[49:05] that we could revoke on future
sidewalks, how does that affect RLS that
[49:12] have already been signed without that
carveout?
[49:16] » Yeah, that's an excellent question. So I
think to the extent that we are looking
[49:19] or going to make any policy changes, one
of the key decision points for council
[49:24] is whether those changes will be
perspective only or we are going to
[49:27] apply them across the board.
>> So we can make changes across the board
[49:31] and even though it's not in their RL
that it would change their RL. My
[49:35] understanding
>> that's a policy question for council to
[49:38] consider and then obviously would think
about how to take care of that
[49:40] implementation.
>> But legally it can be done is my
[49:44] question. Legally, all these revocable
licenses can be revoked at any time in
[49:48] the discretion of city council. So, if
push show, we can require additional
[49:52] terms.
>> All we'd be doing is is in a sense
[49:55] defining or adding adding additional um
um
[49:59] » language to uh uh clarify an additional
need why someone might why the city
[50:05] council might choose to revoke a
license.
[50:08] » That would be one way to execute the
policy. And then again, we may it would
[50:11] be I would suggest that when we get to
that point, we be explicit about whether
[50:15] we're doing it going forward or again
across the board.
[50:18] » But when we come to that point in time,
you're not going to then say, well, we
[50:22] we don't recommend you do this
retroactively. You're you're standing
[50:26] here today saying we have the ability to
do that and there's not going to be a
[50:30] different legal interpretation when we
bring that forward.
[50:34] » Yes, that's the question. You're not
going to change your mind. We're putting
[50:37] you on the hot seat here.
Um I will state that the language of our
[50:43] the city regarding these revocable
licens has been very consistent on this
[50:47] point.
>> Okay.
[50:47] » To the extent any individual property
owners push back in that
[50:52] » I think I will just respond. The city's
position has been very consistent
[50:56] » and defensible.
>> Yeah, of course.
[50:59] » Okay. All right. Can I get a motion? Uh,
I move to approve the revocable license
[51:05] for existing and proposed private
improvements in the public right ofway
[51:08] along community road for property at
three community road.
[51:12] » Second.
>> All those in favor?
[51:14] » I. All those against.
>> I Oh, I'm sorry. I went back backwards.
[51:20] I'm I'm going to pass the RO. I'm not
saying I to the no.
[51:24] » Okay. So, we're all in favor of this.
>> All in favor. Sorry. Thank you.
[51:28] » Okay. We are now moving on to item 5B,
which is a motion to approve revocable
[51:33] license for existing private
improvements in the public right of way
[51:37] along Belvadier Way and Belair Way Lane
for the property at three Belvadier Way.
[51:42] Um, I am going to be recused from this
item because I live within 500 ft of the
[51:46] property and Kevin will be leading this
item.
[51:49] » I am also recused from this for the same
reason. Thank you,
[51:53] » Sally.
So, there is no staff report uh on this
[51:58] um given it's a consent item uh on the
agenda. Uh I'm going to now turn it over
[52:04] to my colleagues. Does anyone want to
pull this item?
[52:08] » I'd like to pull item 5B.
>> Thank you. Um and I will turn it back
[52:15] again to my colleagues and ask what
questions or comments you might have.
[52:20] » Uh yes. So my question is is that the RL
that's before us includes
[52:27] a section along the lane
um
[52:33] and um
that was not part of
[52:40] the RL
that the planning commission looked at.
[52:45] So why why are we being asked for an RL
along the lane? Now
[52:52] » that portion of the RL came as a result
of the planning commission discussion.
[52:58] Um there was some discussion about let's
I don't know what it's called. So I'm
[53:01] going to call it the Westshore Lane
portion of the city right ofway and then
[53:08] we'll call Belvadier Way the other RL
exhibit that they're asking for. So at
[53:13] the planning commission hearing there
was discussion about that retaining wall
[53:17] that hillside who has responsibility for
it
[53:22] etc. And as a result of the planning
commission hearing it was decided that
[53:26] the property owners should take on um
the responsibility of all that
[53:31] landscaping because they're not changing
anything down there on that portion of
[53:35] their
of the property. Um and so that's why it
[53:41] is before the council. Now there was
also a condition added to the planning
[53:46] commission resolution as a result of a
discussion with the um parks open space
[53:53] lane.
I think they're here. Char I think
[53:56] Charlie was at that planning commission
hearing um and the property owner. And
[54:00] so they agreed on a condition to monitor
the retaining wall during construction
[54:07] and prior to building permit final, they
would reassess the structural integrity
[54:16] of that wall and then work with the city
if something were to happen. I have
[54:20] that. So did that answer your question?
It's a long way to
[54:24] » Yes. So um
>> can I ask one clarifying comment, Pat?
[54:28] Is the retaining wall you're referring
to? The wooden
[54:31] » the short wooden retaining wall.
>> Yeah. Okay. Thanks.
[54:34] » I have a picture.
>> You do.
[54:37] » I can bring it over.
>> There was a picture in the packet.
[54:40] » We have We have the picture, too. I just
want to make sure it was the same. Yeah.
[54:43] » I don't know.
>> Sure. Bring it.
[54:47] So, um the staff report um talks about
the original um application
[54:57] for the RL which was just along
Belvadier Way.
[55:10] And so we have two exhibits A one and
two. No, no, there a well two exhibit
[55:16] A's on two separate sheets of paper. So
is the first exhibit which is along
[55:23] Belvadier Way where the driveway is um
in front of the property, is that the
[55:29] exhibit that the planning commission
looked at?
[55:32] » Yes.
>> Okay. And then the second exhibit is
[55:36] something the applicant brought in as a
result of um staff's
[55:43] recommendation. They should um
maintain the plantings along the lane.
[55:52] » Yes.
And then um
[55:59] it on the second exhibit it's
a little hard to see, but are I mean are
[56:08] they taking
all of the land up to that concrete
[56:15] tallish
18 in 2 in two foot concrete curb? I
[56:21] don't know what to call it.
Then then there's a a pipe and then
[56:25] another little rolled curb. So they're
just taking from the dirt back.
[56:32] » They're taking the landscaping only. No
concrete, no wall, no curb. It's
[56:39] landscaping only.
So, because I went to um well, maybe
[56:44] this might be for the applicant, but I
went to visit the site and it appears
[56:48] where the wood um retention wall is was
actually um
[56:55] put in because dirt was built up there.
And um and that wood retention wall is
[57:05] holding back the dirt that someone not
the current applicant but someone in the
[57:10] past added dirt and changed the actual
natural slope of the land.
[57:18] » Um I would say that it so there's a
drainage um uh ditch right beneath it.
[57:23] Um, so I don't know if the the slope was
changed above the the wall, but but
[57:29] certainly it's it's very possible that
it was added to uh capture debris and
[57:34] stop it from going into the into the
drain. Um, it it doesn't appear to have
[57:40] been built as a um it it it's not
holding the slope up or anything.
[57:46] » So if that wood wall went away, nothing
would happen except debris into the
[57:51] drain.
>> Yes. Yeah. that there would be there
[57:54] would be debris falling into the drain.
Um and the but the slope itself is um it
[58:02] would would probably um not be affected.
There would be there would continue to
[58:07] be debris uh from time to time, but um
yeah, it's it's not a it doesn't appear
[58:13] to be a structural retaining wall.
>> No, it's not structural.
[58:27] Do you have any other comments or
questions?
[58:30] » No, not that I can take up.
>> Okay,
[58:33] » thank you. Um, so, uh,
I guess what I'd like to clarify is that
[58:42] they're, um, with your suggestion asking
for that RL only for the plants so they
[58:48] can, is it to keep privacy? They want
the plants to stay alive. They want to
[58:55] be able to trim them. Is it because
they're located in in uh public
[59:00] property, they wouldn't be able to do
that legally or is that sort of what it
[59:04] is?
>> I I Yeah, I mean, I think it's a
[59:06] wellestablished grove of plantings that
will are stabilizing that hillside and
[59:11] they're doing all these improvements
above it and
[59:14] » they had just planned on not amending
those that portion of it of the
[59:19] property.
>> Right. I mean, I I was just trying to
[59:21] understand why what what the reason for
the RL is if they're not planning on
[59:27] touching it. What why would they even
ask for it?
[59:30] » I think we asked them to
>> maintain it to take on the liability and
[59:34] responsibility and maintaining that
plant those plantings.
[59:37] » Okay. So, you asked them to maintain
those plants. Okay. So if um
[59:45] if they didn't take on those plants and
the city needed to do repairs, we could
[59:51] conceivably go into that um dirt and
plant area and pull some of those out or
[59:59] we could change them or we could cut
them or we could do whatever we want
[1:00:03] with them.
>> Yep.
[1:00:04] » And so this way it allows them to keep
on top of those plants without
[1:00:10] us necessarily making changes there. I'm
I just recall from the meeting that the
[1:00:16] owner was um very concerned that the
plants would be there for privacy so
[1:00:21] that the public walkway people wouldn't
just be looking in at them and their
[1:00:26] pool etc. So I see it as a benefit to
them to be able to keep the um plants
[1:00:33] alive and
you know thick in that area.
[1:00:36] » Yeah.
>> Yeah.
[1:00:38] » Um Okay. And then
um
[1:00:44] I I was looking at the plans
and I don't have any comments about
[1:00:50] their plans. I just had one question
which was um I noticed that there's a
[1:00:57] pool that's going to go in quite close
to that dirt area. And in in your
[1:01:05] experience of constructing a pool and
creating surrounding vegetation, which
[1:01:10] they show on their plans,
would would um construct would a truck
[1:01:17] or people need to be below the pool? I
mean, do you work around a whole pool
[1:01:22] that's in a location like that, create a
retaining wall for it? I couldn't tell
[1:01:28] from the plans. I don't know how they're
creating that pool. It just seems like
[1:01:33] they would have to do some They're
demolishing the whole thing. So, I'm
[1:01:36] assuming they'd be creating a retaining
wall. I'm just concerned that
[1:01:44] I I would assume trucks would have to go
in near that dirt area. That's all.
[1:01:50] » Oh, I
>> But I don't know.
[1:01:52] » I haven't seen a construction management
plan. You know, we're not going to issue
[1:01:55] a building permit that's not
structurally sound to hold up that pool
[1:01:58] on a hillside.
>> Okay. Okay. Great. Um, so I think those
[1:02:03] are my only questions.
>> I have a new question. Sorry.
[1:02:06] » Okay.
>> So my new question is is that um
[1:02:15] who's who will be responsible for that
retention wall if it fails and it needs
[1:02:21] to have some kind of replacement in its
current location or a future location.
[1:02:29] if we give them the revocable license
because the retention wall is in the
[1:02:34] dirt right in front of the plants. It's
not on the other side of the concrete
[1:02:39] curb. I'm calling it.
>> Well, I I mean, have you read the
[1:02:45] condition of approval from the planning
commission approval?
[1:02:48] So it it says if the retaining wall is
altered or compromised during
[1:02:52] construction, the applicant shall work
with the city on an agreement to remedy
[1:02:56] the movement of the retaining wall prior
to building permit final. So I think it
[1:03:02] was at the planning commission hearing
that property owner didn't want to
[1:03:06] commit to building a whole new wall
because he had no idea how much that was
[1:03:10] going to cost. And so the agreement was
like, well, yeah, we'll we'll monitor it
[1:03:15] and see what happens and then we'll
revisit it. This is all prior to their
[1:03:19] building permit final. However, the
architect is online. I you know, I don't
[1:03:23] want to speak for them. Um the retaining
wall is not in the revocable license
[1:03:27] that they're asking for. Um so it would
be our responsibility.
[1:03:33] » So I'm not talking about con I'm talking
post construction. Let's get past the
[1:03:39] construction. But let's say
[1:03:43] they finish their construction now and
in two years for some reason that wall
[1:03:48] fails and some the dirt's moving and it
has that has to has some kind of a
[1:03:52] retention something.
>> Um yeah, I can speak in general um about
[1:03:58] what um how it would be addressed. Um if
uh if the cause of the of the uh failure
[1:04:06] was something that the property owner
had had done um then
[1:04:11] I think the city would approach them and
and um talk about uh replacing the wall
[1:04:17] and um
sh having some kind of agreement on on
[1:04:22] how that would be done. um if the wall
was uh you know if it failed because the
[1:04:27] wood had rotted and um there was nothing
in particular the that the owner did
[1:04:32] that um had any effect um then it would
be the city's responsibility um um alone
[1:04:41] » so can can Rebecca I understand that the
public benefit is is that they're
[1:04:46] maintaining the vegetation there um
but um other which basically for their
[1:04:54] privacy. Um, what is the other public
benefit that we're going to be getting?
[1:05:03] » Well, I mean, at least from the the city
standpoint, we're
[1:05:07] they're taking on the
liability and responsibility of
[1:05:11] maintaining all of that landscaping. So,
it's hold which is holding the hill,
[1:05:17] you know, it's all holding that the
hillside in and so it won't if
[1:05:23] the hillside won't fall into the lane
>> if they're not.
[1:05:29] » If you look at the language though,
Andrew, I don't think maintenance is
[1:05:32] specifically
called out in the RL, our standard RL.
[1:05:38] I think it's more about indemnification
versus maintaining.
[1:05:43] I mean,
[1:05:50] » are you talking about the language of
the RL, Kevin?
[1:05:53] » Well, yeah. I mean, because I think the
question is is that and I just want to
[1:05:56] clarify. So, that that short retaining
wall that's in the RL.
[1:06:00] » No,
>> it's on the prop uh the owner's
[1:06:03] property.
>> No, it's in the right of way.
[1:06:06] They are not asking for an RL for that
retaining wall. They're asking for
[1:06:11] license for what's behind it. Yeah.
[1:06:17] » Okay. So, my my legal question is the
same. Is is there any language that
[1:06:21] actually requires So, in the case of
this, there's landscaping that's
[1:06:24] currently on city land and I don't think
there's anything in the RL specifically
[1:06:29] that says they need to maintain it.
>> Yeah, I think that's a fair point, uh,
[1:06:33] Vice Mayor. So I think one thing if you
want to make that explicit is in section
[1:06:37] three or paragraph three we we normally
address you know if they're erecting or
[1:06:42] installing a building fence wall or
other structure they have a duty to um
[1:06:47] maintain that in all in good condition
repair. I think to your point excellent
[1:06:51] point maybe we should include um
installation of landscaping to ensure
[1:06:55] that they also need maintaining
landscaping as well in that area. Well
[1:06:59] » it's the current landscaping
right
[1:07:02] » the existing landscaping. Yeah,
>> because I think that's that's the bene
[1:07:06] or I believe I mean that's the benefit
is that they would be taking
[1:07:09] responsibility for maintaining that
landscaping,
[1:07:13] » right? And so I guess given the nature
of the RL requested in this instance, we
[1:07:17] can include a reference to landscaping
in in that section three,
[1:07:20] » right? But the wall itself is not
there's nothing since it's not part of
[1:07:25] the RL. The retaining wall would be
somewhat related to or it's related to
[1:07:30] the condition from the planning
commission, but that's not clear as to
[1:07:34] is there really a direct responsibility
on the part of the applicant that they
[1:07:38] should have to do anything if the wall
fails. It's like we will discuss and
[1:07:43] then maybe agree on something or maybe
we won't.
[1:07:47] » Yeah, correct.
