[0:11] Okay. Good evening. Let's uh I will call to order this uh Bavadier City Bader

[0:16] city council meeting for Monday, June the 8th, 2026. Um can I get a roll call,

[0:21] please? Beth. >> Council member Cooper here.

[0:23] » Council member Burke here. >> Mayor Wilkinson present.

[0:26] » Council member Mark here. Council member Carropia here.

[0:31] » Okay, we will be moving to close session. Before we move, can I ask

[0:35] whether there's any public comment on the close session agenda item?

[0:39] » There are no public present. >> Okay, perfect. In that case, we will

[0:42] adjourn. Thanks.

[2:05] Okay, I will uh reopen our um public session. There is nothing to report out

[2:10] from our close session today. Um Beth, I don't need to take a roll call again.

[2:16] No. Okay, perfect. So, we are going to move on to item number three, which is

[2:21] reports and presentations 3A, city council reports. Does any city council

[2:25] member have any updates? Um I attended the um remotely attended

[2:31] the uh May RBR meeting and uh want to report that uh the RBR um received grant

[2:39] approval from the EPA um for funds to um proceed with

[2:45] additional um eel grass plantings. That's it. Anybody else? Jane.

[2:55] » Yes. Um, as the mayor's proxy, I attended the last um, MCCMC

[3:02] city selection committee made up of mayors, marine county mayors, and city

[3:08] council people. And I wanted to proudly announce that um, the group elected

[3:15] council member Cara Pietette as the alternate representative to Abag, which

[3:20] is the Bay Area Housing Group. Um, and as our legislative representative, I

[3:27] will be attending the annual Abag meeting on June 18th. And as um, Council

[3:33] Member Caret is the alternate, she will be attending with me. We'll both find

[3:38] out what's going on there. Um, I did also want to remind residents

[3:43] that while we haven't seen many coyotes for the past few months, this is the

[3:48] time of year that if there were any parents um with pups that they would

[3:53] begin the pups would begin to be investigating their surroundings around

[3:58] this time for the next couple of months. So, please pay attention to your pets.

[4:03] Our website offers many articles and suggestions and I recommend reviewing it

[4:09] and to contact Marinhumane if we have if you have any concerns or want to report

[4:14] an incident. Um lastly, I attended the meet and greet

[4:19] for the Malard Point coordinator um Eric Sebrook. Um I was very pleased

[4:27] that the get together happened. We had a great turnout. uh wonderful community

[4:32] comments. But um one thing that surprised uh all

[4:37] of us, including me, was that um the their company was not going to begin any

[4:44] oversight until the demolition phase uh began.

[4:50] So, um, I'm assuming that we all misread the April breeze when it said that they

[4:58] would be organizing project submitts, tracking conditions, ensuring

[5:04] compliance, and serving as a liaison between the city residents, applicants,

[5:09] contractors, and engineers. Um, we may have been reading more into

[5:14] it than what was intended. Um but I also found um the proposal that

[5:24] was submitted by Philip Cbrook Associates and um it did mention ensure

[5:33] conditions of approval are adhered to. So I think we may have all assumed that

[5:38] they were going to be involved with the conditions of approval. Um, and I just

[5:43] wonder if we perhaps should review the scope of work so that it can be

[5:49] clarified to everyone what the actual expectations should be um on this

[5:55] position. I think we all thought it would be more than that. So that was a

[6:00] surprise. Thank you. >> Anybody else?

[6:05] » I do. Uh I attended the uh monthly um sea level rise meeting um also known as

[6:11] Baywave. Two things to report uh they just hired chief climate officer Dr.

[6:17] Nadia Satarim uh who started about two weeks ago. Um so that was an exciting

[6:22] development there. And uh we also discussed um how the different

[6:26] municipalities in our county will be uh preparing for um SB272 which is a

[6:34] requirement by state law that we submit an adaptation plan for sea level rise by

[6:38] January 1st of 2034. Um there is a grant writing process that's underway right

[6:44] now. Some of the municipalities are deciding to do it independently, meaning

[6:47] they'll apply on their own, whereas others are considering to do it doing it

[6:51] in collaboration with other municipalities, so multi-jurisdictional.

[6:54] Um, and we will be in the process of evaluating which is the best path for

[6:59] Belvadier, and we'll report back.

[7:03] » No. Okay. I don't have anything to report either, so we will um open that

[7:07] to public comment. Anybody in the room? I don't see

[7:12] anybody. Is there anybody online? >> Out of the 13 attendees, there are no

[7:16] hands raised. Okay, great. Thanks, Beth. Okay, so we'll move on to 3B, which is

[7:19] our city. Oh, I'm so sorry. Come up. >> What you just said?

[7:24] » Yes. >> I just wanted to say that.

[7:28] » Do you mind if you don't mind? Can you just announce name and Jill Barnett, 50

[7:32] Peninsula Road? I just wanted to agree with uh Jane that uh about Eric Seabol

[7:38] and that I think you should review uh where his the their contract starts

[7:44] because he is the project manager and everything before demolition is part of

[7:49] the project. So I agree with uh reviewing his contract.

[7:55] » Thank you. >> Okay. Unless there's anything else,

[7:59] we'll move to 3B, our city manager report.

[8:02] » Yes. Thank you, Mayor Wilkinson. I'll go ahead and start off with an update on

[8:06] the police department staffing matter. As you know, the city council has

[8:10] established a subcommittee of the city council to consider short and long-term

[8:14] strategies to address staffing matters within the police department. This topic

[8:19] was discussed during February's council retreat as well. Uh first, I'm glad to

[8:23] report that the decision has been made to refill the vacant sergeant position.

[8:27] This position was left open following officer Sabida's retirement last year.

[8:32] This week, Chief Will will be restarting the internal interview and hiring

[8:35] process that began earlier this year. Uh, more significantly, the proposed

[8:40] budget before you this evening also includes three years of funding to

[8:43] temporar temporarily restore the previously deferred seventh officer

[8:47] position. Recruitment as expected to begin immediately following tonight's

[8:52] adoption of the budget. This additional position will help will help bring back

[8:56] staffing resiliency within the department and give Jason's team the

[9:01] opportunity to focus on more proactive and diverse police work like parking and

[9:05] even some code enforcement matters that we're looking into. Uh looking towards

[9:09] the future, the budget also includes $30,000 for the development of a mid and

[9:14] long-term strategic plan for the department. The subcommittee is drafting

[9:18] an RFP and has identified several qualified firms to assist with this

[9:22] effort. The selected consultant will evaluate

[9:25] the department's staffing and operational model, review succession

[9:29] plans for when key staff retires, and assess alternative service delivery

[9:33] options appropriate for a small agency such as Belvadier. Staff anticipates

[9:38] that this analysis will take approximately four to six months

[9:41] following consultant selection. Onto other topics, uh rodents,

[9:46] specifically rat activity, has been on the rise in Marin. I have personally

[9:51] heard from several residents who've experienced costly vehicle damage and

[9:55] other property dam damage this year from rats. Staff is developing a pilot

[9:59] mitigation program that we that we expect will run approximately 3 to six

[10:04] months uh in lie of toxic poisons. The pilot will focus on deploying

[10:09] contraceptive bait stations uh that can also track usage around the city. Other

[10:14] cities in and around the Bay Area are using this similar method with success.

[10:18] Uh the initial look will help us understand the extent and concentration

[10:22] of that rodent activity. Uh evaluate the bait's effectiveness and inform any

[10:27] longer term strategy. We plan to return to the city council with datadriven

[10:33] findings and recommendations following completion of the pilot. Staff has also

[10:37] coordinated with Marine Humane and Wildcare to develop a frequently asked

[10:41] questions FAQ document for the residents and anformational page will be available

[10:46] where folks can find details about the pilot and the best practices for rodent

[10:51] med mitigation as well as the FAQ. More to come. And then finally,

[10:57] beginning with the July city council meeting, the agenda will include a new

[11:00] standing item titled council member request for future agenda items. This

[11:05] item will provide council members with a formal opportunity to request future

[11:09] agenda topics. They're outside of the annual goal setting process. Requested

[11:14] items may be scheduled for future council consideration or referred to

[11:19] staff for preliminary review subject to the support of a majority of the council

[11:23] members present. And that's all I have for now. I'm happy to take questions.

[11:28] » Thank you, Robert. Do council members have questions?

[11:32] Jane, go ahead. When do we get to start requesting?

[11:39] » Uh, I think the earliest we put this on the agenda is next month, but could be

[11:42] August. Yeah. >> Okay. Fine. Thank you.

[11:47] » Okay. Let's open this for public comment. Is there anybody in the room

[11:50] that wishes to make public comment? Seeing none, I will open that to online

[11:56] comment. >> Mary Wilkinson, there are no hands

[11:58] raised. >> Okay, great. In that case, we will close

[12:00] item 3B and move on to 3C, which is an update on the Marin Sonoma Mosquito and

[12:06] Vector Board presented by Peter Bonrude. I hope I pronounced that correctly,

[12:12] who's a district manager and our representative, Richard Snyder, um,

[12:16] who's here to present as well. So, welcome to both of you.

[12:19] » Hi, Richard Snyder Ten Commander Walk. I've been a member of the board since

[12:24] you appointed me back in 2018. And of those several years, I've served four

[12:29] years on the executive committee and I was president for the year of 2023

[12:34] and currently serve on the nominating committee trying to shape the future.

[12:39] I'd like to introduce Peter Bonura who is our general manager and who has a

[12:43] presentation for you. >> Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your

[12:47] service. >> Great.

[12:51] » Thank you, Richard. Um, yes, my name is Peter Bon. I am the district manager at

[12:55] Marinoma Mosquito and Vector Control and we're going to go through a little bit

[12:58] of what we do at our district and try to focus a little bit on uh the city of

[13:02] Belvadier as well. So, just a quick overview. Oh, is it?