Well, I guess if we go with that
[1:07:52] thinking and looking at the photo that
was in our packet and if they're taking
[1:07:59] over all the dirt literally just in
front of the
[1:08:04] » little retention wall there,
what is causing that retention wall to
[1:08:11] fail is the dirt behind it.
So, it seems to me that no matter what
[1:08:17] we're saying here,
unless, as Tony said, the wood just
[1:08:22] starts disintegrating,
if there's any movement at all, it's
[1:08:26] going to be due to that dirt behind it.
So, therefore, it seems to me that from
[1:08:32] day one, they're going to be responsible
for that wall, whether they want to be
[1:08:36] or not, because it's the dirt that's
pushing it and causing it to move. So, I
[1:08:42] I just I guess I'm confused why this is
not a retaining wall. It's really just a
[1:08:50] retention wall or something like that
where like you said, it's just holding
[1:08:54] the dirt back. I I I
think yes to repair it or help it to be
[1:09:02] more um structurally standing up and
really holding all that dirt back whe
[1:09:07] whether it was brought in more than it
should have been or whatever happened in
[1:09:12] the past. Um, I I guess I don't
understand and I don't have any clue how
[1:09:18] much money it would be, but it isn't
really an entire retaining wall where
[1:09:22] you're putting in all kinds of huge
structures 10 feet down and you know,
[1:09:27] whatever. So, it just seems to me that
we're kind of cutting off our nose to
[1:09:32] spite our face with this because no
matter what, this is going to wind up
[1:09:36] being attributed to them and then we're
going to have to go back and have an
[1:09:40] argument with them. And it seems to me
this is the time to just ask the
[1:09:44] architect knowing that it's just a
retention wall and not a true retaining
[1:09:49] wall with steel, etc. if that's
something that they might consider while
[1:09:55] they're doing all the construction.
Anyway,
[1:10:01] » hi. Thank you. Can you hear me?
>> Hi. Yes. Great. Um, I think I would like
[1:10:08] to defer to the agreement that was made
um with the commission um that's written
[1:10:15] in the in the um resolution that if
there was an issue with the retaining
[1:10:21] wall that we would address it at that
time instead of committing the owner
[1:10:29] right now to it. I think since the owner
was present at that time and that was
[1:10:33] the agreement I I would like to hold to
that.
[1:10:36] » So I think that you should understand
that the planning commission just makes
[1:10:40] a recommendation to city council and
it's city council here is deciding on
[1:10:46] the actual revocable license and um it's
I I'm not sure but it may come to the
[1:10:54] point that if you want the revocable
license it may include the retention. So
[1:10:59] if it's something that you need to
consult with your clients on perhaps we
[1:11:03] need to continue this. So you could
consult with your clients.
[1:11:08] » So let me let me jump in here. So I
think we have two options in front of
[1:11:11] us. Thank you Pat. Um is we either
consider this as it's currently drafted
[1:11:16] that the wall the retain wall is
excluded from the RL or we send it back
[1:11:20] and we say that the RL either is
inclusive of the wall it's all or
[1:11:24] nothing. Um, right now it feels I think
a bit peacemail is what I'm hearing from
[1:11:30] everyone on the the council. So,
um, I mean, we can open up for a public
[1:11:36] comment in a second, but I think right
now, unless you can tell us differently,
[1:11:41] there doesn't seem to be a reason to be
considering this as just a portion of
[1:11:46] the RL versus like why wouldn't we just
include the whole thing? So, if you want
[1:11:49] the RL, you can have it, but it includes
the wall.
[1:11:56] So,
why don't we open up to public comment?
[1:12:08] » October.
[1:12:11] » Hi, I'm Charlie. I'm the chair of the
parks open spaces lanes committee. Um,
[1:12:16] as part of being chair, we're notified
or meant to be notified when there's
[1:12:19] projects impacting lanes. This project
is touching a vital artery which is
[1:12:23] called Belvadier Way. This is the only
lane connecting West Shore Road to the
[1:12:27] rest of the upper end of the island. Um
we were not notified when this first
[1:12:30] came up. I found out about it day of the
planning commission. I sent in a letter.
[1:12:34] That's what we're hoping to pull up. I
took a few photos. Um and then after the
[1:12:38] after the meeting, I was basically told
that we would be contacted about the
[1:12:42] next steps. Um we were not. So this
again I was surprised to learn that this
[1:12:47] was up. I was sort of waiting for that
email to come through about when we're
[1:12:50] going to be talking about it next. Um,
we can get that picture. This is again a
[1:12:55] critical artery. Um, and the photo I
have really shows how it's bulging out.
[1:12:59] Um, I appreciate that we're working to
sort of collaborate on this and I love
[1:13:02] that we're we're thinking creatively.
Um, monitoring the retaining wall. I
[1:13:07] think if if I had been talked about
that, I would just have some questions
[1:13:10] about how we're going to do that. If we
say that it's maybe the other one too,
[1:13:14] Sammy or um the second photo, if we're
saying it's bulging out right now like
[1:13:18] 12 inches, if we look again and it's
bulging out by like 13 inches, is that
[1:13:23] sufficient for them to have to repair
it? My other question is if the wall was
[1:13:28] perfectly erect and it ended up in the
current state that it's in now, would
[1:13:31] that be deemed sufficient for repairs?
Um I think speaking to the public
[1:13:35] benefit, the vegetation as it stands
right now, I think that vegetation is
[1:13:39] non-native plants. I I don't know that
it's particularly beneficial to the
[1:13:44] public per se, more so than um making
sure that that lane doesn't collapse and
[1:13:49] that dirt and debris and wood doesn't go
off that. That's again that lane is wide
[1:13:54] enough for a car to go down. I think I
remember in the report they were
[1:13:56] actually asking for the ability to drive
vehicles up that lane. So this is really
[1:14:00] important. I look at this photo here and
I I I think this is a good opportunity
[1:14:05] for an uh a rethinking of this uh this
this issue. I this looks like an issue.
[1:14:12] It doesn't seem safe. I'm glad we're
looking at it. But um you know, these
[1:14:16] trees have roots, too. These roots are
going to be pushing against this and um
[1:14:20] I would love to work with whomever in
the city wants to about um the thoughts
[1:14:25] of the of the parks, open spaces, and
lanes committee, but this was the first
[1:14:28] I heard of it. So, I wanted to just
chime in and give an update from my
[1:14:30] perspective for why I think it's really
important to make sure that we look into
[1:14:34] this and also um I'm just not sure how
we're going to measure impact on that.
[1:14:39] Like, how how far bulging is it right
now? Is it 13? Is it 14 inches? Um and
[1:14:44] and how do we make sure that that
monitoring really happens? And I'm I'm
[1:14:48] concerned about that.
>> Thank you, Charlie.
[1:14:52] MA.
[1:14:58] » Hi, I'm Ma Bergson. I am on the parks
open space and lanes committee, but I'm
[1:15:02] here speaking as an individual because
since I am not chair and we were not
[1:15:07] notified of this, we don't have sort of
a consensus, so I can't speak on behalf
[1:15:11] of the committee, but I wanted to speak
up as an individual. Um, with regard to
[1:15:15] that, um, I would agree with all that
has been said, um, here by the council,
[1:15:20] um, as well as by Charlie and that we
are really happy that this is is coming
[1:15:24] up and being considered. He mentioned
that it is the access, you know, sort of
[1:15:28] upward to the island from West Shore.
It's also the only westside access from
[1:15:32] the island off the island down to the
water. So, I think it's we need to
[1:15:36] acknowledge it as a really important
evacuation route as well as a super
[1:15:39] commonly used lane. Um, as we could see
from the photos uh that Charlie had
[1:15:45] submitted to um the city back in
October, the amount of damage is much
[1:15:50] more extensive than I think is shown
really by the photo that was in the
[1:15:53] packet today. Um, and that is whether
it's caused by soil being, you know,
[1:15:59] pushed down or I think if you look at
all of the photos, it actually is a lot
[1:16:04] by not only um roots but actually also
even just the trunks. I mean, one of the
[1:16:09] photos showed that there's some sort of
um you know, conifer that's sort of
[1:16:13] leaning against it. So, my concern is
that if you grant an RL saying that we
[1:16:19] approve the existing landscaping when
what you have is landscaping and a slope
[1:16:23] situation that has clearly already
adversely impacted the city's wall
[1:16:28] there, then you're basically saying
we're good with what we have and now
[1:16:33] we're having to try to measure when it's
bad. And I don't think that's
[1:16:37] appropriate to be letting them sort of
ex sort of acknowledging it and
[1:16:41] accepting it as it is when in fact part
of those plants were clearly planted not
[1:16:46] by this applicant but that's what they
they purchased. Um, and if they're
[1:16:50] looking for a a a revocable license
because they want the the benefit of
[1:16:56] maintaining their privacy, then I
believe that the public deserves the
[1:16:59] benefit of having it repaired, that area
repaired because that public benefit is
[1:17:04] what we will get in exchange for giving
them a public benefit of preserving
[1:17:09] privacy. The public benefit to the rest
of the public is to ensure that the wall
[1:17:15] that is holding that stays. And not just
that it's not damaged during
[1:17:19] construction, but that it extends that
it stays for the long term. Um, it
[1:17:24] doesn't matter really who caused it to
get to where it is now. The question is
[1:17:29] is it's being a privilege is being
requested and we should be grant looking
[1:17:33] at the public benefit as well as the,
you know, to the public use. To me, this
[1:17:38] is very similar to somebody who who
plants a tree in their front yard and
[1:17:43] that tree damages the city's sidewalk or
other city property and the city comes
[1:17:49] to them and says,
>> you have a few seconds left.
[1:17:52] » The city comes to them and and says you
have to address this. And so I think
[1:17:55] that is the way we should be looking at
this not as an oral accepting the way it
[1:17:59] is now. Thank you.
>> Great. Thanks.
[1:18:00] » One second.
Other public comment.
[1:18:07] » There are no hands raised.
>> Thank you. So, I'll bring it back to
[1:18:10] councel.
Any additional thoughts for
[1:18:14] deliberation?
>> Um, I think I think we pretty well
[1:18:18] covered it. Um I I agree with our uh
public comments that um the revocable
[1:18:26] license should be granted when there is
a public benefit as determined by the
[1:18:31] city council. Um and we do generally try
to discourage just the benefit of
[1:18:38] private use. Um, I I get that the plants
are also beneficial to the public
[1:18:44] because they um hopefully hold up that
hillside and they make a nice um border
[1:18:53] for that road. Um
but I think in the past we have also had
[1:19:01] uh I'm sorry that
our um parks open space and lane meets
[1:19:07] unfortunately infrequently
and so when these things come up it's
[1:19:12] difficult to postpone it and wait for
that group because the owner wants to
[1:19:20] move forward and is on a time frame. So,
I think we get that. But, um, certainly
[1:19:27] from October to now, it would have been
nice to follow up on that and have had
[1:19:31] some kind of meeting with, uh, Chair
Harrington on this. Um, I don't see I
[1:19:38] think that right now, yes, it would be
difficult to determine unless we're very
[1:19:45] careful how we measure what it looks
like now, what it might look like um,
[1:19:49] during construction. Um, I don't I think
we've tried in the past whenever there's
[1:19:56] a lane next to the property and I would
say that we've been very fortunate with
[1:20:03] our community and they always seem to
want to help the city and help make the
[1:20:09] lane better. I don't think we've had too
many people stand up and who are next to
[1:20:14] a lane and say, "I'm doing full
construction, but I'm not going to even
[1:20:18] though you're asking, I'm not going to
help out that lane at all." I think
[1:20:22] we've been, like I said, fortunate that
most of our community is very generous
[1:20:26] that way. So, I I don't see this as
being a huge expense, but again, it's
[1:20:33] not I don't know, so I can't comment on
that. It is next to a lane. It's um
[1:20:39] especially important to the entire
community and um I think I would uh
[1:20:46] agree with our vice mayor that without a
commitment to um repair that wall that's
[1:20:55] obviously failing um that I could not
support the RL.
[1:21:02] that.
>> So, um
[1:21:05] I also feel that I agree with um council
member Cooper. Um it's very hard to
[1:21:12] separate out an RL granting an RL when
there's a component there that actually
[1:21:19] is
I know it's not a structural wall, but
[1:21:25] um retains
um
[1:21:29] the dirt and the plants. um from uh
failure. And I think it goes the the
[1:21:37] retention wall, whatever you want to
call it, uh goes with the plantings.
[1:21:42] It's um
uh just part of the um
[1:21:50] area that it's in. I mean, if the
retention wall was in front of the
[1:21:55] concrete curb, I'm calling it, um I
wouldn't have um questioned it, but it's
[1:22:01] actually behind the curb, right in front
of the plants. And obviously,
[1:22:06] it's a component of um that whole area
and all the plantings. And so I would
[1:22:12] not be able to approve the RL without
the so-called retention wall um being
[1:22:20] repaired or replaced whatever is
necessary
[1:22:24] by the applicant.
>> Thank you. Uh I agree and don't need to
[1:22:29] add anything further. Do I hear a
motion?
[1:22:35] » So should we ask for continuance or just
deny it or modify it?
[1:22:40] » Yeah. How do you want to handle it?
>> You want to ask?
[1:22:43] » I think a continuence would be the most
uh favorable. Um but we can ask the
[1:22:49] applicant if
>> we should ask the applicant if they're
[1:22:52] interested in that. Otherwise, we'll
deny it.
[1:22:57] » Um yes, we'd definitely like a
continuence. Does that just essentially
[1:23:01] extend to the next meeting? Could you
elaborate on what that means?
[1:23:07] Uh I think you'd have to say the
process.
[1:23:10] » It depends on yeah if you on the
conversations around based on what
[1:23:15] happened this evening and if you can
revise the plans and we can get
[1:23:18] everything in time for the next agenda
packet.
[1:23:21] » Got it. That sounds good.
>> Yeah. And as soon as that timing is met,
[1:23:25] it will come back to the council. Um,
>> and I think that if it all the
[1:23:35] conditions are met, I'm surely this
could go on a consent calendar once we
[1:23:40] see everything is proper.
[1:23:45] » Thank you. And does it extend for both
exhibits along Belvadier Way and
[1:23:49] Belvadier Way Lane or do those get
separated out?
[1:23:53] » Well, the resolution is uh or the
revocable license is written as one
[1:23:56] document. Okay. currently. Um, so you
could come back with just uh one portion
[1:24:02] of it if there isn't agreement on the
portion we discussed tonight.
[1:24:07] » Got it. Thank you for clarifying.
>> Sure. Uh, no, sorry, Charlie. Public
[1:24:13] comments closed.
[1:24:19] » Duly duly noted. Thank you. All right. I
think we are done with that item. Let's
[1:24:25] move on. We can call our other
commissioners back, our other council
[1:24:28] members back into the room.
[1:24:33] » I know.
>> Feels like that, doesn't it?
[1:25:00] I'm now turning it back to you, Sally.
Thank you so much.