[13:07] Oh, there we go. Um we are an independent special district. So,

[13:10] similar to like a fire district or a water district, we have our own tax

[13:13] base. We have our own governing body. Um and basically our role is protecting

[13:17] public health uh from mosquitoes and other vectorbor diseases in both Marin

[13:21] and Sonoma County. Uh we have a board that's governed by 24 different members.

[13:25] Some of those from incorporated cities and as as well as from Shasta County,

[13:30] I'm sorry, from Marin and Sonoma County at large.

[13:33] Our tax base is um within the property assessments and our authority is under

[13:39] the California Health and Safety Code. We cover two different counties, 2200

[13:43] square miles. We are the largest largest district in California. um just under a

[13:48] million residents and over 25 species of mosquitoes are monitored.

[13:53] Interesting history for Marinoma mosquito and vector control. We are one

[13:56] of the the earliest mosquito and vector control districts in California. Uh the

[14:01] San Rafale Improvement Club, which was a women's club uh in San Rafale, raised

[14:05] money early in the 1900s to try to reduce nuisance-causing mosquitoes in

[14:09] the area. it was uh impossible to live during certain parts of the time of the

[14:13] year from largely u salt marsh mosquitoes. Uh so the Sanfell Women's

[14:18] Club came together and they raised a bunch of money and they were actually

[14:21] able to hire an animologist from UC Berkeley that then trained the first

[14:25] mosquito inspectors in California uh to try to reduce those mosquito

[14:29] populations. Then not too far after that, California passed legislation that

[14:33] allowed the creation of mosquito and vector control districts and ours was

[14:37] one of the first. Uh so the marin mosquito abatement district was created

[14:40] not too long after the vector control law was passed in 1915 and we've been

[14:45] around ever since. So we've added new districts, we've consolidated um but

[14:49] ultimately we've included now both Marin, all of Marin and all of Sonoma

[14:52] County within our boundaries as you can see. So from 1976 to 2004 and then we

[14:58] continued to annex um some of the outer areas within northern Sonoma County and

[15:03] western Marin County. Uh today we are a modern uh organization that covers as

[15:08] mentioned 2200 square miles. We follow what's called integrative vector

[15:11] management which is a form of integrated pest management which basically is

[15:15] looking at the toolbox and finding the right tool for each job that you have.

[15:18] Um no specific position or no specific outcome is expected. We use our

[15:23] surveillance to guide our control interventions and ultimately whichever

[15:26] um control intervention we need to use for each situation.

[15:32] Okay, here are some of the programs that we offer. Uh, everything is driven by

[15:36] our surveillance and monitoring. So, we're running close to 100 mosquito

[15:38] traps across the the 2count district every week. Um, we also add additional

[15:43] traps as part of that, but our regular trapping is 100 plus. Um, in addition to

[15:48] that, we're also doing our rodent uh rodent issues. Uh, so we're out there

[15:52] looking for uh homes and helping out with exclusion. Um, we're also working

[15:56] on tick surveillance. So both in Marin and Soma County, we're out looking in

[16:00] the areas where ticks are the most prevalent. We're collecting those ticks

[16:02] and then we're testing them for disease, mostly bellia burgdorfry, which is lyme

[16:06] disease. Um and then some other bellas, which are akin to belly burgdorfry,

[16:10] which can cause relapsing fever. In addition to our surveillance and

[16:13] monitoring, obviously we have the control element. Most of our focus for

[16:16] mosquito control is on the immature stages of mosquitoes. So while they're

[16:19] in their water, um we find that we have a lot more options when we're dealing

[16:22] with mosquitoes in the water versus while they're on the wing. And we have

[16:26] um it's a lot easier to find, right? We can find these different mosquito

[16:29] sources. We can treat them before they ever become adults. Um our goal as a

[16:32] public health agency is disease prevention. So we're always focused on

[16:36] those mosquitoes that can cause disease and we're focused on trying to reduce

[16:39] the transmission of those diseases to people. The main diseases that we're

[16:42] concerned about here in both Marin and Sonoma County right now is Westnau virus

[16:46] is still the main main player in our area. Um however, we are keeping an eye

[16:50] out and testing for western ecoin and sephilitis as well as St. Louis and

[16:53] sephilitis which have been in California but at different times of the um over

[16:57] the last 50 60 years. Service requests do drive our operations to some degree.

[17:02] Um last year we had over 12,000 service requests. Uh this year hopefully we'll

[17:06] have a few a few less um because it was quite a few. Most of those were on

[17:09] yellow jackets. U public education as well. So we have an education specialist

[17:13] that goes into the schools, teaches kids at all different age levels, different

[17:17] curriculums that are approved by California for whatever that that age

[17:21] group is. So, we try to target not only the information that we're trying to put

[17:24] out there, but also what the teachers are trying to teach to each grade level.

[17:28] Plus, we also have our um outreach or our PIO who will do a variety of

[17:32] different events. If there's events in Belvadier that people are interested in

[17:34] us attending, let us know. We're always happy to add things to the list. Um and

[17:37] then obviously all of our different outreach, our websites, um our social

[17:41] media. So, districtwide, um last year, like I

[17:46] said, we completed over 10,000 service requests. We tested over 17,000

[17:50] different mosquitoes. Uh we inspected 40,000 different locations for potential

[17:55] mosquito breeding and of those treated around 16,000. And we did have one

[17:58] Westnau virus positive incident last year which was a positive dead bird in

[18:02] the city of Sonoma area.

[18:07] Districtwide trends overall our mosquito numbers were down last year which is a

[18:11] positive thing. Even though we did see um that Westnau virus incident um

[18:15] overall in comparison to previous years, last year was a lower year. Uh we're

[18:19] sort of seeing similar uh at this point this year both locally and statewide and

[18:23] we're hoping that continues. Um and ultimately, you know, those are the

[18:28] things that will drive our operations. I I took a a small little smattering of

[18:32] the different mosquito species. Like I said, we're dealing with 26 plus. Those

[18:36] are the ones that we're looking at pretty regularly. Um and most of those

[18:39] are disease causitive or very nuisance. um positive mosquitoes.

[18:44] Let's look a little bit at Sylvia Belvadier. So, as you can see, all these

[18:47] are locations that um we have done control activity. So, we have close to

[18:53] on both Tibberon and Belvadier property to roughly 6,000 different locations

[19:00] that we inspect regularly for uh for treatment. And of those, you know, on

[19:04] average, we're inspecting 3 to 4,000 each year and treating around 2,200 uh

[19:10] year dependent. Um, in addition to our mosquito control elements, uh, we did

[19:14] over 24 rodent inspections on the island and then, um, we did 156 yellow jacket

[19:20] treatments.

[19:24] This is kind of what the work looks like. Our technicians go out every

[19:26] morning. Uh, they're identifying those sources that we've already previously

[19:30] identified as potential mosquito breeding habitats. They're checking

[19:33] those habitats to see if they're breeding immature mosquitoes and then

[19:36] finding the best control strategy and hopefully the most long lasting control

[19:39] strategy for each one of those situations. And that could conclude

[19:42] everything from source reduction to public education to chemical control to

[19:47] biological control. Uh we have a variety of different tools that are pretty

[19:50] habitat dependent and species dependent. You can see up on the the screen here.

[19:55] Um we're dealing with marsh habitats, we're dealing with wetland habitats,

[19:58] we're dealing with urban habitats. We do have a very uh wide variety of different

[20:02] types of mosquito breeding habitats throughout both Marin and Sonoma

[20:05] counties. Um on the right hand corner you can see one of our mosquito traps.

[20:10] Um I probably should have put one. Our biologist, our main lab director, Dr.

[20:14] Fury, actually created a whole new trap using our 3D printing, which is really

[20:18] exciting. That's actually out catching uh the trap that is typically used for

[20:22] mosquito surveillance. So, we're pretty proud of the fact that she designed a

[20:25] new trap that's doing better than the existing industry standard trap and it's

[20:29] costing us a lot less money and we can put a lot more traps out there to look

[20:32] to see what's going on from a mosquito standpoint. And then the last one is one

[20:35] of our technicians, our rodent specialist looking for exclusion options

[20:39] for a property owner. Um, so one of the things to keep an eye

[20:44] on is this emerging threat for 80s egypti. We refer to them as invasive

[20:48] 80s. Uh, basically these mosquitoes don't belong in California. Um there's

[20:52] more than just 80s egypti but 80s egypti has been the one that's spread the best.

[20:56] Uh there's also 80s noiscriptis and 80s albapictus that's moved from the LA uh

[21:01] area all the way up to shasta county and so far we have been able to avoid 80s

[21:07] egypti and either mariner or Sonoma County but we are slowly getting uh

[21:11] surrounded. So they're now been found in Solano, Santa Clara, Alamita, Santa

[21:15] Cruz, um Yolo, still not in Napa, still not in Marin, still not in Soma, still

[21:21] not in Sonteo. So we got a little bit of a boundary, but not by much. So we're

[21:25] keeping an eye out for those mosquitoes. Uh why do we care? It's just another

[21:28] mosquito. Well, we care because these mosquitoes um can transmit diseases that

[21:32] up until the last three years were not transmitted in California. So deni,

[21:36] chicken, zika virus. Um and unfortunately now we have had locally

[21:40] transmitted denge in southern California where 80s egypti is pretty well

[21:44] established and the concern is that where this mosquito can be established

[21:48] those diseases could also be transmitted. Denge chicken gona and zika

[21:52] are different than westnile in the sense that humans are the host for those

[21:55] diseases. So in West Nile's case it's a bird. So it's a bird human I'm sorry

[21:59] bird mosquito disease. For deni chicken and zika it's a human mosquito disease.

[22:04] So somebody could travel to an area where one of those diseases endemic,

[22:08] come back, get bit by that mosquito, and then ultimately transmit it on. So

[22:11] that's why it's a concern. Um we have traps out that are specific for those

[22:14] mosquitoes, and we are looking for them regularly to make sure uh if we do get

[22:18] them, we have a good response plan put into place.

[22:24] Um just a quick little financial snapshot. So as I mentioned, we are

[22:27] covered by largely property taxes as well as some additional benefit

[22:30] assessments. Um that accounts for just under $13 million for our revenue uh

[22:36] basically each year. Um and with that we cover 38 uh technicians and staff

[22:42] members as well as a fully funded capital program and uh we are currently

[22:48] looking to do some facility improvements. So, one of our big

[22:51] projects in the next two years uh is going to be the uh the construction of a

[22:56] new admin building as well as the expansion of a new shop and vehicle

[23:00] storage. Um which is exciting. We haven't done any expansion since the

[23:04] late 90s. Uh and we're we're busting at the seams a little bit. So, we're

[23:07] excited to have some some expansion there on the same footprint uh the same

[23:12] uh boundaries. And with that, I'll talk quickly about

[23:16] uh beyond. So, technology modernization is our goal. Uh we just rolled out uh a

[23:21] new grant that we were able to take advantage of through the state that we

[23:24] were able to completely reorganize all of our digital infrastructure. We're

[23:29] going to take that and continue to build on it with this new uh facility

[23:32] improvement that we're looking at. Um additionally, climate resilience is on

[23:36] our minds. Um, when you're talking about climate, vectors tend to be the canary

[23:39] in the coal mine. Meaning, we know that emerging diseases and the diseases that

[23:43] or the mosquitoes that are carrying them often are coming ahead of some of the

[23:47] other larger climate changeoriented um indicators that are out there. Uh, we

[23:52] know that the expansion of these mosquitoes and these diseases is likely

[23:55] due to climate change. And so we're always trying to identify where the next

[23:59] emerging disease or emerging mosquito issue is going to come based on that uh

[24:04] change in in an overall climate. Um we're also looking at enhancing our

[24:08] surveillance. So finding new traps, new techniques, um looking into things like

[24:12] remote modeling, looking into things like identifying our old data set and

[24:17] utilizing it to inform future decisions. So big data questions. Um, uh, we just

[24:22] hired a new data system specialist that's going to be working through a lot

[24:25] of that old historical data on the mosquito side of things. We're very good

[24:28] at collecting it. We're not as good at making it operationally relevant. So,

[24:31] that's the next goal. Um, and then the last one is community engagement, doing

[24:34] exactly what we're doing here today, getting people to know that we exist and

[24:37] we can help you with your rodent issues if you have questions is we have a rat a

[24:40] rodent specialist and we do this all over Marin and Sonoma County. Um, so

[24:44] we're always happy to partner partner with cities, counties, anybody that's

[24:48] interested in making things better for them from a mosquito and vector control

[24:51] standpoint. With that, I'll open it up to any

[24:54] questions if there's time.

[24:57] » Peter, thank you for that very interesting presentation and all the

[25:01] work that you do, which is which is super important. Um, I do have

[25:04] questions, but I'll open up to other council members first.

[25:08] » So, yes, thank you for your presentation. It's very informative and

[25:12] I have to say I personally have used your service. Um, but the question I did

[25:17] have that um is sort of relevant or soon to become relevant to the city

[25:24] is um addressing our uh uh rodent problem. And I'm not sure what your

[25:29] program is about and and and the steps all that are going to take place. um but

[25:35] you are available that the city can reach out to you and see if there's

[25:39] something that you can help us with. Um whether it's a service or just advice on

[25:44] um um addressing that problem. Is that um possibility?

[25:49] » Yeah, we can do exactly what has already been discussed and and lend hopefully an

[25:54] additional voice to that information. So our rodentborn disease program is

[25:57] focused on exclusion largely. So our rodent specialists will get called

[26:01] through a service request. will go out to the property and then we'll provide

[26:04] an exclusion report. So they'll do a full inspection of the property,

[26:08] identify areas that are either um entry points or potential harbridge areas or

[26:12] food sources and they basically will give a laundry list to the property

[26:16] owner of things they can do to improve their um the rodents that either are on

[26:20] the property or potentially even in the home itself. Uh they can then take that

[26:23] report and they can either hire a pest control company to do the work for them

[26:27] or they can do some of that exclusion work themselves. So we don't actually do

[26:30] any of the rodent control. We just provide consultation on the road. So, it

[26:34] sounds perfect for what you guys are working on. We can work with you on your

[26:37] FAQs. We already have a whole lot of that on our website. Um, and it's going

[26:42] to be just as relevant for Belvier as it is for any other part of Marin County.

[26:45] » And that service is free. >> That service is already paid for through

[26:49] your property taxes. >> Thank you.

[26:51] » Yeah. >> Any other questions?

[26:55] » No. Just one I guess it you mentioned ticks and we have a little party favor

[27:01] here. Did you? >> That's right. I I am not super liked at

[27:04] parties because I bring some of the strangest party favors. But um yes, what

[27:08] you have is a ticky. Uh so what that is is a tick remover. Um great to throw in

[27:12] your your vehicle or your purse or your bag or whatever you use to go hiking. Um

[27:16] and it's to remove ticks. It's a nice easy way to uh cleanly remove the tick.

[27:20] Um that's the main thing. If you find a tick, getting as much of that tick off

[27:23] as you can, getting as much of the hypostome out or the head parts out as

[27:27] you can is going to prevent any kind of secondary infection from like bacterial

[27:31] infection or something. So, uh, really key to have with you. It was

[27:35] » Thank you. Well, >> and then it was married with hopefully a

[27:39] tick card that will let you know the in our area and the concerns, uh, of

[27:43] certain species in our area. Well, I I just wanted to check so that I could

[27:47] thank you for this nice gift and also thank you for the presentation.

[27:52] » Well, and to the public, I'll let them know that those are available to them as

[27:55] well. So, if you need anything for tick surveillance or for tick removal, just

[27:58] give us a call. We're happy to make those available.

[28:02] » I would very much like to thank you for this key because my husband has removed

[28:05] two ticks out of his leg in the past week associated with mountain biking and

[28:10] it's never quite sure whether he's got them out completely. So, so thank you

[28:12] for that. One of my questions was um in relation to ticks, what's the data

[28:17] showing in terms of the prevalence of of lime? So, whatever the the the latin is

[28:23] for that, but what what what are you seeing in terms of the data?

[28:26] » Sure. So, in general, our Lyme disease numbers are lower than Midwest and East

[28:31] Coast. Uh but Marin County does have some of the highest rates of Lyme

[28:35] disease within our ticks in terms of California counties. So, if we're

[28:38] looking in California, Marin does have a higher uh risk than other counties, but

[28:43] it's still very low. Four to 5% is the infection rate that we typically see in

[28:47] most of our ticks that we collect. Um, you know, we can see microhabitats where

[28:51] we'll have higher infection rates. Uh, but in general, those numbers are fairly

[28:55] low. Um, and there's a couple different reasons. One is our temperature. One is

[28:58] that we have a slightly different species of tick. So, we have Exodius

[29:01] Pacificus here on the Midwest and East Coast. It's Exodus scapularis behavior

[29:05] slightly different. Um, and then also we have uh a really interesting um

[29:10] biological environment here where if the tick feeds on a lizard that is endemic

[29:16] here to California, it will actually kill the the burrellia. It'll it's a

[29:19] bellioidal effect. It'll kill the Lyme disease bacteria in the tick. Um, and

[29:24] that'll also reduce our overall infection rates uh in California. So,

[29:28] not bad if you compare it to Midwest and East Coast, but definitely something in

[29:33] Marin County you want to be aware of. Do your tick checks. Make sure you're

[29:36] wearing um you know some sort of insect repellent uh when you're out and about.

[29:40] Make sure you're wearing light colored clothing if you're going to be in areas

[29:43] where you know ticks are going to be. Uh and ultimately making sure that you

[29:46] remove those ticks as quickly as possible. If you're worried, you can

[29:49] always hold on to it. Um we can always ID it. We won't test ticks for people,

[29:53] but both public health labs, I believe, will test for ticks. Uh we only test the

[29:57] ticks we collect. Uh it's the same as the state. If you go to CDPH, they won't

[30:01] test ticks that are collected off of people. And that's because we don't want

[30:04] to give people a false sense of either security or um you know the other end

[30:08] that it did test positive that doesn't mean you have Lyme disease and vice

[30:11] versa. So we really work on the medical side of things informing uh doctors as

[30:16] to what our risks are for Lyme disease, knowing uh the signs of Lyme disease and

[30:21] then hopefully treating the Lyme disease quickly and effectively for those people

[30:24] that have gotten bitten. >> Thank you very much. And I'm sure the

[30:29] city will be reaching out in relation to our um our rap question. So, thank you

[30:32] for that offer. Um, unless there's other questions, I will open this up for

[30:36] public comment. >> I just have one comment I wanted to

[30:39] make. I wanted to thank Richard Snider for his service on the um mosquito

[30:45] vector board and representing the city. So, well, that's all.

[30:49] » You're very welcome. >> My pleasure.

[30:52] » Uh, okay. Let's Is there anybody in the room that would like to make public

[30:55] comment? Seeing none, I will open this to

[31:00] » I see none. Seeing none. Okay. In that case, we will um close item 3C. And

[31:05] again, thank you to Peter and Richard for everything that you both do.

[31:08] » Thank you so much. Appreciate it. >> Okay. We'll be moving on to item 3D,

[31:13] which is interviews um for applicants for appointment to the to the planning

[31:18] commission and the Belvadier Tibron Library Agency board. Is there a staff

[31:23] report before we go to interviews? >> I'm happy to give you a summary of the

[31:26] staff report or you can jump right into it, whichever you prefer. Do you want to

[31:29] give a quick summary of the of the positions that we're interviewing for?

[31:32] » Yeah. So, we have two vacancies currently on the planning commission.