[1:25:06] » Okay, we are moving on to item number
six, which is public hearing 6A. receive
[1:25:12] an annual report on the status of
vacancies and staff retention to fulfill
[1:25:17] Assembly Bill 2561. Helga,
thank you, Mayor Wilkinson. This hearing
[1:25:24] is being conducted in accordance with
Assembly Bill 2561, which was signed
[1:25:29] into law by Governor Nuome on September
22nd, 2024, and took effect January 1st,
[1:25:36] 2025. The legislation added section
3502.3
[1:25:42] to the California government code
requiring public agencies to present the
[1:25:46] status of their vacancies in a public
hearing before their governing body at
[1:25:51] least once per fiscal year. The
presentation must be made prior to the
[1:25:56] adoption of the final budget. This is an
annual public hearing item to present
[1:26:00] the vacancies and allow the city's one
bargaining unit the opportunity to make
[1:26:05] a presentation. The city has one
bargaining unit, the Belvadier Police
[1:26:10] Officers Association, which includes six
budgeted positions and no vacancies for
[1:26:16] fiscal year 2627.
Also, under this legislation, the city
[1:26:21] must identify any modifications to
policies, procedures, and recruitment
[1:26:26] practices that affect its initiatives to
minimize vacancies. The city partners
[1:26:32] with much more than consultant to
strengthen our recruitment efforts and
[1:26:37] we have not identified any necessary
changes to our current policies,
[1:26:41] procedures or recruitment activities at
this time and staff are available for
[1:26:46] questions.
>> Does anybody have questions?
[1:26:50] » No. Um that's open for public comment.
>> Um there's no motion on this. Is just we
[1:26:56] just have to receive it. Correct.
>> Sure. Uh, excuse me, Mayor C, if I could
[1:27:01] just make one comment for the record.
Um, just to slightly add to Helga
[1:27:05] statements, uh, the BOA was provided
with an opportunity to pro provide a
[1:27:08] presentation tonight and they did not
take us up on the offer just for the
[1:27:11] record. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Thank you very much. Um,
[1:27:14] okay, that was nice and brief. We'll
move on to um,
[1:27:18] seven other schedule items 7A, which is
a preliminary review and discussion of
[1:27:23] the annual operating budget and capital
improvement program for fiscal year
[1:27:27] 2627. And Hoga, this is again yours.
[1:27:52] » Thank you again, Mayor Wilkinson and
council members. Before you today is the
[1:27:56] preliminary operating and capital budget
for fiscal year 2627.
[1:28:06] To begin with some revenue highlights,
the general fund revenues are projected
[1:28:10] to increase by 10.2% or approximately
979,000.
[1:28:16] Property tax revenues remain the primary
driver with overall growth of 5.62% 62%
[1:28:22] over the current year budget or about
439,000
[1:28:27] based on the county's estimates. Other
property tax revenues are expected to
[1:28:33] remain flat while fire tax revenue is
projected to increase by approximately
[1:28:39] 3% pending final state data which comes
out in early May.
[1:28:44] Development related fee revenues have
increased due to the new user fee
[1:28:48] schedule that went into effect July 1st,
2025 and continued development activity,
[1:28:54] particularly large-scale projects and
increased encroachment and road
[1:28:58] closures. Despite a slight decline in
permit volume, fees are projected to
[1:29:04] recover approximately 89% of the city's
cost of service. The city council also
[1:29:10] approved a CPI based adjustment for the
user fees schedule which will be
[1:29:16] effective July 1st, 2026.
Fee performance in the first year has
[1:29:21] largely met the 92% cost recovery
target. Therefore, no additional
[1:29:27] incremental revenue is assumed in the
outer years. Consistent with best
[1:29:32] practices, no revenue increases were
assumed in the first year of the
[1:29:36] implementation and staff will continue
to monitor cost recovery trends over
[1:29:41] time as they may fluctuate with broader
economic conditions.
[1:29:47] One-time increase in building permit
plan review and road impact fee revenue
[1:29:54] is anticipated in fiscal year 2728
from the Malard Point project. Based on
[1:30:00] the current timeline, timing remains
uncertain and staff will refine revenue
[1:30:06] projections as the project advances.
No grant funding is included in the
[1:30:11] proposed budget at this time, though
staff will continue to pursue
[1:30:15] opportunities through partner agencies.
Overall, revenue projections remain
[1:30:21] strong, but are intentionally
conservative to support long-term fiscal
[1:30:25] stability amid the economic uncertainty.
[1:30:34] And now on the expenditure side from the
general fund for fiscal year 2526 was
[1:30:40] the last year of a three-year contracts
with the city's represented and
[1:30:44] non-represented groups. The city is
currently engaged in labor negotiations
[1:30:51] and anticipates reaching an agreement in
the coming weeks. The fiscical year 2627
[1:30:57] budget incorporates the results of a
compensation study and a 2 and a.5% cost
[1:31:02] of living adjustment. A 3% salary
increase has been assumed across the
[1:31:07] outer years.
The fiscal year 2627 budget includes
[1:31:14] 235,000
for a temporary police officer position
[1:31:18] over a three-year period to support
operations during the police department
[1:31:23] evaluation.
The budget The budget includes 150,000
[1:31:29] for implementing the housing element
goals, programs, and policies along with
[1:31:35] funding for general legal costs and
ongoing litigation. It also allocates
[1:31:41] 50,000 for the city's 2030 climate
action plan implementation.
[1:31:46] Expenditures related to the Meard Point
project include 150,000 for a special
[1:31:53] project manager, 10,000 for a relocation
specialist, and 45,000 for city engineer
[1:31:59] services. These costs will be reimbursed
in accordance with the agreement with
[1:32:04] the developer. Timber on fire is
estimating a 7 and a half% increase in
[1:32:10] our contract costs again this coming
fiscal year due to increase in district
[1:32:15] expenditures related to station 10 costs
from the capital fund. The budget
[1:32:21] includes 70,000 to replace an aging
public works utility truck,7,000 for a
[1:32:27] police handheld radar unit, and 13,500
for replacement of several staff
[1:32:34] computers, a server, and backup power
systems.
[1:32:38] from the capital improvement fund. The
budget includes the beach road
[1:32:42] stabilization project scheduled from
June through October 2026 with a total
[1:32:48] cost of 4.97 million. Of this 4.68
million will be funded from the critical
[1:32:55] infrastructure reserve with 345 from
other sources to close the gap. An
[1:33:02] estimated 2.48 48 million will roll over
from fiscal year 2526
[1:33:08] and the construction contract was
approved by council on April 13th. The
[1:33:13] 5-year CIP includes ongoing annual
funding of 80,000 for lane improvements
[1:33:20] and 15,000 for vegetation management and
fire fuel reduction. Key projects next
[1:33:26] year include the Harry B. gallon stair
repair, community park restroom
[1:33:31] renovations, redrilling of the community
park well, and police department
[1:33:36] improvements. The budget also includes
60,000 to complete the infrastructure
[1:33:41] assessments will which will inform the
fisc year 2728 capital budget. Several
[1:33:48] projects are expected to be partially
funded through partner agencies and
[1:33:53] private donations.
[1:33:58] A large part of the city's expenditures
are staffing costs. Personnel costs are
[1:34:03] projected to increase in fiscal year
2627
[1:34:07] over estimated actuals primarily due to
staffing additions and compensation
[1:34:12] adjustments. Regular salaries are
increasing by 21% approximately 535,000
[1:34:20] driven by higher staffing levels with 21
staff headcount in the proposed bud
[1:34:26] budget verse 18.4 actual headcount in
2526
[1:34:32] which is an increase of about 14% over
estimated actuals. Implementation of the
[1:34:38] compensation study is estimated at a 4%
increase or 124,000 and a 2.5% COLA or
[1:34:47] about 75,000.
The compensation study amounts reflect
[1:34:52] potential adjustments which are part of
the ongoing labor negotiation process.
[1:34:58] Lower fiscal year 2526 staffing and
expenditures reflect vacancies in
[1:35:04] police, administration, and public works
during the current fiscal year. These
[1:35:08] positions have all been filled with the
latest position being filled at the end
[1:35:12] of April for the administrative
technician.
[1:35:16] Health insurance costs are projected to
rise by 22% reflecting a 9% increase in
[1:35:22] premiums as well as the addition of
family rate coverage for the new police
[1:35:27] position. The city's unfunded acred
liability contribution is increasing by
[1:35:33] 45% approximately 104,000
under over the fiscal year 26 actuals
[1:35:40] consistent with fluctuations driven by
CalPER's investment performance actuary
[1:35:46] assumptions and retiree experience.
[1:35:51] Other personnel costs are also
increasing, primarily due to the
[1:35:56] addition of the one and a half positions
in the police department impacting costs
[1:36:01] such as holiday pay, shift differential,
and education incentive pay.
[1:36:10] This next slide highlights the city's
required pension related payments to
[1:36:14] Kalpers, including contributions toward
the unfunded acred liability and
[1:36:19] payments associated with the pension
obligation lease lease back debt. The
[1:36:25] fiscal year 2627 UAL payment is based on
the most recent Kalpers actuarial
[1:36:31] valuation as of June 30th, 2024, which
reflected an investment return of 9.3%.
[1:36:39] However, prior years continue to impact
current and future contribution
[1:36:44] requirements, including a negative 6.1%
return for the period June 30th, 2022,
[1:36:51] and a 5.8% 8% return for the period
ending June 30th, 2023,
[1:36:57] both of which fell below the Kalpers's
assumed rate of 6.8%.
[1:37:02] As a result, UL contributions are
projected to remain elevated over the
[1:37:07] 5-year forecast period. Again, UL costs
may fluctuate annually based on
[1:37:13] investment performance, changes in
actuary assumptions, and retiree
[1:37:18] experience. The pension related debt
obligation will have a final payment of
[1:37:24] 123,000 in fiscal year 3132.
We are also planning a re review of the
[1:37:30] city's pension funding strategy for this
coming December, including whether some
[1:37:35] section 115 assets should be transferred
to Kalpers.
[1:37:44] And this slide shows the anticipated
transfers from the general fund that are
[1:37:49] part of the budget. FIRE is 1.42
million, the pension 115 trust fund, the
[1:37:56] 300,000, pension related debt, 237,000.
The budget includes a 100,000 transfer
[1:38:03] to the insurance and legal reserve fund
to cover ongoing uninsured legal
[1:38:08] expenses with a reduction in transfer
amount reflecting an anticipated
[1:38:13] decrease in legal costs and bringing the
fund to its minimum required balance.
[1:38:19] The capital improvement fund 184,000
and a 705 transfer to the critical
[1:38:26] infrastructure reserve was budgeted in
2526 to support the beach road
[1:38:32] stabilization project. The fund will
also be renamed the long-term capital
[1:38:37] planning fund and receive a 1.1 million
transfer to support future capital needs
[1:38:44] identified through the upcoming
infrastructure assessments. And finally,
[1:38:49] the equipment replacement fund transfer
of 89,500.
[1:38:58] And this brings us to a summary of the
proposed budget. The proposed budget
[1:39:03] anticipates total operating revenues of
11.86 million and total operating
[1:39:08] expenditures of 11.16 million, resulting
in an operating surplus of just over
[1:39:15] 700,000.
Capital revenues are estimated at
[1:39:19] 545,000
while capital expenditures are projected
[1:39:23] to be 3.31 million leading to a capital
fund deficit of 2.77 million primarily
[1:39:31] due to the 2.23 million in expenditures
for the Beach Road stabilization project
[1:39:36] next year. In summary, revenues are
projected at 12.41 million and
[1:39:42] expenditures at 14.48 48 million
resulting in a 2.07 million deficit.
[1:39:50] This is primarily due to one-time costs
for the beach road stabilization project
[1:39:55] largely funded by the critical
infrastructure reserve. Following this
[1:39:59] one-time expense, the budget is expected
to return to more typical operating
[1:40:04] levels.
[1:40:07] And this slide
shows projected fund balance as of June
[1:40:12] 30th, 2027. The general fund begins
fiscal year 2627 at 7.21 million above
[1:40:20] the reserve target and after plan
transfers for fire capital pensions and
[1:40:25] reserve is projected to end the year at
5.63 million. The critical
[1:40:30] infrastructure reserve fle reflects a
2.49 million transfer out and a 705
[1:40:37] transfer in resulting in a remaining
balance of 1.1 million. As mentioned
[1:40:43] previously, the fund will be renamed the
long-term capital planning fund to
[1:40:47] support future capital needs through the
infrastructure assessments.
[1:40:53] The budget, as submitted, anticipates
returning to a more normal state,
[1:40:57] allowing the city to replenish the newly
renamed long-term capital planning fund
[1:41:01] to over 1.85 million by the end of the
forecast period.
[1:41:08] And this brings us to the general fund
reserve. The reserve policy is to
[1:41:12] maintain a reserve equal to 50% of the
projected general fund expense plus fire
[1:41:17] transfer plus pension debt service. This
budget incorporates the policy with the
[1:41:23] reserve goal at 50% of fiscal year 2728
projected general fund expense plus fire
[1:41:30] transfer plus debt service which is 5.21
million. The projected general fund
[1:41:35] balance at the end of next fiscal year
is 5.63 million. The projected general
[1:41:41] fund balance is over the policy goal by
417,000
[1:41:45] or 54%.
[1:41:49] And this slide shows the history of the
general fund's actual ending balance.
[1:41:53] The fiscal year 2526 estimated general
fund balance of 7.21 million and it
[1:42:00] shows the 5-year projections. The green
line reflects the council's reserve
[1:42:04] policy goal. As you can see, the budget
reflects that it does meet the reserve
[1:42:09] policy goal for the next five years.
And in conclusion, a few highlights of
[1:42:14] this budget are that the general fund
reserve policy is met over the 5-year
[1:42:19] forecast period. We continue with annual
contributions to our 115 trust fund. We
[1:42:24] contribute to the critical
infrastructure reserve to fund the beach
[1:42:28] road stabilization construction with
plans to replenish the fund in future
[1:42:33] years. And the budget reflects a
fiscally conservative approach that
[1:42:38] prioritizes maintaining staffing levels
and supporting the city's operational
[1:42:43] needs.
[1:42:46] So tonight, we are asking you for your
input and we'll take your suggestions
[1:42:50] into consideration while we continue to
refine our budget projections and we
[1:42:55] will bring the budget back to council
for adoption on June 8th after we
[1:42:59] conduct the public hearing.
And with that, I'd be happy to answer
[1:43:04] any questions.
[1:43:09] » Helga, thank you very much for the
detailed presentation. Um, let me open
[1:43:13] this to the city council first for
questions for Helga.
[1:43:18] » Of course, Brian.
>> Well, Helga, that was masterful. Thank
[1:43:23] you very much. I know it was a lot of
work for you. It was a lot of work for
[1:43:28] me to read it, too. So,
so well done. Um,
[1:43:35] basically I guess the first question I'm
going to ask is should the public be
[1:43:40] worried about the 2 million plus deficit
that you highlighted?
[1:43:45] » Uh, no. Because the majority of that is
covered by the transfers from the
[1:43:51] critical infrastructure reserve fund to
cover.
[1:43:54] » So the reserve fund is not included in
your math. And so that comes in and
[1:44:00] essentially takes care of that deficit.
>> It does. Yes.
[1:44:04] » Okay, great. I just wanted to clarify
that. Um,
[1:44:09] so on page four, I was just curious and
I I may be off on this, so that's what
[1:44:16] I'm going to ask
is I noticed that in chart three it said
[1:44:21] over-the-counter revenue trends.
So why would um 26 27
[1:44:30] why why would you anticipate that to be
what looks to me to be lower than what
[1:44:36] was even in 2425
which was before we had the new fee
[1:44:44] structure. Is is this have something to
do with the fee structure or not?