[31:36] Uh, one four-year term currently held by Commissioner Oslay J, who is seeking

[31:41] reappoint, and one partial term created by Commissioner Butros's reg

[31:45] resignation. We received one application from Jason Jacob Laneski, who is present

[31:51] this evening for an interview. We also have an opening on the Belvadier

[31:55] Tibbrron Library Agency board. Incumbent Tony Hooker is seeking reappoint and one

[32:00] additional applicant Andrea Barish has been has applied uh and is here this

[32:06] evening to interview as well. And then finally, two finance committee uh

[32:10] members terms are expiring. Both incumbents Bob McKascal and Patrick

[32:14] Feder have requested reappoints. Um no additional applications were received

[32:19] for those open positions. Um that's all. >> Thank you very much. Um, in that case,

[32:24] can I ask Jacob, who I see over there, come and introduce himself um to the

[32:30] city council. >> Uh, good afternoon, Madame Mayor,

[32:35] members of the city council. My name is Jacob Lanitki. Uh, I'm applying for the

[32:40] vacant uh seat on the planning commission. I do have to reflect that

[32:44] going after the mosquito presentation, which was actually quite interesting, is

[32:47] not an easy task. Uh however, I'll try not to bite and hopefully uh the buzzing

[32:52] in your ear will be very very minimal. Um just uh by uh by just sheer back

[32:59] introduction, you know, I moved to uh Belvadier um last February. It's a

[33:04] fascinating town. It's a beautiful town. There's a sense of history. There's a

[33:07] sense of aesthetics. Um there's a kind of a charm and appeal that's almost

[33:12] indescribable and makes it unique. And uh one of the reasons I want to be on

[33:16] the planning commission is because it dovetales with my interest in preserving

[33:20] this town and making sure it can continue and grow in an intelligent way.

[33:24] Um but also dovetales with my professional background. Uh just on a

[33:28] day job I oversee the real estate transactions for a large technology

[33:32] company in Silicon Valley. Um always have been professionally in real estate

[33:36] all my life. My first job was as a real estate attorney, then went to business

[33:39] school and then um served in various other real estate functions since then.

[33:44] I'd like not to make this long, but rather open up to Q&A. As I said, very,

[33:48] very interested in this town, very interested in the history. Um, but also

[33:52] just making sure that the people here can continue to thrive and whoever moves

[33:56] in can also just live up to their full potential and how they see their

[33:59] residences. Open up the questions.

[34:01] » Jacob, thanks so much. Who would like to start with questions?

[34:09] » Kevin. >> Oh, I don't have many questions. we we

[34:13] had the opportunity to um spend some time on the phone and uh I was very

[34:17] impressed with your background. I think uh I can definitely see how you could

[34:21] leverage some of those or many of those experiences for the work that you're

[34:24] doing, I guess. I mean, given that you are working at such a a large

[34:28] high-profile technology company in Silicon Valley, how do you imagine sort

[34:33] of balancing the demands of that with the demands of the planning commission?

[34:38] uh especially, you know, given um I think your travel schedule, which seems

[34:42] like it's uh pretty uh interesting to say the least.

[34:47] » Yeah, I'll just get Claude to do my other job.

[34:50] » Um I think the the answer to your question is I can devote the time to

[34:55] this as long as I know how to schedule it, right? And the beauty of this

[34:58] position is that you know when the meetings are, you know what has to take

[35:01] take place before the meeting, the kind of the due diligence that has to happen.

[35:04] So that becomes much more schedulable. It's the issue of where you know I have

[35:08] to have a meeting in three hours that becomes much more problematic. So to the

[35:12] extent that there's visibility and the time commitment it becomes a much more

[35:16] manageable task. >> Thank you.

[35:20] » Hi Jacob. Uh like like Kevin we spent some time on the phone so I'll be brief.

[35:24] Uh something that I think has evolved in

[35:28] the planning commissioner's responsibilities is some of the longer

[35:32] term planning perspectives and policy related to housing elements and general

[35:37] plans. And uh I think I think someone can really step

[35:43] into that the longer they've been involved with the city and going

[35:46] forward. I just wanted to gauge your your interest and your openness to being

[35:49] involved in that long-term planning aspect for our city both from a

[35:53] municipal code perspective and as I mentioned um housing policy and general

[35:57] plans as well. Um you know I worked uh in Berkeley, California for five years

[36:01] as a practicing real estate attorney um helping them with their housing element

[36:07] helping working with their zoning board with their planning commission as well.

[36:10] I it's been an interest of mine. The question I think you're asking is how do

[36:14] we balance this intelligently? Like the city is not a straight jacket. It's the

[36:19] question of how do we accommodate the growth of the city but do it in a way

[36:22] that still preserves that which makes it special. And it's not an easy answer,

[36:26] right? It's a question of you have to delve into the code. You have to delve

[36:29] into the legal requirements, but moreover, you also have to delve into

[36:32] what can be built in a way that doesn't infringe and impinge upon the lifestyle

[36:35] of the existing residents.

[36:39] » Pat, do you have any questions? two. Hi, thank you. We've not had a chance to

[36:44] chat, so this will be our first chat. Um, so, uh, one question I always have

[36:50] and I believe I know the answer because I've seen you, but have you had an

[36:54] opportunity to attend any planning commission, um, meetings?

[36:59] » I have. I've attended the last two meetings.

[37:01] » And what have you learned from that? Um,

[37:07] what I've learned from it is that there is a question of how do you balance some

[37:12] of the growth. There's a question of also how do you balance some of the

[37:15] improvements that people want to make to their homes, legitimately want to make

[37:18] to their homes with the concerns of the neighbors, with the aesthetic concerns

[37:24] that various members have expressed. Uh what I've learned it's that it's an

[37:30] interesting job but and it's one that I think to the extent that there is a

[37:34] legal perspective the commission could benefit as well. The kind of the

[37:38] structured thinking that a that a law school teaches you or being a lawyer

[37:42] teaches you I think could enrich the discussion.

[37:45] » Okay. And um thank you for that. And um this is a little bit kind of connecting

[37:53] a question that Kevin had and that Peter had. And um I I think for for me it's

[38:01] talking about you know your your work life balance schedule. And um and for me

[38:09] it's it's um

[38:13] not only you know your your expertise and and and and what you bring to the

[38:19] commission um as far as working on municipal code and housing element and

[38:24] general plan, but also um you know there's subcommittees, task force,

[38:30] things like that that come up and they are not three-hour notice meetings. Is

[38:35] there more, you know, in advance? Are you available to help? And so the

[38:40] question is is is would you be able to carve out more time if um you were to uh

[38:48] serve on one of those committees or task force um to um develop new new codes,

[38:55] new approaches, new new the new housing um element and and the revision of our

[39:00] general plan that's going to be coming up. Uh the answer is yes because it's

[39:04] can be schedulable. It is can be scheduled ahead of time. The answer is

[39:08] absolutely yes. >> Yeah. Okay. I have something but it's a

[39:12] comment so I can't I it's question time. Um let's see. Um here's a question. Um

[39:18] would you feel comfortable um offering constructive feedback or

[39:24] suggestion on improvements to a plan? Um especially if it's the applicant is is

[39:33] someone that you know, a friend um not necessarily a neighbor within 500

[39:40] ft, but maybe a neighbor, you know, 600 feet away and you're allowed to

[39:45] participate in that um project. would would you be able to give, you know,

[39:52] constructive criticism, your your honest opinion and and and not feel you needed

[39:57] to hold back because you might hurt their feelings or

[40:01] » um so as part of my job, I negotiate for a living.

[40:05] » And when you negotiate with the other side, there is a part of it that is

[40:08] about the feedback. Now, you could do it in a very unconstructive fashion. You

[40:12] could call them names. You could say they're stupid. You could do a lot of

[40:15] things and you've insulted them. you've affected their ego and you've gotten

[40:18] nowhere in whatever view you're trying to convey. And then there's a way of

[40:22] doing it in a way that is actually kind of not just constructive but in a way

[40:26] that takes their views and unites yours. And moreover, what you find is these

[40:31] conversations are not debates, they're discussions. The goal is to actually

[40:34] find common ground rather to score than to score a point. So absolutely, I mean

[40:40] this is what I do for a living. >> Okay. Um,

[40:47] let's see. Um, oh, here's one. Um,

[40:56] I was a planning commissioner for 10 years. So, sometimes I would I'll do my

[41:00] own my own life experience here. So, sometimes I would have a project visit,

[41:04] do all my homework, everything else. And though you're not supposed to make your

[41:08] final decision on how you feel about the project, you kind of come in and kind of

[41:11] have a feeling how you feel about this project, like you know, I'm really for

[41:15] it or I'm kind of got some issues with certain things or I'm not really, you

[41:19] know, this is needs a whole lot more work. So, um, but then I also learned

[41:25] that as you listen to other commissioners and you listen to other

[41:29] viewpoints and their ideas and their opinions that you can change your mind

[41:34] and say, "Wait a minute, I didn't think about that." And that does make sense.

[41:38] And so for a project that maybe I wasn't going to vote for, I might change my

[41:43] mind and vote for it. Or a project I was going to vote for that I'm going to vote

[41:47] for it to be continued so they can do further work. Do you feel that you have

[41:52] that kind of open mind analysis that you know you would be open to other people's

[41:57] viewpoints and being able to change your mind?

[42:01] » Uh I hope I can learn. >> Okay.

[42:03] » I hope I can learn from my fellow commissioners. That's part of the

[42:05] experience, right? >> Okay.

[42:06] » Nobody nobody has a monopoly on wisdom or a monopoly on good ideas. So you have

[42:11] to absolutely listen to others. And um

[42:16] do you um believe that um uh as as a planning commissioner that

[42:25] your role is to

[42:30] balance the municipal code with the interest and wants of a applicant

[42:38] against what's best for the entire community.

[42:43] I believe that the job of the commission is often a balancing of factors. That is

[42:48] absolutely true. It is also one where you cannot disregard the law. So the law

[42:53] may set a bright line in which case you have to follow it and if the law is not

[42:58] as exact then of course you have discretion.

[43:01] » Okay. Thank you. And then I guess my last question is is that when

[43:09] we we all have our um

[43:16] careers, jobs, interests, specialties that we bring to whatever

[43:23] we're doing in our volunteer um life. And um as a planning commissioner, you

[43:30] know, we're going to be looking at you to be um making your your

[43:37] approach to being a planning commissioner and your decisions and

[43:41] everything else as more as a citizen um versus a um as a role as a lawyer.

[43:51] And so do you see yourself having a problem with that?

[43:55] No, not at all. Okay. I think lawyers can be good citizens.

[43:58] » Okay. All right. Okay. Well, those are all my questions. Thank you,

[44:06] » Jane. I think I skipped you. Do you have questions?

[44:08] » You didn't skip. >> Oh, we didn't skip you. I'm sorry.

[44:09] » It's my turn now. That's all. >> Go ahead.

[44:12] » Hi. Nice to meet you. >> Likewise.

[44:14] » Uh, I was not on the planning commission, but I've attended many of

[44:19] the meetings over the last four or five years, so I've learned a lot. Um, and my

[44:26] qu a lot of my questions have already been asked and answered. So, thank you,

[44:30] fellow commissioners. Um, I I think you said you've only lived here for four

[44:36] months. >> No, no, no. Uh, February of 2025.

[44:39] » Oh, okay. Great. Um, I was going to say, wow, you're really jump jumping in. You

[44:45] fell in love fast. Um, okay. So, I'm assuming, you know, one of the things

[44:50] that um can come up is that where you live, you know everything intimately

[44:57] about that neighborhood, but we do have um three to four different types of

[45:03] zoning here based on um if you live on the water, if you're living on a small

[45:08] hill, larger island, whatever. So, um I I just wondered if you were familiar

[45:17] with all the different um physical areas and that they may have zoning

[45:22] differences and that you would be representing all of the areas equally,

[45:29] not just the one that you live in because you're most familiar with it.

[45:33] » Yeah. So, uh two-part answer. The first is I've tried to walk pretty much every

[45:36] street in the town. I think it's just beautiful. It's also good exercise given

[45:40] the slopes. Um, but the second part of your question is there's going to be

[45:45] aspects of the code that I'll need to learn, but it's not like I represent one

[45:48] particular block and that has to triumph over everything else. Absolutely not.

[45:52] » Yeah. Yeah, you're right. The code is uh complex at first, but then it gets

[45:57] easier as as you learn it. At least that's what I've heard. Um, I wondered

[46:03] if you'd had any chance to speak with any of our planning commissioners that

[46:07] sit there now. Uh I have not other than just observing

[46:12] that. Okay. >> And I've spoken to Marshall Aski. She's

[46:14] an alternate. >> Yes. And a previous planning

[46:17] commissioner. And have you had an opportunity to meet with our planning

[46:21] director, Rebecca? >> Just briefly.

[46:24] » Briefly. >> During the meetings.

[46:26] » Okay. So, um although um the the monthly meetings are scheduled in advance as you

[46:33] said, you've also responded to questions about um perhaps smaller subcommittees

[46:39] or additional small task force that might have to do with housing element or

[46:44] general plan review and update etc. Um, but there's also we have a requirement

[46:51] of training of going to training. Although that's again you it's set up in

[46:57] advance for just one time. It's not ongoing training so that shouldn't be an

[47:01] issue. Um, but something that is ongoing is the communication back and forth from

[47:07] our planning director. And um, uh, I'm assuming that when you're doing all your

[47:13] traveling, you have email availability. and get back could would be able to get

[47:19] back to her for whatever it is she needs from you at least within 24 hours. That

[47:24] is correct. >> Does that seem reasonable?

[47:25] » That is correct. >> Okay, good. That's

[47:27] » If I didn't have that, I'd probably be fired. So, yes.

[47:30] » Yes, probably. Um but um uh yeah, otherwise my other questions

[47:36] have been answered. So, thank you. Thank you for offering to serve.

[47:39] » Thank you, >> Jacob. I have no questions of you. we've

[47:43] met and had a nice coffee together and I learned a lot about you so I think I had

[47:47] my questions answered. Um so um with that shall I open for public comment in

[47:53] relation to this first or shall I do the other or should we proceed with the

[47:57] other interview first? >> You could just do one round after we

[47:59] complete the interviews. >> Okay, perfect. So Jacob, you're not

[48:02] required to stay on. The decision won't be made until the end of the meeting and

[48:05] it could be a long meeting. So it's entirely up to you whether you wish to

[48:08] stay or not. >> That's fine. Thank you very much.

[48:09] » Thank you so much. Thanks for your time. Okay. So, we'll move on to our um second

[48:15] position which is for the Belvadier Tibbron Library Agency Board of

[48:18] Trustees. And this is for Andrea Barish who I believe is here.

[48:25] » Andrea, welcome. Um please just uh introduce yourself, where you live, and

[48:29] your interest in serving on the uh the agency board.

[48:32] » Yes, thank you so much for having me here. I'm really happy to be here. Um I

[48:37] live in Belvadier, just on San Avenue. I actually grew up here. I my family moved

[48:42] here in 1968 and we promptly all became members of the Belier Tibbron Library

[48:47] when it was based in the same building where the post office is now. Um my

[48:52] family was very much engaged in the library. My father was very involved in

[48:56] the fundraising to help move it to the new I say new location but the newer

[49:00] location where it is now. And my mom at the age of 90 last year was working as a

[49:06] volunteer at corner books and she did that for several years. So the library

[49:10] has been a very big part of my family's life. I had moved away after college and

[49:15] came back every year to spend time at the library when I was home. And as soon

[49:20] as I moved back nine years ago, I became I got my library card renewed. Um so

[49:25] it's been a really big part of my life and um libraries in general have been.

[49:30] So I when this position opened up, I actually misread it in the tip in the

[49:34] arc and I applied for it and the last cycle and it was actually for the

[49:40] Tibbron position and so I said we're not doing Tibbron now, but Belvadier's

[49:45] coming up. So I um waited and waited until it opened up and wanted to take

[49:50] the opportunity. But um I've been doing a lot I do a lot of research and reading

[49:55] about where the library is now and was really engaged with reading and I have

[50:01] been reading about it for a couple years now. But the strategic plan and the um

[50:06] let's connect theme really resonated with me. I that's who I am as a person

[50:12] was connections are really important to me but also in my career in

[50:17] communications. I worked for a large PR agency for decades um in strategy and

[50:23] communications and then now I work for the American Heart Association in

[50:27] communications um VP communications. So um most of my job has been about finding

[50:33] ways to connect communities with either a brand or a product or a service and um

[50:41] that's what I do. I look at the data, I interpret it, I find an idea, and then I

[50:47] inst implement it. Um, as part of my role in the American Canc right now, I'm

[50:52] very integrated with the development team with our event planning and

[50:56] fundraising. I do a lot of work with that team to help them um meet their

[51:02] goals as well. So, I'm sort of a horizontal position that works on all

[51:05] sorts of things. I have to know everything about everything and not just

[51:09] one part of the channel. But I'm really excited about this position because I

[51:13] feel like it's a lot of opportunity to really help connect the community to the

[51:18] library. Um I'm not you know and looking at the I see the plan goes till 2026. So

[51:23] I'm a little bit excited that there's a new plan in place hopefully or there's

[51:27] going to be some strategy around putting one together. Love to be part of that

[51:31] plan. Um because that's sort of what I do. I love putting strategy together and

[51:36] seeing it come to life. Um, and then I've just just a personal note, just

[51:41] watching the library when I first walked in a couple years ago and had been

[51:45] rebuilt, I felt I walked into a cathedral, I was like, "This is

[51:48] amazing." And I was so proud of what the community had done and just some of the

[51:53] programs and services now just blow me away. So, um, I'd love to be more of a

[51:58] part of that and bring it to life. And as a side note, I'm retiring in nine

[52:02] days, but who's counting? After 40 years, and I'm looking forward to

[52:07] spending time and investing in my more in my community. Thank you,

[52:12] » Andrea. Thank you very much for that introduction. I'll go to council members

[52:15] with questions. Jane, >> um I uh welcome. Thank you so much for

[52:22] your interest in this position. Um I just do do you understand that there is

[52:28] another candidate and um he's not here tonight because we had already

[52:34] interviewed him before he took his position.

[52:37] » So um uh just I wasn't sure if you understood that. I I learned that when I

[52:42] got the packet and I saw that he was coming back and I understand how

[52:46] important people who have been in that role are and have that continuity. But

[52:51] I'd love to bring a different perspective and different ideas and

[52:55] » but I do understand it because I've served on boards myself and know that

[53:00] » that's important. So, >> so, um, whatever decision gets made

[53:05] tonight, um, I I'm really impressed with a lot of the things that you mentioned,

[53:11] such as connecting the community to the library and that you have this

[53:16] background in communication and um, community engagement, marketing, etc.

[53:22] And, um, I wondered if you were familiar with other opportunities at the library.

[53:29] They have an extremely active uh foundation board which actually sounds

[53:36] like a very wonderful match >> um as a possibility if you would be open

[53:44] to that. Um, I served for a year or so as the representative to the library

[53:50] board from our city council and the um, foundation board representatives attend

[53:56] every board meeting, are very involved in everything the board does, but they

[54:01] actually are the arm that connects the community to the library, much more so

[54:07] than the board does. And so, um, I I'm just putting that out there in case

[54:14] you're, um, at all interested in that that I think would be a great

[54:18] opportunity for you. But otherwise, I think you're, um, very prepared for, uh,

[54:24] joining the library at any on any position there.