[1:44:53] So,
[1:44:57] so in the proposed budget, it does
reflect the new fee schedule. However,
[1:45:03] » we only have like a half a year's worth
of
[1:45:08] » data on the new fee schedule revenue.
So, I didn't want to overestimate the
[1:45:14] revenues in this first year. And once we
have
[1:45:19] better historical data on the revenues
under the new fee schedule, then we can
[1:45:26] um have a better
>> little Yeah. realistic number. Okay.
[1:45:32] » Okay. It just seemed like it was a
little bit low because it was even under
[1:45:36] two years ago.
>> Yeah.
[1:45:38] » Anyway, if
that that was a question I had. So, let
[1:45:43] me see.
Um,
[1:45:49] I I did notice there was a $7,000
um expenditure for coyote and rat
[1:45:57] mitigation,
but um I don't know. I really don't know
[1:46:02] anything about the rat mitigation. So,
is that something we're going to discuss
[1:46:06] at some point or how how does that
happen? Yeah, that's uh something that
[1:46:12] the mayor and I are looking into
currently and we'll have a proposal that
[1:46:16] we'll bring to city council in the
future. Um we're not quite sure where
[1:46:20] that's going to land yet. We're still
gathering our facts, but um we did want
[1:46:24] to make sure that something was in the
budget in case it goes the direction we
[1:46:27] think it might.
>> Okay. And then,
[1:46:30] and I may be wrong, but um do you recall
what our um coyote uh contract is with
[1:46:39] Marin Humane?
>> Uh I want to say it's 2500 a quarter.
[1:46:45] » That's is that
>> Yeah.
[1:46:47] » Okay. So
that's more than 7,000. So this doesn't
[1:46:53] count. This is separate from our
contract with Marine Humane. This 7,000
[1:46:59] is a separate.
>> Isn't that under the
[1:47:06] That's sep I believe that's separate.
Okay. From min Yeah, the animal control
[1:47:10] is
>> right
[1:47:12] » under the non-dep departmental. So
>> Oh, okay.
[1:47:16] » It's a separate line item.
>> Oh, okay. Great. I wasn't sure. I
[1:47:20] thought maybe we were saving money.
That's really been nice. Um,
[1:47:25] let's see.
[1:47:32] I know you brought up um pensions and
the change in
[1:47:38] in those figures and I I was looking in
the list of unfunded expenditures on
[1:47:45] page 13 and would would pension issues
be considered an unfunded expenditure or
[1:47:54] they again a separate
>> um that's separate because um you know
[1:48:00] we have our required contribution that
Kalpers says that we have to pay each
[1:48:05] year and then the
um the unfunded acred liability is
[1:48:10] something that is determined on an
annual basis from Kalpers through their
[1:48:16] valuation and that's and our section 115
fund is
[1:48:22] is there to offset that.
>> Okay. Thank you.
[1:48:27] Um, okay. That's all I have.
Kevin,
[1:48:32] » sure. Um, thank you, Helga. Helga. Uh,
it's a great presentation, very thorough
[1:48:35] as always. Um, just three questions for
you. On page five, it's uh somewhat
[1:48:40] related to Jane's question. Is the
revenue that you're projecting for
[1:48:44] licenses and permits
um for this coming fiscal 785 785,000?
[1:48:52] Um and my question was is so the 265 for
malad's included in that 765, right?
[1:49:00] » Um no
>> it is. So that's separate.
[1:49:02] » It's separate because the malard is in
fiscal year 2728.
[1:49:08] » Oh, so it's the year forward. Okay,
thank you. That actually helps quite a
[1:49:11] bit. So my question was the same as
Jane's is just it seemed low compared to
[1:49:15] especially last year. But again, it's
just mainly because of a conservative
[1:49:19] approach.
>> Yes. So, if we were to trend in the same
[1:49:23] level, how much higher would that be, do
you think?
[1:49:27] » Um, I I don't really know at this time,
but you know, once
[1:49:32] » 25% I mean it could be 25 to 30% more
than
[1:49:36] » Yes.
>> Yeah. Okay. We could come close to maybe
[1:49:39] what we did last year.
>> We would theoretically theoretically
[1:49:42] » it's just good to know. Can I just jump
in there because isn't it also the case
[1:49:46] that we've seen just a lot of unusually
large projects and so we're normalizing
[1:49:50] for that as well in terms of your
forecasting?
[1:49:52] » Yes, that's true.
>> Thank you.
[1:49:55] » True.
>> Well, if you walk around town, you're
[1:49:58] still seeing a lot of unusually
>> so I'm not sure it's a
[1:50:04] » Yeah, it's a conservative number for
sure.
[1:50:06] » It is. Yes.
>> Okay, great.
[1:50:08] » I I just didn't want to overestimate.
>> Yeah. No, I appreciate that. I think
[1:50:11] that's actually kept us in good
standing, that type of approach. Um, on
[1:50:15] page eight and nine, um, just in terms
of capital expenditures or operating
[1:50:20] expenditures, I'm sorry. What are your
thoughts in terms of contingency
[1:50:24] planning, especially as it relates to
Beach Road? Like what's baked in here?
[1:50:34] » 11%.
>> Oh, yes. In
[1:50:39] » Yeah. Yeah. That's 11%. I'm getting the
nod from Tony.
[1:50:43] » And you're feeling good about that.
>> Yeah,
[1:50:49] I'll take that answer. I'll take that
and run. Um, okay. Last question.
[1:50:55] » It'll read better in the in the minutes
than the audio.
[1:50:59] » Um, on page 13, last question is just
the unfunded expenditures. any sense of
[1:51:04] what this could be from a ballpark
standpoint, like what our potential
[1:51:08] exposure is here?
[1:51:12] » That's for Tony, I think.
>> Um, yeah, I I wouldn't guess. I I think
[1:51:17] Robert or Tony could answer that.
>> I'll take it from anyone.
[1:51:24] » Just a ballpark.
million dollars projects from
[1:51:38] » you'll have to give me a minute to just
uh take a look.
[1:51:40] » We can come back to why don't you think
for a moment and we can go on to other
[1:51:43] council members.
>> Great.
[1:51:44] » Thank you.
>> Uh Peter, any questions?
[1:51:49] » Uh just just a quick um clarification.
you were talking about the uh the
[1:51:54] reserve for for the um 2627 fiscal year
and you talked about the 56 over the 52
[1:52:02] um calculation with $400,000 some odd
the 56 it was you know a slide a few ago
[1:52:09] that's the the year ending projections
right
[1:52:12] » I think I think you had it as July of 26
>> oh
[1:52:16] » I think I'm just just I don't know
whether I read that wrong or but it
[1:52:20] should be the year ending
>> it should be the
[1:52:23] Um, just two things I mentioned in the
finance committee meeting. Uh, I do
[1:52:29] think and I know Kevin brought this up.
I do think we should strive going
[1:52:34] forward and it may even need to be done
somewhat retroactively layer on a
[1:52:39] separate P&L for Malard because I think
there's tentacles in a lot of different
[1:52:44] places. You've got costs for uh the
consultant. You've got costs for legal
[1:52:49] work. You've got costs for um cost
recover cost for for a number of things
[1:52:53] that we assume we're going to be paid
for. Uh and we're actually are are have
[1:52:58] already collected fees with no no real
benefit go into some of the fees that
[1:53:02] we've already identified. So they are in
there in from an actual perspective
[1:53:05] going backwards and they will be in this
year you know assuming that that there
[1:53:09] are some projects for this year. So I
would hope and think that at some point
[1:53:14] we build a standalone um fee structure,
standalone expense structure including
[1:53:20] potentially staff costs and so forth so
that it all feeds into over budget but
[1:53:23] you can look at it in it in its
isolation. Um I know we talked about it
[1:53:27] before. Um second thing is uh I do also
think that
[1:53:32] 25 26 permit fees were augmented by the
um um permit renewals as we talked
[1:53:39] about. um
>> yes,
[1:53:41] » which which
aren't really accounted for going
[1:53:44] forward either. So, I think that might
need to be layered out or broken out as
[1:53:48] a separate line item in the future
because it doesn't take, you know, more
[1:53:52] than three or four or five permit
renewals to be a decent number.
[1:53:56] » Yes.
>> In relation to $700,000 total line item,
[1:53:59] » right? I am planning to work with
planning and building on the Malard to
[1:54:03] have a better schedule for that. And
then I have worked with um the building
[1:54:08] official
for those building extension fees. I do
[1:54:13] have a list for those and I'm planning
to break those out. There's it's about
[1:54:17] 28,000 that we've
>> collected in this current fiscal year so
[1:54:23] far to date. And so I am going to break
those out so that they will have a
[1:54:27] separate line item going forward.
>> Wonderful. Thank you,
[1:54:33] Pat.
[1:54:36] Nice thing about being fourth in line is
all my questions were answered.
[1:54:41] » Thank you.
>> Thank you, Helga. I appreciate um a lot
[1:54:45] of my questions were answered in advance
by multiple emails from um Helga and uh
[1:54:51] which I greatly appreciate and thank you
for all your work. You're welcome.
[1:54:56] » Um I do not have questions. I attended
the finance committee meeting and asked
[1:55:00] my questions then. So um let's open this
for public comment. Is there anybody in
[1:55:05] the audience who would like to make a
public comment? Okay, let's go to um
[1:55:10] online
>> there are no hands raised.
[1:55:14] » Great. Okay, so let's bring this back
for discussion or a motion or actually
[1:55:19] we don't need a motion. This is
justformational.
[1:55:22] Um would anybody like to give any
specific direction um that isn't already
[1:55:29] included in this memo? I'd like us to
make more money and spend less money.
[1:55:35] » Okay. And let's let's actually go back
to Tony in terms of the question that
[1:55:38] was asked about the potential very large
number in terms of our capital
[1:55:42] expenditure needs.
>> Um yeah,
[1:55:46] » can you hear me? Yep. There we go. Um
yeah, it's it's really hard to say
[1:55:51] without looking into these more more
closely. Um and I just checked with
[1:55:56] Robert on one of them, the as far as the
undergrounding goes. Um and you know so
[1:56:02] going back going up uh the the list here
starting with undergrounding um about 5
[1:56:08] million um sustainability plan
implementation which would be
[1:56:12] sustainable fleet LED lighting and so
on. Um my guess would be uh between half
[1:56:19] a million and 1 million. um critical
infrastructure project, earthquake and
[1:56:23] utility protection for levies. Um I'd
say um between 5 and 10 million and then
[1:56:30] roadway adjustments related to emergency
evacuation planning. Um I I have not
[1:56:36] seen any of those uh proposed uh
changes. So, um it depends if we're
[1:56:41] talking about big retaining walls or if
we're uh just talking uh smaller
[1:56:46] projects, but uh anything from uh 3 to 5
million, I'd say. So, um I'd say between
[1:56:52] 10 and 15, uh million in total.
>> This this is in this is part of your
[1:57:00] capital needs assessments that you're
currently uh going through or is
[1:57:05] » No. Uh so those are all uh those
assessments are all for existing
[1:57:09] infrastructure. Um these are uh proposed
new uh infrastructure items.
[1:57:16] » Okay. Does that answer your question?
Were you looking for the bigger number
[1:57:18] of the all-in
>> No, no. I I think that does um I think
[1:57:23] I'm sure it's something you're already
talking about at the finance committee.
[1:57:26] I mean those are big numbers obviously
and how we think of those in addition to
[1:57:30] the infrastructure project. I mean the
numbers get even bigger and you know
[1:57:35] obviously we have a very modest budget.
So
[1:57:39] yeah it's just it's a lot of exposure if
those things ever become critical.
[1:57:42] » Yeah. I mean my understanding is that
once we have a better idea of the
[1:57:47] numbers we then need to think about how
we might be planning for that
[1:57:50] financially over the next 30 years or
whatever those however long those
[1:57:54] assessments go out. But but you're still
planning to bring that back to us next
[1:57:58] fiscal year. You'll have completed all
the assessments. Is that right?
[1:58:01] » Correct.
>> Yes. Yeah.
[1:58:02] » All right. Thank you. So, unless there's
any other comments or questions from
[1:58:06] council members, we're going to close
this item um and move on to
[1:58:16] item 7B, which is a review and
discussion of revocable license policy
[1:58:21] and application to the beach road strip.
Um who is put this Rebecca? Is this your
[1:58:28] item?
>> Yes.
[1:58:29] » Okay, go ahead.
>> Thank you. Good evening, mayor, council
[1:58:31] members. This item um includes a
discussion of how the city manages
[1:58:36] revocable licenses, also known as RL's
on the beach road parcels known as the
[1:58:42] strip. The goal of this discussion is
whether the current public benefit
[1:58:46] framework is sufficient or if a more
structured approach is required. Under
[1:58:52] um our current administrative policy
manual, the council grants RLS based on
[1:58:56] public safety and infrastructure
protection, aesthetic improvements,
[1:59:00] validation of long-standing existing
encroachments.
[1:59:04] Um as we discussed previously, they are
discretionary in nature and can be
[1:59:08] revoked at any time by the council. Uh
the staff reviewed the 21 residential uh
[1:59:15] parcels along the strip. Um, it is a
highly utilized area of the 21 parcels,
[1:59:22] 17 hold RLS. These types of
encroachments include stairs, retaining
[1:59:27] walls, fences, decks, landscaping, and
elevators. These improvements mostly
[1:59:32] exist solely to facilitate private
access to the 17 peers and docks from
[1:59:37] those residential homes. Um, while these
public while these benefit the
[1:59:42] homeowner, the public benefit is is
often indirect, which include things
[1:59:47] like the owner stabilizing a hill the
city would otherwise have to manage and
[1:59:51] improved landscaping in some cases. Uh,
recent shoreline cleanup efforts
[1:59:57] mandated by regulatory agencies
underscores the city's obligations and
[2:00:01] costs for maintenance of the strip. This
development provides good reason to
[2:00:05] consider whether the current framework
should be more clear should more clearly
[2:00:08] align private use of public land with a
measurable public benefit. A few general
[2:00:14] approaches for the council to consider
are one expanded maintenance.
[2:00:19] So this would include licences
maintaining their improvement plus the
[2:00:24] adjacent public strip including
vegetation management, debris removal
[2:00:28] and general upkeep.
Secondly, an annual fee structure is
[2:00:33] something to consider. This would
include changing a recurring charging a
[2:00:37] recurring fee while the RL primarily um
benefits private interests. This fee
[2:00:42] would create a dedicated fund for
shoreline maintenance and regulatory
[2:00:46] cleanup costs. A third approach would be
to continue with the current approach
[2:00:51] but undergo a closer examination of the
revocable licenses standard provisions
[2:00:56] and or addition of provisions specific
to the strip. The city um has used the
[2:01:02] current revocable license for several
years and staff could examine other uh
[2:01:08] similar approaches taken by other
jurisdictions in the area.
[2:01:12] The fourth approach would be to stop
issuing RLS in the strip where the
[2:01:16] primary aim of the improvements is to
provide access to private peers and
[2:01:20] docks. The council could decide in its
discretion that this provides little to
[2:01:24] no public benefit.
Um the fifth approach could be to revoke
[2:01:29] all RLS for the strip where the primary
aim of the improvements is to provide
[2:01:33] access to private peers and docks due to
the potential lack of public benefit. a
[2:01:39] lease agreement arrangement could be
considered as an alternative in that
[2:01:43] case. Uh tonight we are seeking uh
direction on whether to pursu pursue
[2:01:48] further analysis and potential
amendments to the administrative policy
[2:01:52] manual 11.7
um to address these issues identified
[2:01:57] and I am available for questions should
you have any.
[2:02:02] » Thank you Rebecca. Um, who would like to
uh start with questions if there are
[2:02:08] any?
>> Okay, Jane, go ahead.
[2:02:12] » Thanks, Rebecca. I really enjoyed
reading this report and I especially
[2:02:17] liked having a lot of choices. It was a
really thorough analysis of
[2:02:23] seemingly so of what our options are.
Um, so
[2:02:30] one of the things that was mentioned was
the doc lease payments. Do have we been
[2:02:35] collecting those every five years? Okay.
And so that goes up and you just collect
[2:02:40] it and
the nod was fine.
[2:02:45] » Yeah, but we do send out the notices for
payment each year and then we increase
[2:02:50] them every five years.
>> Oh, oh, each year. Okay, thanks. Good to
[2:02:54] know. Um
[2:02:58] if if we were to decide to create a
lease situation for those uh that strip
[2:03:04] area, how would that
affect or impact the open space and
[2:03:11] public access requirement of the open
space? Do you see that the lease would
[2:03:17] have an impact on that?
>> Yeah. So I think one potential advantage
[2:03:23] of the lease approach is frankly that I
would have a more defined term for how
[2:03:27] long the you know arrangement is in
place. I don't think it I don't see it
[2:03:31] as necessarily although certainly if
Robert Rebecca or others have thoughts
[2:03:35] I'm not sure if it necessarily impacts
the nature of the open space access
[2:03:38] requirements or principles that the city
has followed. But I think the the
[2:03:43] principal difference between a lease and
a license is that as you know the
[2:03:46] licenses or at least a revocable license
I've seen since being attorney don't
[2:03:50] have any defined end date or term
whereas leases obviously do.
[2:03:55] So you don't anticipate you're saying
you could write into the lease whatever
[2:03:59] you wanted to to cover the public access
and
[2:04:04] » yeah similarly I think in approach in
terms of you know what our ask could be
[2:04:09] so to speak um I think in either
instance a lease or license it would be
[2:04:13] pretty much the same because at the end
of the day it is public property right
[2:04:16] and obviously the public agency to
decide what it wants to do with it own
[2:04:19] public property.
>> Okay. Um
[2:04:28] so again um unfortunately parks open
space and lanes was not brought into
[2:04:35] this discussion. I I think because the
item came at a time when between their
[2:04:41] meetings, but certainly um I think in it
would be great to keep them involved
[2:04:48] going forward with any discussions or
any anything that goes on. Um, I think
[2:04:54] this uh this is our group that oversees
all those areas and uh so I'm hopeful
[2:05:00] that we pay attention to that and not um
continue to kind of ignore it. So that's
[2:05:08] all the questions I have.
[2:05:13] » Just one is uh so some have everyone has
an RL and some have leases or does
[2:05:18] everyone have an RL and a lease?
I think some all have RLS,
[2:05:26] » some have leases. Most have those who
have docks have leases as well.
[2:05:31] » So why why both? Because you were just
saying, Andrew, you could just solve
[2:05:35] this with one.
>> Well, the Yeah, the dock leases are for
[2:05:40] the overwater structures. Got it.
>> The RLS are for um improvements on the
[2:05:46] strip.
>> Got it. Okay. Thank you.
[2:05:51] Thanks, Rebecca. Um, of the 19 and this
is relating to our conversation just
[2:05:56] just an hour ago at this point, two
hours ago maybe. Uh, of the 19 L leases
[2:06:02] that ex RLS that exist, are they for the
entire um, property beneath
[2:06:11] property line or property line on the
strip or just for the improvements
[2:06:13] within that area?
>> I'd say the majority are for the
[2:06:17] improvements within the area.
>> Okay. So, so unlike what we do normally
[2:06:22] on community road in that case or
whatever the case might have been, um we
[2:06:26] license that in like the whole grade out
area of their of the um city right away
[2:06:31] adjacent to their property property line
to property line. We don't do that here.
[2:06:34] We do it just for the area that they're
specifically looking to improve.
[2:06:38] » Correct.
>> Got it. Thank you.
[2:06:40] » I I would I would say that I think it
you'd have to go back and look at them.
[2:06:44] Some of them actually the RLS are quite
large and they do take over. Um if you
[2:06:50] go if you look at Cliff Lane at the
bottom there, well that whole lane is
[2:06:55] between three RLS, three different homes
and the one at the bottom has an
[2:07:01] actually quite large all the way
covering the beach as well as um part of
[2:07:06] the pier and the bottom of the lane
versus another one that has the lane and
[2:07:11] the other one that has. No, it is it's
confusing
[2:07:15] » the lane. Well, the lanes I've seen the
RL covers the whole lane, but in terms
[2:07:19] of the strip, I don't know.
>> Yeah, I'm just talking about these
[2:07:22] particular on the strip that we're
addressing right now.
[2:07:26] » I think
[2:07:32] » so Rebecca, great report, very thorough.
So the question is is that as we as I
[2:07:41] look at some of the options that you
gave us um to have them take over
[2:07:47] maintenance obligation of as Peter
described from lot to lot
[2:07:54] um and to either have an annual fee or a
lease
[2:08:01] it seems
and with the maintenance. So the
[2:08:06] question is is and you may not have done
that and that might be something we need
[2:08:11] to do is is there one approach that has
a greater benefit to the city
[2:08:21] as as far as
[2:08:26] like the maintenance would cover quite a
bit. I don't know if we would ever be
[2:08:30] able to
get a lease that would cover all the
[2:08:35] benefit of the maintenance of the entire
parcel.
[2:08:40] » Yeah.
While Rebecca's looking, I would say if
[2:08:44] you're if the objective is to try and
get the maximum benefit,
[2:08:49] if we are to give an RL, then yeah, it
would be I would say a combination of
[2:08:53] both. It' be a maintenance agreement for
the entire slopes and it also be a
[2:08:58] either a fee in Luffy or it' be a lease
for for the square footage of the actual
[2:09:04] improvements whether that be a hill
elevator or a staircase or whatever.
[2:09:08] » And so then my next question I guess
goes to our legal counsel.
[2:09:14] So the question is is that um we all
know these license are revokable.
[2:09:20] Um, do you see
legally one, and I I'm not I'm sure
[2:09:26] you're aware of all the five options,
but is there an option there that
[2:09:31] either legally is more advantageous or
one that is definitely
[2:09:39] more
a disadvantage for the city to um
[2:09:43] pursue,
>> one that might be fraught with issues.
[2:09:48] Uh so let me let me try to answer this
way. I would say legally the one that
[2:09:53] would require the most homework so to
speak, the most preparation would be the
[2:09:56] fee. um as noted in the staff report and
as you know from other other fee
[2:10:01] discussions in terms of user fees and
regulatory fees and all those sort of
[2:10:04] stuff you know that does require some
sort of study
[2:10:08] um exactly how you get to the cost to
the city in terms of staff time or
[2:10:12] otherwise and then figure figure out how
much to pass on to you know private
[2:10:17] residents within the city that are
participating you know are partaking
[2:10:21] that particular benefit. So I would say
to the extent that we want to go down
[2:10:25] that road, it requires more again sort
of homework or leg work to put put
[2:10:30] ourselves on a good legal footing.
>> So that's one consideration perhaps for
[2:10:34] council.
>> Okay. So, and if we revoke the license
[2:10:40] and come up with a new plan, whatever
that plan is, um, and someone doesn't
[2:10:46] want doesn't agree with what our new
plan is, we just revoke it and they
[2:10:51] can't gain access to their doc.
>> Well, I again, revocable licenses
[2:10:59] adopted and approved by city councils
deep into the histories of Belvadier say
[2:11:04] what they say. Um, but I think that
certainly you could expect some push
[2:11:08] back as a speaking as a practical matter
depending on the length of which they've
[2:11:13] had that revocable license and to the
extent of what we are taking away and
[2:11:18] perhaps how much they've invested in
that property as well.
[2:11:22] So again, I certainly understand the
city's position. I believe the council
[2:11:26] does as well. We will obviously maintain
that position, but you know, there could
[2:11:30] be some disputes along the way.
>> Okay. Thank you,
[2:11:38] » Andrew. Can I just follow up on that?
Because
[2:11:41] if I'm an existing homeowner with one of
these RLS and now I'm being asked to um
[2:11:48] maintain
the entire lot to lot um
[2:11:55] RL
>> that could be a significant expense to
[2:12:00] the homeowner. Um,
[2:12:04] and our only they can say no, we're not
doing that. But the only recourse is to
[2:12:08] just say, well, you can't actually cross
that piece of land to access your dock
[2:12:12] anymore.
That's where we'd be stuck. Is that
[2:12:16] right?
>> Well, they can cross they can cross a
[2:12:19] piece of land like any other member of
the public could cross the land,
[2:12:22] » right?
>> But under our revocable licenses, we can
[2:12:25] request that they remove the
improvements on those the private
[2:12:29] property. I mean, they can still walk
down there,
[2:12:32] » but it's all the other stairs and
elevators and all the other stuff that
[2:12:36] they use. That's what is creating, I I
assume in the initial instance, the need
[2:12:40] for the RL. If they simply walked down
to their docks,
[2:12:46] that's fine.
Access the dock. It just may be more
[2:12:51] difficult to do so.
>> I mean, are are we potentially burdening
[2:12:57] them with a big expense here? I have no
idea what that looks like in terms of
[2:13:00] maintaining all of these different
areas. I don't know how disrepaired
[2:13:03] there they are. I don't
>> sorry.
[2:13:08] » Do we spend any money? Does anyone spend
any money maintaining it? Does the city
[2:13:15] » 310 312 beach as an example? We asked
them, you know, they're asking for that
[2:13:19] elevator. It's not before council. And
we said, well, you might be, you know,
[2:13:23] council might ask you to maintain the
entirety if you draw those imaginary
[2:13:27] property lines down. and they were fine
with it. So, I don't know, you know, if
[2:13:31] it's going to add if there's certain
properties, sure that have had slides
[2:13:34] and um you know, that are very steep and
you know, maybe if that were to happen
[2:13:40] that then yeah, they would it would be a
high cost at that point.
[2:13:48] Yeah, I I would just add on to what
Rebecca mentioned then uh to the point
[2:13:53] uh we have had some we don't we don't
proactively maintain the hill hillside
[2:13:56] or the slope along the along the strip.
Um we have had recent instances where we
[2:14:03] had material that fell down and BCDC
enforcement action with this which the
[2:14:07] city is um most likely on the hook for.
Um, and there's other areas along Beach
[2:14:11] Road that fall in that same category
since some of the structures on there
[2:14:15] are very old and not covered in an RL
exclusively. So, that's one thing to
[2:14:20] consider. Um, also I just want to
mention too that oftent times the
[2:14:24] problems that happen on the slope uh
they're the result of the improvements
[2:14:29] along the uh from the property above.
you know, if there's drainage that comes
[2:14:33] disconnected or some other feature that
wasn't maintained, that causes a slide
[2:14:38] that's in city property. And sometimes,
you know, certainly in an emergency
[2:14:42] situation, it's public works getting out
there, the city identifying the problem
[2:14:47] and trying to, you know, during poor
weather trying to get out there and
[2:14:50] cover the slide until they can figure
out who's responsible for it. Um, and
[2:14:54] then the recovery aspect of that can be
challenging, too, because people argue,
[2:14:58] okay, what came first, the chicken or
the egg here? Is it was it the water uh
[2:15:03] problem that caused the slide or was the
slope instable to begin with? So yeah, a
[2:15:08] more clearly defined, you know,
ownership or I should say maintenance uh
[2:15:13] responsibility would be beneficial.
>> Can I follow up real quick and and
[2:15:19] Rebecca, correct me if I'm wrong. uh you
I think highlighted this item well
[2:15:24] initially by identifying
that this came up as a real question
[2:15:29] about the public benefit that uh clearly
when you're talking about a revocable
[2:15:36] license for a property pretty much
anywhere else in the city for city
[2:15:39] rightway the appearance the the um the
improvements the um uh uh maintenance is
[2:15:46] the public benefit um there's very
little public benefit for these
[2:15:50] properties
um city property behind someone's
[2:15:52] property other than their access and
someone occasionally walking by it even
[2:15:56] if they're able to. So I think our
planning commission in u making
[2:15:59] recommendations city council for these
licenses have had a hard time justifying
[2:16:04] the public benefit for that license. So
I I think the question I guess I'll keep
[2:16:09] it as a question. Am I phrasing it
correctly? Is is I mean is is that
[2:16:14] really the issue? The issue is is is is
how we can rationalize the lack of
[2:16:20] public benefit for these licenses.
>> Yes. You what is the public benefit of
[2:16:26] private improvements to access your own
personal peer doc?
[2:16:29] » And so I think and similar to maybe our
other discussion maybe it's a policy
[2:16:33] level
>> I'll still keep it as a question. Maybe
[2:16:36] it's a policy level uh uh discussion
because arguably
[2:16:41] the public benefit is the question here.
And if we can if if if if a broader
[2:16:45] maintenance agreement or one of these
options is added to it on a policy on a
[2:16:50] policy level to the to to these type of
licenses on this in this area, it
[2:16:54] justifies that benefit somewhat more so
than it is now because I I think the
[2:16:57] planning commission has a hard time and
justifiably so. I used to have the same
[2:17:01] question down there. Why are we granting
this this license for someone? Let's do
[2:17:05] it in in another form. We just never got
around to doing it. Um because you can't
[2:17:09] really articulate a public benefit um
versus, you know, the maintaining
[2:17:13] maintenance responsibilities, improve
landscaping, you know, hill
[2:17:16] stabilization, reduce liability. That's
hard to justify, you know, for the
[2:17:20] benefit that that individual gets by
having that particular improvement. We
[2:17:25] haven't even got into the definition of
structure, right, which is a another
[2:17:28] issue on this. Um
so I I I think that that's the gist of
[2:17:32] the the issue is is how we need to
describe what the public benefit is. And
[2:17:37] if we can rationalize it within the same
um um um bag that we see licenses,
[2:17:44] that's that's I think why we thought
about some other form lease or something
[2:17:48] because you you don't need the public
benefit for a lease.
[2:17:52] » Yeah, I think it's um I mean because
pretty much every house has uh or I
[2:17:57] would guess most houses have an RL most
homes and and and we should be they
[2:18:02] should all be treated the same way. I
mean, this the strip shouldn't be, you
[2:18:05] know, um, pulled out and treated
differently, good, bad, or or or
[2:18:11] neutral. Um, but I guess my question is
why now? Um, I mean, the leases don't
[2:18:16] expire till 2039. So, that's another 13
years,
[2:18:20] » but they're different. They're docks.
>> Those are the docks.
[2:18:22] » Well, but I mean, yes, yes and no. But,
I mean, if you're a homeowner, I mean,
[2:18:26] that's you're the RL's only
so you can use the dock. I mean, so it's
[2:18:32] it feels like why are we
I mean, maybe are we trying to figure
[2:18:38] this out for people who may be coming
before the council in the near future?