[54:27] » Thank you. Well, you know, I've never been a really a title person. I'm more

[54:31] about the work and the job. So, if the job is somewhere else, that's fine. I'm

[54:36] open to that for sure. Okay, great. I'm glad you're open to it.

[54:40] Thanks. >> But Jenny, are you saying there's a

[54:42] position on the foundation available right now? Okay. Thanks,

[54:45] » Kevin. >> And I'm happy to connect you if

[54:48] » Thank you. >> if you needed that.

[54:50] » Um, thanks for your interest and congratulations on your impending

[54:54] retirement. The water is fine. You will enjoy it. I promise. Um, just maybe

[55:01] quickly if you could share some of your lessons learned from your board service

[55:04] um with the American uh Cancer Society, I think it was. Yeah. Um, yeah, sure. I

[55:10] worked for the American Cancer Society for a few years and when as an employee

[55:16] and then when I moved to New York um to take a new position um I wanted to stay

[55:21] engaged so I joined the board and um I did a lot of work through fundraising. I

[55:28] did a lot of work with um going to see um prospective donors and um creating

[55:35] stories and really understanding connecting them to our mission. Um I was

[55:40] also I'm a cancer survivor. So one of the things I did I did a lot of patient

[55:43] outreach. Um so that was really important to me and I just stayed really

[55:47] engaged throughout I did lobbying on the hill in in Washington and that was

[55:52] really amazing opportunity. And then when I moved back to California um nine

[55:57] years ago, um I was still really connected to my American Cancer Society

[56:03] team and they approached me and they said, "Would you like to be on the board

[56:07] here?" And I said, "Well, I love it." They said, "Well, how would you like to

[56:10] be the chair?" And I was like, "Okay, that's a little bit different." So, um

[56:14] but I did take that on and um I really enjoyed it. I loved we sort of built

[56:18] that board um for the Bay Area. Um so I uh was in part of my job was to go out

[56:25] and meet people and ask them to be part of that team. Um also develop programs

[56:30] and services for our board and and really I navigated

[56:35] you know I well I managed the board meetings and came up with the strategies

[56:40] and the um the overall agenda. But the best part was you know we were talking

[56:45] earlier about you know being open to ideas and that to me is like the best

[56:49] part. I mean, I always feel like the best idea can come from anywhere. It

[56:53] doesn't matter who you are. If you have an idea, I'm open to it and I think

[56:57] that's part of my creative job that I had. You know, the good idea comes from

[57:02] anywhere. So, I really appreciate that. >> Uh, thank you. And I I'm just very

[57:07] inspired by the work you're doing. I mean, all of these organizations that

[57:11] you're helping with um such important purposes. So, thank you for all that

[57:14] work. >> Peter,

[57:18] » hi. Thanks, Andrew. I don't really have a question. Um, I really loved your

[57:21] letter and I and I really applaud and thank you for your interest. Um, and I

[57:27] think your engagement and your community focus

[57:31] is is right up um, exactly what our representative to the board would um,

[57:36] require and I think um, you know, pending our deliberation, you'd be an

[57:40] asset to that library representing Beladier. So, I just thank you for your

[57:43] for your >> for your um, involvement.

[57:49] So, thank you very much for coming forward and um I really um

[57:55] feel um inspired by your enthusiasm. It really comes across and I just sit here

[58:01] like Council Member Jane Cooper sitting there going, "Wait a minute. She would

[58:05] be great here. She would be great there. So, we probably should all connect later

[58:09] because I think there's a lot of great opportunities for you out there." Um but

[58:14] the one question I did have for you above and beyond this role um is that

[58:20] have you attended any of the library board meetings? Have you had an

[58:23] opportunity to just spend time in the library um and that you know and I have

[58:28] to say part of the hard part is that because I work full-time so many of the

[58:33] programs are during the day. Yeah. And you know, my mom attended many of them.

[58:37] So I knew from her what she was doing in her Spanish and her, you know, how to

[58:42] redraw, you know, iPad, all those kind of things she was taking I thought was

[58:46] great. But I haven't really t been able to take advantage of too many things. I

[58:49] go every I I work in the library sometimes, do my I bring my computer and

[58:53] work out of the library. Um and then but I haven't really been at the board

[58:58] meeting. So >> Okay. Will you have the opportunity in

[59:00] nine days to be able to >> expand your time? But um it's always

[59:05] very difficult for us when there's so many great people that come forward to

[59:10] volunteer because this town runs on volunteer. I mean other than our staff,

[59:16] we're all volunteers for everything that happens here and there's so many great

[59:21] opportunities, multiple opportunities that could use

[59:25] your talent. So, um I just hope that um whatever the decision is tonight that

[59:32] there's many more opportunities that you would fit in so perfectly with um that I

[59:40] think that you know we we'll be taking up some of your retirement time and

[59:45] taking advantage of all your talent in one form or fashion as uh our future

[59:50] unfolds. >> I would love that. Thank you so much.

[59:52] » You're welcome. Thank you for applying. >> Thank you. Um, Andrew, I don't have any

[59:56] additional questions. You're obviously incredibly qualified for this role. So,

[1:00:00] we will be deliberating at the end of the council meeting. So, again, you're

[1:00:03] welcome to stay. You do not have to stay. Um, and we can

[1:00:07] » I don't know if I have a higher self-esteem for that.

[1:00:10] » Um, but thank you for for your application. As I say, you're incredibly

[1:00:15] qualified and talented and we look forward to connecting with you.

[1:00:18] » Thank you so much. >> Thank you.

[1:00:19] » Thank you. >> Um, okay, let's open this for public

[1:00:22] comment. Is there any public comment in the room?

[1:00:26] Not seeing any. >> I see no hands.

[1:00:28] » Okay, perfect. In that case, we will close item 3D um and move on to the

[1:00:33] consent calendar, which is item four. The consent calendar consists of items

[1:00:37] that the city council considers to be routine or council has discussed

[1:00:40] previously and do not require further discussion. Unless any item is

[1:00:45] specifically removed by any member of the city council, the consent calendar

[1:00:48] will be adopted by one motion. Council will take public comment on all items on

[1:00:53] the consent calendar when the calendar is called. Can I first ask council

[1:00:58] members whether anybody wishes to remove any of the items from the consent

[1:01:01] calendar? Seeing none, um I will open the consent

[1:01:06] calendar 4 A to 4 C up to public comment. Is there any inbody in the

[1:01:10] room? Seeing none, is there anybody online?

[1:01:13] » I see none. >> Perfect. In that case, can I get a

[1:01:15] motion for the for approval of 4 A through 4C? I can make a motion to

[1:01:19] approve the consent calendar as um written 4 A through 4C.

[1:01:24] » Second. >> All in favor?

[1:01:25] » I. >> Motion passes. Okay. We're going to move

[1:01:28] on to the individual consent calendar. Um I guess I will read out the verbiage.

[1:01:33] Um, the individual consent calendar consists of items that the city council

[1:01:37] considers to be routine or council has discussed previously and do not require

[1:01:40] further discussion but are separately listed because a council member or

[1:01:44] members have a conflict of interest which require them to recuse themselves

[1:01:47] from participation in this decision. Um, I will identify myself as being one of

[1:01:52] the council members recused from item 5A as I live within 500 ft of the property

[1:01:58] through Belvadier Way. I likewise will recuse myself because I also live within

[1:02:03] 500 ft of the subject property >> and I will hand over to vice mayor.

[1:02:07] » Thank you.

[1:02:15] » I'll ask just so the public can hear too. Do we have a staff report?

[1:02:20] » No staff report. >> Okay. Um so I'll bring it back to the

[1:02:24] council. Do we have questions from the council?

[1:02:27] » I do have a question. I don't know if it needs to be pulled or if I could just

[1:02:31] ask ask a question. Um I know what's before us tonight is the

[1:02:40] vocal. Did do you want to say something? >> Do you want us to pull it or not? I mean

[1:02:44] essentially just pull it. >> Just pull it.

[1:02:47] » It doesn't matter as a practical matter. So please go ahead.

[1:02:50] » Okay. All right. So, um I know what's before us is the revocable license for

[1:02:55] three Belvadier Way and that last month um there was also a second revocable

[1:03:02] license for the lane portion. So, my question has to do with the lane

[1:03:10] portion. I asked the question before the meeting. I don't know if the answer

[1:03:17] was able to be researched and answered, but there were are existing several

[1:03:27] PVC drainage pipes that are coming out onto

[1:03:34] our property and into I guess the drainage that's along the

[1:03:40] lane. So the question is is were we able to ascertain if those are a public drain

[1:03:47] or if they're private improvements? >> A clarification from our council,

[1:03:52] please. Can we be discussing something that's not been agenderized?

[1:03:56] We're only the RL is for Belvadier Way, not the lane.

[1:04:01] » Right. But I believe the council member, vice mayor, I believe the council member

[1:04:04] is asking just a little bit more context and asking a factual question.

[1:04:07] » Okay. So, I think staff can go ahead and answer if they have that information.

[1:04:11] » I was able to reach out to um Tony Boyd and um currently we have no record of

[1:04:17] these pipes and they are not city-owned. So, my guess is with this building and I

[1:04:23] quickly look through our um the building permit submitt for comments from

[1:04:28] engineering. I assume a more robust drainage plan has

[1:04:33] to be submitted and approved. And I'm not sure I would guess that these might

[1:04:40] go away as part I I don't know. Okay. I don't know what

[1:04:43] » the drainage may come later. So it may prove that when they submit their

[1:04:48] building plan with their drainage included if they are doing any kind of

[1:04:55] tape extension across our property, they would then have to come back and get an

[1:04:59] RL for that portion. >> Yes, they would.