[2:18:44] Um or well, I guess you're asking or do
we want to step back and think of it
[2:18:49] holistically? I just feel um well, I
guess I'm starting to deliberate which
[2:18:53] I'll just stop there. So, the the one
thing is is I'm sorry, but the one thing
[2:18:57] is is not everyone that has a revocable
license has a dock. Some people just
[2:19:03] have some
retaining walls or
[2:19:09] decks or plants or something. So,
they're very few, but there are a few
[2:19:14] that don't have the dogs.
>> And Rebecca, the impetus for this right
[2:19:18] now is because we have a potential RL
coming before us in the strip. Correct.
[2:19:24] Yes. And as Peter mentioned, it's
something that we've discussed
[2:19:27] historically. It's just
>> So that's that's why it's coming now.
[2:19:32] Okay.
>> Um All right. Let's open it for public
[2:19:34] comment before we bring it back for
discussion. Ra,
[2:19:39] » there are no hands raised.
>> Oh, I'm sorry.
[2:19:44] » We actually have someone here
in person. Um, hi, I'm Ma Bergson and I
[2:19:52] am speaking again as an individual.
Although I do want to acknowledge that
[2:19:56] um, I am a member of the parks, open
space and lane committee. So I speak
[2:20:00] through that lens and also mentioned
that unfortunately Charlie could not
[2:20:03] stay. So I am sort of although I'm not
the chairperson, I'm also sharing um
[2:20:09] somewhat of his input as well. So I say
that in that this context. Um I want to
[2:20:14] start by saying um that unfortunately we
were not given notice of this item at
[2:20:19] all in advance. So we for saw it um when
it came up in the agenda um uh for the
[2:20:25] city council meeting. So none of us have
been included and I think first and
[2:20:29] foremost we wanted to acknowledge I want
to acknowledge and Charlie I know it
[2:20:32] feels the same way that we are very
happy to have be having this discussion
[2:20:38] um because we think it's really really
important and really really valuable and
[2:20:41] we do hope that um that the parks open
space and lane can be included in it. Um
[2:20:47] the strip is actually open space. So
this is actually directly in our um in
[2:20:52] our area and um we would be happy to
have a subcommittee which is what we do
[2:20:57] um in order to participate you know in a
sort of a ongoing basis outside of the
[2:21:02] meetings um and bring things to
meetings. So I just encourage I hope
[2:21:06] that you will uh make that request and
that direction because we'd like to be a
[2:21:11] part of it. Um the other piece that I
wanted to mention is that um we um have
[2:21:16] as you know I believe from Charlie been
working on a survey. We did a big survey
[2:21:21] of the lanes last year and this year um
part of our goal is to do the same thing
[2:21:26] for the open space. So of course
actually the strip and this area has
[2:21:30] been part of what we are looking at and
ironically we are looking at have been
[2:21:35] looking at the revocable licenses which
impact basically all along there and so
[2:21:40] this was something we were already
looking at and as such we have looked at
[2:21:43] quite a few of them just sort of spot
looking at them looking them up and spot
[2:21:47] looking at them. Um and we want to call
attention to the fact that they are all
[2:21:51] very different. For one they have been
brought about at very different times.
[2:21:55] Some of them are large, some of them are
small. I mean, we have the one at uh
[2:21:59] whatever it is 270 covers like the whole
basically the whole property. They have
[2:22:04] taken over the whole tide lot. Um and
then versus the one that's at 310 to 312
[2:22:09] are looking at um this elevator and then
some stairs. So I think one of the
[2:22:14] things that we request is that as you we
look at all of these suggestions, we
[2:22:19] really need to sort of get a do a really
good job and be part and really look at
[2:22:24] what exists there. Um oversight has not
been been being done. That just has not
[2:22:30] been part of the city's priority. Um and
I think it's because they are all very
[2:22:34] different. So you know there's been no
direction. There are things that fall
[2:22:39] into the onto the beach. And the number
one thing here is that the policy 11.8.2
[2:22:46] is for um the public to have um free it
to be a public park and for the public
[2:22:51] to have free passage along the beach.
And I want to note that a lot of these
[2:22:56] including accessing either their dock or
the ones that don't have a dock, they
[2:22:59] might have a shared dock. They also
include steps to get down to the beach.
[2:23:04] They're not just crossing to their dock.
They all want to get to the beach. And
[2:23:08] the idea is that this open space area
and the way these docks and these
[2:23:13] various RLS sort of connect to the beach
and their docks not be done in a way or
[2:23:19] their maintenance of the hillside is
done in a way that adversely impacts the
[2:23:24] ability of the city to fulfill this
important policy of public access. We
[2:23:30] want everybody to be able to have free
passage. And if you haven't ever done
[2:23:33] it, um I I know Charlie and I would be
happy to show you what an amazing trip
[2:23:38] it is to go down. Right now we can go
down the Harry Bell Allen steps and to
[2:23:43] walk along there and we would both love
to give anyone that uh that option. So I
[2:23:49] will retire. That's sort of all of my
questions. Thank you.
[2:23:54] » Thank you very much. Ma, um Bethy said
nobody online. Correct.
[2:23:59] » Correct. Oh, I apologize Mr. Rothman.
Okay, he's back. Bring him in.
[2:24:05] Hi, Dr. Rothman.
>> Hi, thank you very much. U could you
[2:24:09] tell me whether the city has a similar
strip
[2:24:13] of its own land
on the side of the island that looks out
[2:24:19] towards Saucelo?
>> No, we don't.
[2:24:24] » In other words, it goes from private
property to what? To state
[2:24:28] » state property.
[2:24:33] Is that right? It just goes from
property to state.
[2:24:37] » Thank you very much for for that
information.
[2:24:39] » Yeah, I'm looking right now. Um, it's
the it's the state from the end of the
[2:24:43] island working eastward, sorry,
northward, westward. Um, and then around
[2:24:50] before it gets to cliff, it becomes
county property.
[2:24:54] » Oh, but it's never city property.
>> Never city property.
[2:24:57] » Thank you very much for that
information. Thank you. Um,
[2:25:02] okay, this is getting more complicated,
but um, let's bring this back for
[2:25:06] discussion. Um, who wants to Peter, do
you want to kick off? Yeah, I'll just
[2:25:10] touch again on what I mentioned before
that uh
[2:25:15] uh
[2:25:19] I believe it was Don brought it up in
the last planning commission meeting in
[2:25:23] reference to the hiller that he was
talking about the discrepancy or the the
[2:25:30] hypocrisy almost between uh public
benefit and and you know when you're
[2:25:35] looking at a at a revable license
anywhere else on the island, you you
[2:25:39] don't allow private privatization of the
property. You can't put a fence there.
[2:25:42] You can't even put a garbage enclosure.
And there's all these guid guidelines
[2:25:47] that we've um uh pushed out over over
the years to make sure that there really
[2:25:53] is a public benefit to that, you know, 6
foot by 20 foot 200t stretch along the
[2:25:58] front of their property. and those all
seem to go out the window when you're
[2:26:01] addressing um significant private
improvements and private benefits and
[2:26:06] private exclusive use of this revocable
license area on the strip. So he was
[2:26:11] having a hard time with that and I think
it brought it to everyone's attention
[2:26:14] that
uh
[2:26:19] is an RL the best form of this you know
do we want to keep it in the same
[2:26:24] structure because it's not necessarily
apples to apples when you when you look
[2:26:27] at what um that private benefit versus
public benefit is for that property
[2:26:32] behind them versus something somewhere
else. Uh and I think I think that was
[2:26:36] the impetus for this discussion.
uh and I think to the parks and open
[2:26:40] space committee um comments broadly
about uniformity is we don't have it
[2:26:45] there and it might be an opportunity to
design it going forward so that we can
[2:26:50] we can use it going forward and make an
attempt to retroactively try to improve
[2:26:53] it. Uh and certainly we have leverage
going forward to get broader maintenance
[2:26:59] agreements either with a a a specific
revoke license which has a different
[2:27:05] calculation between public and private
benefit or at least that doesn't even
[2:27:08] contemplate that uh and have uh a better
understanding of of those licenses and
[2:27:16] then seek to to to get them all aligned
which isn't that unreasonable and I
[2:27:20] don't know that we would need to go as
far as to require someone to cover their
[2:27:23] whole property if they haven't covered
with the whole property before. We
[2:27:25] obviously want to um have as much as a
status quo as possible, just have it be
[2:27:30] a more consistent approach um where we
can. So, I'm open to a lot of ideas. I I
[2:27:36] I just recognized um as Rebecca
presented this uh the the the
[2:27:43] differences that that the planning
commission has to face when they when
[2:27:46] they try to recommend these licenses to
us.
[2:27:51] » Kevin?
>> Yeah, sure. I mean, I I guess I I'm
[2:27:55] still struggling with just RLS in
general across the community. Um, I
[2:28:00] think it's always been a very thin
argument to say that they are delivering
[2:28:05] true public benefit. I mean, for many,
at least when I was on planning and even
[2:28:10] since I've been on council, um, I mean,
they're not really. I mean, we say, "Oh,
[2:28:16] well, the this is going to get a street
a car off the street." Well, you know,
[2:28:19] or, you know, this is going to they're
not things that are truly creating
[2:28:24] community benefits where people are
going to congregate or, you know, play
[2:28:28] in the park in front of their house or
whatever it might be. And so, I know
[2:28:31] even at our home, um, I think, you know,
we bought it this way, but there's a
[2:28:35] wall and a gate and so forth. I mean,
nobody's getting the benefit of that
[2:28:38] except for us. And so, I think that's
probably true of many RLS around the
[2:28:42] island for whatever reason. And I don't
know why um the city was planned in this
[2:28:46] way many many many many years ago. So
that's one piece is I think that it's a
[2:28:50] holistic question about RLS and I think
we have to be careful not to um try and
[2:28:55] apply a different discipline to this
particular part of the city um over RLS
[2:29:01] that are have been approved throughout
the city. So that would be one. And then
[2:29:05] the second is is I also feel very
uncomfortable about um anything that
[2:29:10] might be retroactive or would be
affecting people who are currently for
[2:29:17] whatever reason uh have the benefit of
these RLS and leases through to 2039. I
[2:29:22] mean, that's the only sort of event
that's in the future where, you know,
[2:29:26] there's a moment where these
these uses will be reconsidered and have
[2:29:32] to be renegotiated, I would imagine. Um,
and so I would rather we be thinking
[2:29:38] about how to make it co-terminous with
the lease. like if this is something
[2:29:42] we're going to tackle, that feels like
the most appropriate time so we don't
[2:29:47] sort of dilute or diminish something
that's already been promised or given to
[2:29:52] um residents,
[2:29:59] » James.
>> Okay. Sure. Um well I guess trying to
[2:30:05] comment on some of the others I I don't
I think I do see the strip RLS as
[2:30:12] different in some ways from the rest of
the city because every house on there or
[2:30:19] at least everyone with access is has to
cross open space not just city land but
[2:30:26] o designated open space to be able to
get to their
[2:30:32] um doc or peer, however you want to call
it. And in a way, there might be some
[2:30:39] similarities in that we we give RLS for
people to get to their stairs to get to
[2:30:46] their front door. This is them getting
an RL getting to their property of some
[2:30:52] sort. I think um I think it would be
you know it it would be hard to balance
[2:31:00] the logic of
taking away access to the docs that
[2:31:06] exists and have a lease until 2039 by
saying um you know we're not going to
[2:31:13] give you an RL unless you do this that
and the other thing and take take
[2:31:18] whatever five was take we're just
revoking all of them that that doesn't
[2:31:22] seem logical or make any sense to me at
all. Um
[2:31:27] so
I think because it's open space and
[2:31:32] because along this particular
um open space and strip area, we do have
[2:31:41] I think four lanes that are also
involved in this. So it isn't just you
[2:31:46] know where where do these come in? A lot
of the RLS are um like I said, one lane
[2:31:53] has three RLs from three different
houses that connect with it. And so, you
[2:31:59] know, I think we'd be opening can of
worms if we
[2:32:03] if we try to make it um the same as
other areas in the city where those RLS
[2:32:10] really are specific to every single
home. There there's not a lot of
[2:32:15] overlap. In this in this case we do it
they are different. I I do see the open
[2:32:20] space and the strip as being different.
um how we handle those differences. You
[2:32:26] know, again, I think um I would hate I I
think it would be no matter whether we
[2:32:33] decide to do research with the lease
idea or if we um amend the RL
[2:32:41] specifically for the strip because it is
so different and it doesn't have
[2:32:46] anything else anywhere that that matches
it. Um, I think we just have to be
[2:32:51] really careful about public access
because that's one of the main things
[2:32:55] for our open spaces. And, um, as far as
public benefits,
[2:33:02] um, I've taken that walk with MA
once, the whole strip and once um, just
[2:33:10] part part of it. And um the p the public
benefit is that you can get along our
[2:33:20] whole all our open space by having
access provided by these homeowners that
[2:33:28] connect to their peers and allow um
stairs to go over huge boulders that you
[2:33:35] normally would have to scramble over or
um and and it's not just low tide. Low
[2:33:42] tide you can get a get through with
anything, but it's um in case of
[2:33:47] emergencies, if it's a moderate tide,
high tide would be tough anyway, but
[2:33:52] there are a lot of tides in between. And
these um uh additions to the peers
[2:34:00] really do help with that access. So, um
I I think we need to get parks, open
[2:34:06] space, and lane involved going forward.
definitely even if it's just a
[2:34:10] subcommittee so they can meet at the
time that is more convenient for the
[2:34:15] rest of the city and then I think we
have to from my perspective I do see the
[2:34:20] strip is um requiring some additional
thought and differences from what goes
[2:34:25] on in the rest of the city.
[2:34:31] So, um,
the RLS in the strip are totally
[2:34:37] different than
most other RLS that the city uses. And I
[2:34:44] think the first off the I don't want to
call it generic, but the revocable
[2:34:49] license
um that we use
[2:34:54] for the strip is
doesn't fit in with what the strip is
[2:35:00] all about. So I think at least the very
least we should be or initially looking
[2:35:07] at
that revocable license for the strip and
[2:35:11] how it's worded and what it's included.
Um,
[2:35:16] I I I look at the strip as city property
and um and we're we're giving away a
[2:35:26] portion of the city property for the
benefit
[2:35:30] of the people that own those homes. And
it was done
[2:35:35] me many many many years ago. And um and
probably there were times that
[2:35:44] um people just put in the staircase and
didn't realize it was open space. Um but
[2:35:50] I think it's time the city take a look
at it and figure out the best way to go.
[2:35:57] Um
you know I I remember a prior attorney
[2:36:03] saying that we shouldn't be giving away
our city land. we should be collecting a
[2:36:08] fee for what we give away. Um, which I
find hard as Kevin says, you know, a lot
[2:36:14] of properties, you know, your gate, your
driveway. I mean, of course, people have
[2:36:18] to have that. Um, well, maybe not your
gate. You wouldn't get that now, but
[2:36:22] your driveway you definitely need. Um,
but the strip is totally different and I
[2:36:28] think it needs to be handled different
and the right process to go through. I
[2:36:33] mean, you know, there's a
a balance there between the city benefit
[2:36:40] and the individual benefit that I think
we have to weigh. And I think this is
[2:36:45] also a greater community discussion. Um
it may be that we need to schedule this
[2:36:55] discussion again and maybe hear back
from some of the people that have the
[2:36:59] RLS um just to hear their input um so we
can balance everything out. Um but I
[2:37:06] think we should investigate um you know
some of the suggestions here. I'm not
[2:37:12] calling to spend a lot of money. Um but
I would say um we should look at you
[2:37:19] know um is a fee schedule better than a
lease and or you know do we maybe not
[2:37:27] say you have to pay for the whole
area of your the strip that you're using
[2:37:33] but you're going to have to share in
some of the costs. I I don't know what
[2:37:37] the right balance is, but I definitely
think that this is something we're going
[2:37:41] to have to um investigate
and um
[2:37:47] probably a task force
would be a good idea just to get some
[2:37:55] parameters and and hopefully we can hear
from some of those RL people um to get
[2:38:01] their their feedback.
[2:38:06] Thank you, Pat. Um,
[2:38:11] Rebecca, part of the reason this is
coming forwards now is that time crunch
[2:38:14] associated with a couple of one property
or two properties that's looking that
[2:38:18] are looking to get an RL on the strip.
Right now,
[2:38:21] » it's two properties, one RL.
>> Okay.
[2:38:25] » Well, it could be two RLs, but it's the
same improvements. They're looking for a
[2:38:29] shared elevator.
[2:38:33] And if we um I mean I agree with Pat
that this you're not going to want to
[2:38:38] hear this Rebecca, but this needs more
thought and some form of uh a couple of
[2:38:44] council members working with uh parks
and urban spaces um might make
[2:38:51] sense, but how far can we push back
these homeowners because that isn't
[2:38:57] going to happen overnight.
>> Yeah, they were a little frustrated.
[2:39:00] They were originally going to be
agendaized tonight. Um, we've pushed it
[2:39:05] back twice now. I think it would
>> Is it part of a bigger project that
[2:39:10] they're doing?
>> No.
[2:39:12] » No. Andrew, do you have any comment on
that in terms of our obligations?
[2:39:20] » Legally, I think you can you can seek
more time to ponder this issue and
[2:39:24] figure out the best way forward. Uh I
don't know if they have any legal
[2:39:29] expectation to have their application
decided by certain day one or the other.
[2:39:33] I'm not aware of any. I I don't think
that we that we um
[2:39:38] uh I think we have a responsibility to
to act in a timely fashion with with any
[2:39:43] applicant, let alone these applicants
who've already been put off. Uh I would,
[2:39:48] as Pat pointed out, this has been going
on for a long time. I'm not sure we we
[2:39:51] we are making a huge mistake um hearing
and granting ultimately um upon review a
[2:39:58] a license for them even if we have to
say you know this this as as an
[2:40:02] additional condition of that license
that we're we're we're going to look at
[2:40:05] the ultimate form and it could be
revoked if if the change if the item is
[2:40:09] changed which we have the right to do
anyway but I I can't imagine that that
[2:40:12] this process should hold them up because
if this process takes on the type of
[2:40:16] scope that we've just contemplated
tonight they're not going to come up
[2:40:18] before us for a year um And I don't I
don't think that's that's appropriate
[2:40:23] for them.
>> Can I agree with Peter? I mean, I think
[2:40:26] it's our best practice.
>> Well, but just going back, I mean, when
[2:40:29] this was initially um worked on, it took
24 public hearings in five years.
[2:40:35] » Um and so, you know,
>> no, no, no.
[2:40:40] » I think it was the dock leases.
>> The dock leases took took that long. And
[2:40:43] so, I mean, it's it's
>> it took 5 years and 24 public hearings.
[2:40:49] It took the council 24 public hearings
over a period of five years to resolve
[2:40:52] all the issues and concerns that were
raised by the dock owner, city attorney,
[2:40:55] and other members of the city staff.
>> It was before the internet. That's why.
[2:41:00] » Right. Right. AI could get that down to
22 meetings in four years. Um but uh but
[2:41:06] again, I think to your point, I would
say we should proceed with 310 and 312.
[2:41:12] um because this is going to we shouldn't
hold them hostage to um a policy um
[2:41:17] evolution desire by the city. Uh which
could take quite a while. Um and I think
[2:41:23] it's yeah similar to the sidewalk issue
that you raised earlier today, Pat. It's
[2:41:26] like I mean yes, we probably should have
a sidewalk policy and we probably should
[2:41:30] have sidewalks along the park, but we
can't hold up that homeowner until we
[2:41:35] get our policy work done. So that do you
have a comment on that or does that make
[2:41:39] sense just to we'll bring them forward
and we are going to do a broader review?
[2:41:43] » Okay on that one specifically um they've
also agreed to maintaining the entirety
[2:41:49] of the strip. So, that's one thing.
We've also walked with Ma and Charlie um
[2:41:54] with the homeowner, one of the property
owners, and they've agreed to do some um
[2:42:00] raising of a platform so that people can
pass through that to give it the public
[2:42:06] better access.
>> Okay. So, it feels like that'll just
[2:42:09] come forward as as planned next month.
Um, but I have a question for for Jane
[2:42:13] in relations because it sounds like um,
Parks Neighbor Spaces is looking to sort
[2:42:17] of revitalize the strip and so that's
part of what's playing into this
[2:42:21] discussion. Correct. Well, I think it's
important to realize that they are a
[2:42:26] very active parks open space and lanes
committee and I would say lucky for us
[2:42:32] because they're really doing a
phenomenal job of um documenting every
[2:42:37] lane and next the next um focus area is
going to be on the open space and with
[2:42:44] that documentation and database I really
see and I think Tony has mentioned
[2:42:48] before that it's a great asset because
We don't have um the ability in our
[2:42:55] staff to be looking uh on a regular
basis at what's needed for every single
[2:43:01] piece of lane and open space. But they
have the ability to do that and that
[2:43:06] could be easily given to them as an
annual job to go along and document are
[2:43:13] people
um are are the ladders falling apart?
[2:43:17] Can you still walk down a lane? Can you
get to the strip as uh stated in their
[2:43:23] uh revocable license? Are they keeping
it up? And that is something that would
[2:43:28] be doable um as an enforcing
um issue that we always struggle for. So
[2:43:34] I I think the parks open space and lane
because they have renewed energy and
[2:43:40] focus and um they're really tackling
what they're supposed to be doing and
[2:43:46] yeah so I think that is a part of it but
I think it's a great benefit.
[2:43:50] » Okay. So it sounds like there's broad
consensus that the strip is different
[2:43:54] from other RLS except for Kevin who dis
disagrees with that. So it does feel
[2:44:00] like there is more work to do and then
the question is really how do we do that
[2:44:04] work and not take five years and however
many meetings. Um so I if people have
[2:44:10] specific suggestions and it's I know Pat
suggested a task force if it's very
[2:44:14] narrow I would certainly support that. I
don't know how other council members
[2:44:18] feel.
[2:44:25] I think if if if you reread number one,
uh it's pretty it's almost an exact
[2:44:33] model of what Rebecca is proposing for
>> 310 312.
[2:44:37] » Okay.
>> Which is our existing license and you're
[2:44:41] threading the needle by having increased
responsibility over the whole stretch
[2:44:46] and the um increased um obligation for
maintenance. that can provide the
[2:44:53] planning commission and ultimately us
with a greater sense of public benefit
[2:44:56] that works well within our our our
existing licensing structure. Um because
[2:45:02] uh you know you read our policy with the
vocal licenses not specific to the strip
[2:45:07] or anywhere else. It talks very
extensively about a significant public
[2:45:10] benefit. Uh so I think that approach
going forward meaning guidance from us
[2:45:15] in in a conversation just like this um
solves decent part of the problem as far
[2:45:21] as um giving the planning commission
clear guidance as far as how they can um
[2:45:26] recommend these licenses in this area
for us going forward which might be not
[2:45:30] too many going forward but nonetheless
gives them that guidance which liberates
[2:45:33] us I believe to think about this more
holistically and maybe we push that back
[2:45:37] to the parks and open space committee to
think about it as um in in in concert of
[2:45:42] their survey of the open spaces going
forward, in particular this area, what
[2:45:45] recommendations would they make to the
city council uh in further licensing
[2:45:51] this this area? What's the what's the um
periodic uh review um survey updates and
[2:45:57] then contact home owners how they need
to maintain it and so forth. I mean,
[2:46:00] there could be a whole schedule they
could put together um that could go
[2:46:03] forward. I mean, I don't know that this
is something we need to invest a
[2:46:07] subcommittee beyond what's already in
place in the parks committee. If we if
[2:46:11] if we go with a general direction that
these ongoing maintenance obligations um
[2:46:16] for the broader um borderto border
responsibility and take out the going
[2:46:21] backwards, we're not going to
necessarily look at that right now. that
[2:46:24] that'll become become a recommendation
of of how out of sync we might be with
[2:46:29] with older licenses as you look through
those or as parks look looks at them one
[2:46:33] by one across the total property.
>> I'm a bit confused. So you're saying
[2:46:38] going forwards we should impose broader
requirements but in terms of the the
[2:46:41] existing licenses you're saying leave
them be?
[2:46:44] » Leave them be. I think parks open space
part of their open space survey is not
[2:46:49] only to look at the physical um um um
condition of the of the strip, but
[2:46:53] examine the licenses to see how they how
how they correspond into the maintenance
[2:46:57] that that exists on the strip and come
back to us and say these these six
[2:47:00] licenses are in good shape. These six
licenses are in bad shape. Here's how
[2:47:03] you could potentially improve them.
>> They're in good shape or bad shape.
[2:47:05] Meaning that they're not maintaining the
whole the whole
[2:47:08] » they're either not they're not they're
not they're not maintaining as they're
[2:47:10] supposed to maintaining it or the
license doesn't cover the area that
[2:47:12] needs to be maintained. You know, if I
were to do it, I I would look at the the
[2:47:17] three or four three properties that
exist there and have a good
[2:47:20] understanding of all the licenses and
have a database that identifies uh where
[2:47:25] the problems are. Are they covered by
licenses? And if they are, um then the
[2:47:30] the homeowner is not living up to their
obligation as a LE. And if if if if an
[2:47:34] area that's neglected or needs needs
some some attention is not covered by a
[2:47:37] license, either the city needs to
address that problem short of a
[2:47:40] landslide or something like that or we
need to go to that homeowner, talk to
[2:47:44] them about broadening their their
responsibility, revoke the license, or
[2:47:47] if we don't see that as a plausible
option, we need to, you know, step in
[2:47:50] and and and recognize that is a a an
obligation or a liability, you know, for
[2:47:56] our further assessment of our property.
So the only thing I would say there is
[2:47:59] this sounds like it gets into a little
bit of the Milzac stuff where you don't
[2:48:04] actually see the annual uh reviews
taking place or or it just falling
[2:48:10] apart. And so to me, you have to cover
if you're going to do it forward
[2:48:14] looking, you do it backward looking to
you issue everybody with with the new
[2:48:17] requirements and then park and then
parks and urban space can come and say
[2:48:20] when those on they're not honoring those
agreements. I'm just responding to to
[2:48:25] both Jane and and and and the parks open
space based committee wanting
[2:48:30] a a seat at this table to to to continue
the assessment process just as they do
[2:48:36] the lanes um that these open space
including the strip becomes part of
[2:48:40] their ongoing um active review of of
city property.
[2:48:44] » But does that answer the full question
that we're being asked tonight? I mean,
[2:48:48] that's talking about maintenance. And I
think we're sitting here saying, you
[2:48:53] know, we have
private development on public land that
[2:48:59] we've given RLS to, and are those RLS
the correct vehicle we should be using?
[2:49:07] And if they are the correct vehicle,
does it cover everything that needs to
[2:49:13] be covered? Because the R the the strip
is different. So, I think there's, you
[2:49:18] know, I mean, I think it's great park
and open space wants to go out and take
[2:49:22] a look and see, you know, who's
maintaining, who's not maintaining, who
[2:49:26] needs to do this, who needs to do that.
But I think that we're at a higher level
[2:49:30] here asking the question, you know, how
how are we going to address this private
[2:49:36] development on public land and, you
know, a a greater question of, you know,
[2:49:43] who's responsible for what. And I think
that no offense to anybody, but I think
[2:49:48] it goes beyond park and open lane for
that discussion. So I just thought that
[2:49:54] if there was a task force, we could look
at you know what could a lease look
[2:49:58] like? What you know how how are we going
to come up with the FIA? There's
[2:50:03] somebody else out there that, you know,
we can look at how they have it
[2:50:06] structured. I think we're very unique in
what we have. So I I I don't know if
[2:50:11] we'll find somebody that has the same
situation, but I think it just takes a a
[2:50:16] broader look to see the potential of
what we can and can't do. And you know,
[2:50:21] with alongside respecting our community
and the members who have their RL and
[2:50:27] how we're going to mesh this all
together so that we can all get the
[2:50:31] greatest benefit. They get the great
benefit, we get a great benefit.
[2:50:36] The only thing I would add to that
though is that the city has already
[2:50:39] decided assuming that these structures
comply with what was approved by the
[2:50:43] city. I mean the city has already
decided that these people can build what
[2:50:47] they've built. So I mean I would just be
cautious about reopening decisions that
[2:50:54] have been made and settled for many many
years. I mean, if there are things that
[2:50:58] we want to do on a going forward basis
that addresses some of these issues that
[2:51:02] were raised tonight, um I can understand
that, but but I don't think that we want
[2:51:07] to create a narrative that we're going
to um at least in my opinion um
[2:51:12] re-examine what we've already decided.
That would be like someone coming and
[2:51:16] saying, "Hey, you know, we've changed
our mind and you can't have your second
[2:51:19] story if it was approved or whatever."
It's like that's that's settled. That's
[2:51:23] settled. I I can see where you're coming
from, but I'm also thinking, okay, so
[2:51:27] someone has had a revocable license for
15 years, and you know, somebody, you
[2:51:34] know, I mean, I don't want to pick on
any single property.
[2:51:37] » Don't,
>> but I mean, you know, we had this
[2:51:41] arrangement, it no longer is working.
Now we want this new arrangement. Well,
[2:51:45] okay, they had a revocable license, but
that revocable license they had, they
[2:51:51] don't want anymore. So now we got to
give them a different revocable license
[2:51:54] because they're doing reconstruction or
changing the whatever. That is when we
[2:51:59] could go to someone and say, "Okay, you
know, this is how we're going to
[2:52:02] structure it,
>> right?" But that's different. I mean,
[2:52:04] like a catalyst for change like at 310
and 312 to me is different because
[2:52:08] they're coming to the city saying,
>> "Pard me,
[2:52:11] » no properties mentioned."
>> Well, no, no. I mean, but that one we we
[2:52:14] have because it's the one that we said
we should bring forward. But that's to
[2:52:18] me uh it's a catalyst for change and so
therefore it's required to go through
[2:52:22] this process. It's being you know
they're saying hey we'd like the city to
[2:52:26] actually give us something. Um and so I
think it's a fair thing to discuss um
[2:52:31] you know what's the best and most
balanced approach to that. I just again
[2:52:34] I'm just cautioning about you know being
very careful about navigating decisions
[2:52:38] that have been made made for many many
years. um experiences people are relying
[2:52:44] on and counting on because the city's
granted those experiences and so we ne
[2:52:48] we should just be very careful and I
would be very respectful of those
[2:52:51] settled decisions. Yeah. And I I
recommended that approach or just
[2:52:56] throughout that approach number one
without the retroactive element um just
[2:53:01] doing my informal headcount um I didn't
see a great will to among I guess at
[2:53:06] least the four of us to to change much
of the methodology uh leases fees um
[2:53:13] structure- wise um other than
trying to improve the maintenance um
[2:53:18] liability and potentially the public
benefit um And
[2:53:23] then to consider that what what what
what Pat and Rico talked about is is
[2:53:27] having um the parks and space committee
sort of continue their their their
[2:53:31] broader oversight of this of these of
this space just like they do the um the
[2:53:36] lanes and everything else.