[1:05:02] » Okay. All right. That was my question. Any

[1:05:07] other questions? >> Well, I I had a lot of problems with

[1:05:12] this. Um, but um I've been reviewing it a little

[1:05:19] bit more and I guess I'll just ask some for clarification

[1:05:22] purposes. Um, there was some statement that public benefit would be because

[1:05:30] some of the road was being repaved to make it easier to drive on. And I think

[1:05:34] there were in the staff report and um something about easier maneuverability

[1:05:40] for the public when they drive on Belvadier Way. Um, but we actually have

[1:05:46] signs on Belvadier Way that say there is no turning on Belvadier Way at the top.

[1:05:53] So, I don't think um easier maneuverability is going to work as a as

[1:05:59] a public benefit, but I um recognize that

[1:06:04] the actual driveway as it is now is uh over city property and the property line

[1:06:14] is in from where the driveway would go. So, by um redoing that area, that would

[1:06:22] benefit the city property because it would take care of the roadway there for

[1:06:27] their entry into their home. Is that correct?

[1:06:33] » Yeah, that that's correct. >> Okay. And then also

[1:06:37] um all the planting that already exists going up Belvadier Way, that's also

[1:06:42] currently on city property. And so the RL would take care of them providing the

[1:06:49] maintenance for all those plants. >> Correct.

[1:06:52] » Okay. So I do then see that there's a benefit to the public based on those two

[1:06:58] things, not necessarily on what was written in the staff report. So um just

[1:07:03] to clarify that. And then um uh I also um

[1:07:13] uh had a little I have a concern um because I know that the RL was pulled

[1:07:19] for along the lane and I think in the um uh

[1:07:26] planning commission condition of approval there's a statement that says

[1:07:30] if any of the construction impacts the retention ion wall or that area of land

[1:07:37] that the owner will have to provide the repairs for everything there. But um it

[1:07:44] seemed when I read it, I mean I I don't have it in front of me. Sorry. Um, I it

[1:07:50] did it seemed like it went something like we'll talk about it, but I would

[1:07:54] what I would like to ask if there was a way that we could make that more

[1:07:59] definitive and make it more um that I would like the public works to actually

[1:08:05] go out and and look at the wall that's there, measure its angle

[1:08:12] because I have a hard time believing that a foundation for a huge pool which

[1:08:17] is going to be built 10 feet from that wall is not going to have any

[1:08:24] um construction vehicles that are going to

[1:08:28] impact that area. And since that is in the planning commission

[1:08:33] uh condition and unfortunately I was very disappointed. We usually have our

[1:08:38] our residents are usually really great neighbors of the lanes and they usually

[1:08:45] are very generous in wanting to work with the city and figure out a way to um

[1:08:51] improve what's next to them. So, it was disappointing to me that that didn't

[1:08:56] happen. And I just want to make sure that if there's any way we can

[1:09:00] strengthen that uh condition by um having the actual measurement of the

[1:09:07] angle of that retention wall so that we once any construction demolition begins

[1:09:14] we'd be able to show that it was related to that not simply time or weather. So

[1:09:23] it is that's my request. Uh, if I may, Vice Mayor, just briefly, uh, just to

[1:09:29] clarify, the procedural posture here, Council Member Cooper, uh, the planning

[1:09:32] commission resolution and the condition of approval that you mentioned is not

[1:09:35] currently before the city council. Um, I can certainly understand your concerns

[1:09:40] and I'm sure those concerns could also be shared with the planning commission.

[1:09:43] So, they may bear in mind in the future, but that has not been appealed to the

[1:09:46] council. What is before the council is the real license, but we will certainly

[1:09:50] pass it along. >> Okay. Thanks.

[1:09:51] » Thank you, council member.

[1:09:56] That's it. >> Thank you. Uh, so we'll now open it up

[1:09:59] to the public for any public comment. Anyone in the room that's on the phone?

[1:10:04] » I see none. >> Thank you. So, we'll bring it back to

[1:10:07] the council for deliberation and or decision. Any discussion?

[1:10:14] » Uh, do I hear a motion? >> Oh, yes. Hold on one second.

[1:10:20] » I'm listening. I can make a motion to approve the revocable license for

[1:10:25] existing private improvements in the public right of way for the property at

[1:10:29] three Belvadier Way. >> James faster with the trigger. Yeah. Do

[1:10:33] I hear a second? >> That's just second.

[1:10:38] » All those in favor? >> I I motion carries.

[1:10:42] » We can now invite our Sally and Mark back in uh Peter. Sally and Peter back

[1:10:48] into the room.

[1:11:09] Okay. All right. We are going to be moving on

[1:11:12] to item six, which is our um our public hearings. Item 6A, discussion and

[1:11:18] approval of a request for an extension of the tentative subdivision map for the

[1:11:22] Malad Point project located at 1 to 22 Malad Road. Um I think if we can ask the

[1:11:28] applicant and his team to come to the front, that would be helpful. Um and on

[1:11:32] the staff side, I'm going to identify everybody who I think we have available

[1:11:36] if that would be helpful to begin. Um we have um our city engineer is is

[1:11:43] available online, John Mo, is that correct? Yes, he is. Uh

[1:11:47] » Brian is here somewhere. >> Brian, our city building official is

[1:11:51] here. Rebecca obviously is here, our director of of planning. Um and we have

[1:11:56] our specialist attorney, Barbara Keltz, is present as well, along with our city

[1:12:00] attorney, Andrew Shen. Um, okay. I think we are going to do this a little bit

[1:12:04] differently, which is we're going to start with the um the staff report from

[1:12:09] Rebecca and then if that's okay with the um with the applicant, we'd like to go

[1:12:13] over to you to give an update on where you are with the project and then we

[1:12:18] will take it back to city council questions for um for both our

[1:12:24] representatives and also from the Mallet Point team as well. So, Rebecca, do you

[1:12:28] want to kick off with um this specific item?

[1:12:31] » Yes, I do. Thank you, mayor, and good evening, council members. Um, as you

[1:12:36] mentioned, the item before you tonight includes discussion of a request for an

[1:12:39] extension of a tenative subdivision map for the Malard Point project, which is

[1:12:44] located at 1 to22 Malard Road. On March 19th, 2024, planning commission approved

[1:12:51] demolition and design review for the demolition of 22 units and construction

[1:12:56] of 14 units located on Malard Road. On May 13, 2024, the city council approved

[1:13:03] the tenative subdivision map and revocable license for the project.

[1:13:08] Pursuant to this resolution, the tenative map was set to expire on May

[1:13:12] 13, 2026. On February 2nd, 2026, the planning

[1:13:18] commission considered the applicant's request for amendments to the planning

[1:13:21] commission and demolition resolutions. At that meeting, the planning commission

[1:13:26] made several changes. extensions of design review approvals. Um, additional

[1:13:31] time of 75 days for demolition, adjustments to lots 1 and 12 to remove

[1:13:37] one unit from the forplex on lot 12 and add one unit to the apartment building

[1:13:42] and clarification of the timing regarding construction of the apartment

[1:13:46] building so that it receives a certificate of occupancy or final

[1:13:50] inspection as applicable applicable prior to or at the same time as issuance

[1:13:56] of the certificate of occupancy or final inspection as applicable. able

[1:14:00] for any other dwelling unit on the project

[1:14:04] or in the project. Um in April of 2026, the applicant applied for a three-year

[1:14:09] extension for the tenative map um until May 13, 2029.

[1:14:16] The applicant's reasoning behind the extension includes need for additional

[1:14:21] uh requests while continuing to navigate the ongoing permitting, utility

[1:14:26] coordination, tenant noticing requirements, and sequencing issues

[1:14:30] associated with the project, including coordination relating to the existing

[1:14:34] PG& easements, demolition permitting, outside agency approvals, and final map

[1:14:40] processing. uh state and local law govern the

[1:14:44] subdivision of property dividing it into larger par larger parcels into smaller

[1:14:49] parcels and under that subdivision map act and the Belvadier municipal code a

[1:14:54] tenative map expires 24 months after its approval. Local law states that an

[1:15:00] applicant can seek an extension for up to three years. New or revised

[1:15:05] conditions cannot be attached to a request for an extension, but the city

[1:15:10] council may determine the length of the extension.

[1:15:13] So long as a request for an extension was made before the tenative map

[1:15:18] expired, the extension may be approved even after the automatic 60-day

[1:15:23] extension expires. Uh Belvadier Municipal Code section provides that

[1:15:28] planning commission considers extension of tenative maps. However, the

[1:15:32] subdivision map act provides that either the legislative body like the city

[1:15:36] council or an advisory agency like the planning commission may approve an

[1:15:41] extension. Here the applicant has requested that

[1:15:45] the council considered the extension. And since council approved the final

[1:15:50] resolution regarding the tenative map, staff believes it appropriate that the

[1:15:54] council consider this pending request for the extension.

[1:15:58] The project is an important part of the city's site inventory and the recently

[1:16:02] approved housing element. The applicant has submitted applications for

[1:16:06] demolition, infrastructure, and bulkhead replacement and is continuing to address

[1:16:11] all of the final map conditions. The applicant has submitted a request

[1:16:16] for a three-year extension of that tenative map. Based on the applicant's

[1:16:20] explanation for the three-year extension, staff can recommend a shorter

[1:16:25] two-year extension for the tenative map through May 13, 2028.

[1:16:30] Staff estimates that a two-year extension would be sufficient to

[1:16:33] complete the conditions required for the final map approval. Ultimately, the

[1:16:37] duration of this extension is at the council's discretion. And I'm here for a

[1:16:42] question should you have any. >> Thank you. Um Bruce, do you want to

[1:16:48] introduce your team? And um I believe you have a update on the status of the

[1:16:52] project. If you'd like to give that now

[1:17:02] the question is where do I find

[1:17:24] This is

[1:17:33] aologies.

[1:17:57] No worries. Oh, good.

[1:18:04] Good evening, mayor and city council members. I'm Bruce Dorfman with Malard

[1:18:08] Point. Uh joining me tonight are Jayli, our project manager, and Riley Herd, our

[1:18:14] council. Um I wanted to give a quick overview of why we are where we are

[1:18:19] relative to the extension request for our tenative map.