>> But then maybe that would be helpful if
[2:53:40] we're going to have folks think about
this. Maybe we need to be clear on the
[2:53:44] parameters like I mean is this screen
space uh or is this you know here are
[2:53:50] some parameters to operate within or to
ideulate within. Um again I I'm maybe
[2:53:56] there aren't but I I think we we haven't
I don't think aligned on that tonight.
[2:54:00] Um and maybe that's worth
coming back
[2:54:06] and agreeing to
it might make it a more productive all
[2:54:10] over the place. Um
as Peter said, do we mostly have
[2:54:14] agreement that that
before discussing whether it's just uh
[2:54:19] going forward or retroactively an an
idea of it's the maintenance obligations
[2:54:23] that we want to uh pass over is that is
a broad agreement that that's the core
[2:54:28] issue that we have here.
[2:54:33] Well, I mean, I think the maintenance is
part of it and then it's um
[2:54:40] uh I mean, I don't want to take anything
away from anybody that has anything. Um
[2:54:45] I'm not, you know, advocating for that.
Um but a lot of it is is just, you know,
[2:54:52] um uh when people redo their staircase
um down to the dock, sometimes they
[2:55:00] change it. Sometimes it was like a
direct, you know, like kill her down and
[2:55:04] now they want to kind of do a meandering
thing. Well, that's kind of a new
[2:55:07] revocable license and that's where we
can open up the discussion. So, um I'm
[2:55:12] not advocating that we take anything
away from anybody, but I'm just thinking
[2:55:16] that we need to think of this in a
longer term how we're going to um look
[2:55:23] at maintenance and and and you know, is
is the revocable license the right term
[2:55:30] we should use or should the revocable
license switch to something else? I
[2:55:34] don't know.
I wonder if we've had task force before
[2:55:38] that have had um finite dates on them
and I don't know if that's a possibility
[2:55:46] just to get a little bit more
information from the community greater
[2:55:51] community as well as having parks open
space and lane representatives
[2:55:56] there and maybe you know so that it
doesn't take five years
[2:56:01] make it a three month
>> meeting schedule kind of like the seaw
[2:56:05] wall is not going on forever and they
have a a small subcommi committee that's
[2:56:11] meeting as needed and getting through
whatever it is they need to get done and
[2:56:16] perhaps we can use that as a model for
something
[2:56:19] more finite in time.
>> Rebecca, I feel like we're giving you no
[2:56:23] direction here whatsoever because we're
all over the map. I think I think what
[2:56:27] some things I'm hearing are I think
parks open space lanes committee would
[2:56:32] you know they have the energy they have
the momentum it would be great if they
[2:56:35] could assess each revocable license and
like Jane and Pat were saying that some
[2:56:41] of them cover the entirety of the strips
some of them only cover the stairs right
[2:56:46] so then that can give us sort of a basis
of what we're looking at right and I
[2:56:50] don't think
I think we're looking at ways is to
[2:56:57] move forward with these revocable
licenses. You have to remember we have
[2:57:00] all those 21 properties. There's 19 RLS
already. So the chances of a new RL
[2:57:06] coming back are pretty rare,
>> right? Unless somebody sells a property,
[2:57:10] demos a house, and red does it. Those,
you know, that you know that's probably
[2:57:14] going to happen. It's happened once in
the 10 years I've worked here. So I
[2:57:18] think
we could move forward with pars space
[2:57:23] lane doing an assessment and then coming
back and reporting on that and seeing if
[2:57:27] there's anything that we can do to sort
of you know improve getting more
[2:57:31] maintenance out there. I also think that
keeping the existing RL might be a road
[2:57:40] we want to go down and enter into and
enter new language for RL's in the strip
[2:57:47] that discusses maintenance moving
forward,
[2:57:50] » right? similar to what might be coming
next month,
[2:57:54] which to me seems pretty clean, but I
don't know if it goes as far in depth as
[2:57:59] Pat is suggesting,
but it seems like it would sort of help
[2:58:04] us move move forward,
>> right? Um, so I guess the only question
[2:58:09] is in terms of asking parks and open
spaces to do that, obviously Jane would
[2:58:13] be working with them on that. Is there
any reason to include any other council
[2:58:18] member in this in that part of this or
not? Meaning do you feel like you're do
[2:58:23] you do would that be helpful?
>> No, I I think it's fine unless someone
[2:58:29] wants to do it. I don't think it's
necessary.
[2:58:31] » Okay. So does that seem like a good
approach that first parks and open
[2:58:35] spaces does that assessment and at the
same time as they're providing that
[2:58:39] information we really start to think
about what the policy will be around
[2:58:43] whether we're just
requiring maintenance obligations or
[2:58:47] whether we have to open this up more
more broadly. Well, I guess yeah, the
[2:58:50] question, you know, the question is po.
What is the point of them doing that? We
[2:58:53] already have they already exist. These
RLS, we're not we're not going to go
[2:58:56] retroactively back. So, I don't know.
No, maybe that's not the best use of
[2:59:01] their time.
>> Well, sorry, not helpful. But now that
[2:59:05] I'm thinking about it, we don't want to
waste their time on
[2:59:08] » I believe the way forward is to do a a a
slightly modified uh uh robo license
[2:59:13] addressing the the the the additional uh
stabilization landscaping maintenance
[2:59:18] aspects of this particular pieces of
piece pieces of property. Um which which
[2:59:24] gives gives this the city the more the
security relative to stabilization but
[2:59:27] also helps thread that needle which I
talked about relative to the public
[2:59:30] benefit. That seems the right approach
going forward. I'm responding to parks
[2:59:35] open space um existing and already
planned survey of open spaces in the
[2:59:40] next year whenever they decided to do
that whenever they hope to do that. And
[2:59:43] it wouldn't be that difficult in that
survey of these open spaces to um
[2:59:49] include information about whether it's
licensed or not, whether there's whether
[2:59:52] there's full full coverage of the
property, whether there's um landscaping
[2:59:56] um um responsibilities to the homeowner.
whatever three or four or five questions
[3:00:00] they come up with to identify where
there's additional risks relative to
[3:00:04] that public space um as it relates to
the the public's use of that space. And
[3:00:09] if and if one one property doesn't have
a license on it covering anything more
[3:00:12] than just the stairway up the up the
hill and there's a lot of loose loose
[3:00:15] soil with no with no vegetation there, I
might say in that survey, this is this
[3:00:20] poses some risk of of slide in the
future and maybe maybe that gets rolled
[3:00:25] over to Tony and then and they do a more
sophisticated assessment because that
[3:00:28] could become the same situation where we
had with BCDC, you know, this past year.
[3:00:31] But but the issue I have with that is
that while we have an active parks and
[3:00:34] open spaces right now, we might not do
in five or 10 years time and then
[3:00:37] nobody's doing those assessments.
>> But I think it's a onetime survey just
[3:00:40] like your like your lane survey. I don't
know that it needs to be readressed that
[3:00:43] often.
>> But but that would be a peacemeal
[3:00:45] approach. So you're saying some we would
apply this retroactively to some
[3:00:49] depending on the circumstances and not
all.
[3:00:52] » No, it's just a it's just an assessment.
It just it just tells you where we are
[3:00:56] because that that way you file it not
only in the in in the parks archives but
[3:01:00] Rebecca has it so she knows the history
of where everything is
[3:01:05] » but we're not expanding their
obligations retroactively under your
[3:01:09] model
with Kevin on that. I don't think we we
[3:01:12] can or should necessarily sort of impose
new requirements on people imposing new
[3:01:17] requirements but within the RL it does
talk about maintaining. So if they have
[3:01:23] an RL and the maintenance is not
occurring then it would give the city
[3:01:28] leverage to be able to say we've noticed
that the stairs are crumbling and you
[3:01:34] haven't kept them up and this is now
dangerous for the public. You know what
[3:01:38] » it would also provide a good basis if
they did come back for a new RL for new
[3:01:43] improvements we could say well we have
this study and here's what you know
[3:01:46] » and could could we ask MA if this seems
okay
[3:01:50] » ma come back up.
>> So, she's right there.
[3:01:54] » We're sort of telling her what she's
doing.
[3:01:57] » Yeah. So, I I would Yes.
>> Oh, it's green. Is it Is it on? Yeah.
[3:02:01] Okay. Um Yeah. I think so what we were
looking to do is as part of this open
[3:02:07] space that we did commit to work on this
year because we did the lanes one last
[3:02:11] year. So, we're heading into fiscal year
whatever July 1. um is to and so we've
[3:02:17] already started is to look at all of the
open space not just the strip but all
[3:02:21] the open space and to do a similar
survey that we did with the lanes um
[3:02:25] which is looking at sort of all the
different aspects to create this sort of
[3:02:29] catalog for the city and sort of a
baseline you know look into what they
[3:02:34] have and one of the big things that has
come up for us was of course these uh
[3:02:39] RLS particularly in the strip and so
what we realized is we did look at a
[3:02:44] handful of them and I will say recent
projects encouraged us to do that. So we
[3:02:49] did look at a couple and they are the
ones that are there are very different
[3:02:53] and there are bits that one um would I
believe the city give the city if the
[3:03:00] city had that survey they would know
what the existing obligation is under
[3:03:04] existing RLS and whether they're being
fulfilled and so I think that is a
[3:03:09] benefit and it's not retroactively
creating anything it's really looking at
[3:03:13] what exists and you know are they doing
it an example is you know giant giant
[3:03:19] trees that have fallen down and now are
blocking the beach. And the question is,
[3:03:24] uh, it came up earlier, you know, is
that the city's maintenance obligation
[3:03:27] or is this happen to be one of the RL's
that's bigger and it actually should be
[3:03:32] the homeowners and and I don't think
anybody knows because they're not easy
[3:03:36] to find. Um, that's, you know, they're
they're buried and they're not easy to
[3:03:40] find. Um, and so, uh, I mean, I looked
at them up at the county assessor's
[3:03:44] office because I was there waiting for
my jury duty. So um so that's the one
[3:03:50] thing. The other piece that I just want
to bring up um that this has been a big
[3:03:55] focus on maintenance at the core of this
and a big piece as to why we are you
[3:04:02] know looking at this and why we're
looking at open space and lanes is about
[3:04:06] public access. And so to the extent that
the city has allowed um has given RLS
[3:04:13] where there are stairs to get to to get
to the beach and to get up and over the
[3:04:17] dock and we've and people have put in
docks or developments that block
[3:04:22] people's access their walkway across the
public area. Um and there are places
[3:04:29] where stairs that were there are no
longer there. This is an example and I'm
[3:04:33] not, you know, I don't I couldn't even
tell you the numbers, but there are
[3:04:36] stairs that were clearly there that
would have given people passage that
[3:04:41] were probably part of the original
development in RL and now they're gone.
[3:04:47] And so that at certain tides that
prevents the public from having public
[3:04:51] access across that land because it's not
just that they're maintaining an unsafe
[3:04:56] land area, it's that they're not
protecting public access across the city
[3:05:03] city's land, which is part of all RL's.
So I I didn't want us to lose track of
[3:05:07] that in this focus on maintenance. Um
because there's a ton of different
[3:05:13] things down there. There's decks,
there's steps, there's doc connections
[3:05:17] to doc that are up high, there's
connections to docs that are down low,
[3:05:20] and the down low ones block access. Um,
we did mention the proposals for the
[3:05:25] upcoming one. Well, we met with them. We
had a great meeting with them and
[3:05:28] realized if they um what they're
proposing, if they raised sort of did
[3:05:33] some sort of an adjustment of how they
laid out the stairs, you could easily go
[3:05:37] behind it. So that's an example of not
changing the obligation of existing RLS
[3:05:43] but really looking at what was the
obligation to start out with and are
[3:05:47] they still fulfilling it both for
maintenance as well as for access. Okay,
[3:05:50] » Ra that was very helpful. So thank thank
you for that. So does the approach seem
[3:05:56] to be that we going forwards we're going
to do what we do with this with the this
[3:06:01] new property that we're going to require
them to cover the whole lot. Um that's
[3:06:07] all that we're going to do right now in
relation to RLS, but we are going to
[3:06:10] have parks and open spaces do a review
of everything existing and come back to
[3:06:15] us. Do you have an idea in terms of time
horizon? Do you want to bring that back
[3:06:19] to the city council directly or how
would you want to approach that?
[3:06:24] » I will say this is brand is a new sort
of a timeframed assignment. So I think
[3:06:29] you know we would be happy to you know
get the direction from you. um it it
[3:06:34] will take a while so we don't want to
delay. We're very eager to do it and we
[3:06:38] had given ourselves this year to sort of
do it. You know that was and we've
[3:06:43] already you know gotten started so we
will be on it and so you give us the
[3:06:48] direction if you gave us a a timeline we
would look forward to meeting it because
[3:06:51] this is our top priority one of our top
priorities for the year. I think this is
[3:06:55] and as you can see even just from
today's meeting um and and recent events
[3:06:59] it's it's very critical and we want to
be a partner. So what's the shortest
[3:07:03] timeline you feel is realistic? I guess
that's a question. I
[3:07:05] » I think the summer is very difficult
because everybody, you know, all of our
[3:07:09] members are coming and going. So I would
say that to expect us to come back um at
[3:07:14] some time in the fall, I'd have to even
I have to look at our meeting schedule
[3:07:17] because the other thing is we only have
so many meetings. So I would need to
[3:07:20] look at the meeting schedule that I
don't have um at hand. Maybe
[3:07:25] » maybe Tony does. So by the end of the
year
[3:07:27] » or or at your next meeting, why don't
you um
[3:07:30] » you know come up with come up with a
date and have a meeting in June.
[3:07:34] Yeah, we have a meeting. We do have a
meeting in coming up in June. So we
[3:07:38] could do that and and Jane could report
back.
[3:07:40] » Perfect. And you always have the option
for special meetings if you need more
[3:07:43] meetings as you know.
>> Absolutely. And we do have um just so
[3:07:46] you know this whole project is being
done by a subcommittee, you know. So we
[3:07:51] have a subcommittee who who are working
on this and working on it in between the
[3:07:54] meetings.
>> Okay. Great. Okay. Do do we we don't
[3:07:57] you're just looking for feedback here.
We don't need any specific motion on
[3:07:59] this. No.
>> Correct. Did I take public comment? I
[3:08:04] can't remember.
>> I did. So, okay. I think we are done
[3:08:09] with that item. Moving on quickly to our
last item which is open forum. Um I'm
[3:08:14] not going to read the whole verbiage. Um
is there anybody here for public comment
[3:08:17] for the open forum?
>> Uh Mayor Wilgson, there are no hands
[3:08:19] raised
>> and I see nobody in the audience. So
[3:08:21] with that, I think we can adjourn. Thank
you to everybody.
[3:08:24] » Thank you. Thank you.