[1:18:28] So, um needless to say, there's been a lot of actions taken by the city council

[1:18:33] as well as the planning commission over the years. Um, but since uh 2024, we've

[1:18:38] been working diligently uh to process a number of items in order

[1:18:43] to get to a point where we could get the final map approved. Um,

[1:18:49] but basically uh relative to getting the final map approved, we put together this

[1:18:54] development sequencing milestones that not just reviews uh getting to the final

[1:18:59] map but also to some of the other elements of the project. Uh, but a key

[1:19:04] first step is to get the demo permit and walking you through this process. Once

[1:19:10] we've received the demo permit, then that starts a 60-day then we can provide

[1:19:14] a 60-day notice to our residents to vacate, which is statutory. Um, and

[1:19:20] after they vacate, then we can demolish the project. Demolishing the project is

[1:19:25] important relative to the final map. And I'll go to the lowest line which is it

[1:19:30] allows us then to abandon the utilities um which can't be done uh on a

[1:19:37] conditional basis. Uh we then record new utility easements and at that point in

[1:19:42] time we can record the final map or or get the final map approved. uh relative

[1:19:49] to the demo permit, it's also important relative to other aspects of the project

[1:19:53] as it allows for the bulkhead construction to commence. Um allows us

[1:19:58] to access sites that are currently inaccessible to do additional

[1:20:03] geotechnical exploration which lead to foundation design and ultimately to

[1:20:08] building permits allowing for the construction of the single family and

[1:20:13] multifamily homes. Um, and it also allows us to move forward with

[1:20:17] infrastructure.

[1:20:24] Went too quick. So, this is what we've been dealing with over the past two

[1:20:28] years. Uh, above the five permits are the various agencies and departments

[1:20:34] we've been working with in order to get the various uh permits approved. Um,

[1:20:39] there it's probably close to a couple dozen uh that we've been involved with

[1:20:43] in total. And then down below are is our team that responds to the various or is

[1:20:49] developing the design as well as responding to the various questions uh

[1:20:53] that have come up. What I want to mention is that this um is just for

[1:21:00] permitting and it excludes all the thirdparty attorneys. Uh excludes our

[1:21:05] marketing and our finance teams and also um should be noted that several of these

[1:21:11] agencies are federal agencies and were impacted by the government shutdown at

[1:21:15] the end of last year. So that slowed us down.

[1:21:21] So, the status of the current reviews, we have gone through multiple uh

[1:21:25] iterations of these and I think that staff would agree. We're um on the

[1:21:30] fourth revision of the bulkhead permit. We're on our fourth revision of the

[1:21:35] infrastructure permit. Uh we're on our fourth re revision of the final map.

[1:21:41] We're on our fifth and um revision of both the affordable housing agreement

[1:21:46] and the regulatory agreement and the third revision of the SIA

[1:21:52] and that's a lot. Um finally um relative to the sequencing of our construction

[1:21:59] activities once we get to um vertical uh we are starting with the apartment

[1:22:06] building which is lot one and then effectively building counterclockwise or

[1:22:11] sorry building clockwise uh on the site uh until we get to lot 12 which is the

[1:22:17] lot right across from uh city hall. So with that, that provides a quick

[1:22:24] overview and um here to answer any questions. I don't know if there's

[1:22:29] anything you want to add.

[1:22:33] » Good evening. Uh my name is Riley Herd. I'm a local land use attorney. I

[1:22:37] specialize in state housing laws and I was also part of the project team that

[1:22:42] got Malard Point uh approved. Uh, in the last five years, I've personally

[1:22:47] entitled over 3,000 housing units in Maring County. And I can guarantee you

[1:22:53] that no one wants delay less than a developer. I read some of the comments,

[1:23:00] you know, like let's get them going and all this. They are trying that. Um, that

[1:23:05] is our goal to get to get these things across the finish line. But it's very

[1:23:10] hard out there right now. What's being asked for tonight is not uncommon across

[1:23:15] the county and the state. Interest rates are holding back investment.

[1:23:21] Construction costs are particularly high and Marin has a very special problem of

[1:23:26] no local workforce because there is no local housing. So, it's this kind of um

[1:23:33] cycle that is making things take a little longer uh right now. But the only

[1:23:39] thing before you tonight is uh extending the tenative map. But I did understand

[1:23:43] why you wanted to hear about the project. I wanted to let you know that I

[1:23:46] wrote a letter to the city. It was dated May 12th, 2026. If you haven't read it,

[1:23:52] I suggest you get a copy, take a look. And what this letter is about is post

[1:23:58] entitlement permits. So the legislature, as you know, has been chipping away at

[1:24:05] local control. like it or not, that's what's happening. And you know, they got

[1:24:11] builder's remedy, they've got objective standards only, and they're moving into

[1:24:16] kind of what I call the final frontiers because um the permitting, the projects,

[1:24:21] they're getting approved. But what they were seeing is this phase that Malard

[1:24:25] Point is in right now was hanging them up. And remember, most of these are

[1:24:31] 4,000 unit developments in the Central Valley, and this is just a microcosm of

[1:24:36] it. But the improvement agreements, the building permits, demo permits, they

[1:24:41] were taking forever to get out of cities. So basically, they mirrored the

[1:24:46] permit streamlining act and said, "We're going to make these rules apply to those

[1:24:51] postit permits as well." So, what my letter does is kind of explains and you

[1:24:56] know, we're trying to work collaboratively and educate um as all

[1:25:00] these new laws come down, but it's basically explains that um all of these

[1:25:05] permits that are keeping us from moving forward on the map um should have been

[1:25:10] issued quite some time ago here in Belvadier and a number of dates have

[1:25:14] passed. We're still just kind again trying to work in partnership and and

[1:25:19] get those issued. But that's one of the reasons for the request before you

[1:25:23] tonight is we're waiting on these permits and we must get the demo permit.

[1:25:27] So, you know, as you heard, this site is the cornerstone of the housing element

[1:25:32] and there is something coming up called the midcycle review and it's where HD

[1:25:36] goes to the cities and says, "Okay, you're halfway through the planning

[1:25:39] cycle. How are you doing? What have you approved and what has gotten built?"

[1:25:44] because if we're not seeing good progress, you know, we may have to take

[1:25:48] another look at things. And um for Belvadier's um uh purposes, this project

[1:25:57] will will really be under the microscope for HD. So, we're hoping that we can um

[1:26:03] move forward as quickly as possible, but we need this extra time that Roarshock

[1:26:10] test that Bruce put on the screen. you know, the people that care about housing

[1:26:14] are ringing their hands and saying, "Why don't why aren't we getting more

[1:26:17] housing? Where is it?" Well, that diagram is is why besides the

[1:26:22] construction costs and interest rates, it just takes more time and it takes

[1:26:26] more money. So, you know, the only thing before you tonight is extending the

[1:26:31] tenative map. It's not rehashing the whole project and you know what what

[1:26:37] other things would we like to have changed or done differently, but we hope

[1:26:41] that that you can extend the map so that we can keep working with staff and and

[1:26:45] get something going. Um, and we're all here for any questions. Thank you.

[1:26:52] » Thank you very much for that. Okay, I'm going to open to council for comments,

[1:26:55] questions. Sorry. Start with you, Peter. >> Sure. Thank you. Uh

[1:27:02] we've received a lot of letters and uh I just wanted to a couple questions both

[1:27:06] to our staff and perhaps the applicant as well. Um

[1:27:16] relating to the de demolition per the bulkhead permanent infrastructure. Um

[1:27:23] among the existing um conditions of approval, there's there's there's two

[1:27:28] two that are are of of particular interest relating to those. One is the

[1:27:31] demolition permit as a requirement to um be issued along with the um demolition

[1:27:37] permit at the same time. Um I think it's condition 12 of the as you mentioned in

[1:27:43] the staff report. The second relates to the affordable housing agreement which

[1:27:46] requires among other things that the affordable units be built and completed

[1:27:50] prior to CO of um any other property in in the development. Can you just confirm

[1:27:56] that those conditions won't change with any potential extension? I assume it

[1:28:00] isn't, but I just wanted a clear confirmation.

[1:28:07] » All they're asking for is an extension of the ten of the tenative map. None of

[1:28:12] the conditions change. >> Okay.

[1:28:14] » Neither they can change. They would have to make a new application for a tenative

[1:28:18] map to change the conditions which they have not done.

[1:28:22] » And and on as as you mentioned that what's before us tonight is this simple

[1:28:27] extension >> exactly

[1:28:28] » to to this um tenative map. And can you likewise um confirm as the staff report

[1:28:36] identified is that any real consideration of of um what's before us

[1:28:41] is really just a length of a consideration. Um new terms and

[1:28:44] conditions really are off the table um short of

[1:28:49] um a significant change other than we're seeing tonight. We don't really have

[1:28:52] much discretion to change anything other than the length that they're asking for.

[1:28:56] » That's the only thing you have discretion. There have been a number of

[1:28:59] court cases that say that no new conditions can be attached to a to a

[1:29:03] tenative map extension. >> Thank you. Um I'm also um Rebecca, you

[1:29:08] mentioned the February uh 26 planning commission review of a number of um

[1:29:15] alterations to the program to to the to the to the

[1:29:19] entitlements. I know this is not before, but I'm just hypothetically or I'm just

[1:29:23] I'm just throwing out there um if and when that one and if there are new

[1:29:28] alterations um that come before the planning commissioner or ultimate city

[1:29:31] council, they follow the same um non-discretionary review associated with

[1:29:36] multi-unit housing and affordable housing law as well. Meaning it's it's

[1:29:40] it's any alteration to the existing permits would follow the same

[1:29:45] limitations that our original approvals were to begin with.

[1:29:50] » Correct.

[1:29:54] » Yes. Yes. >> Okay.

[1:29:56] » Yeah. >> And and and finally, uh perhaps um Bruce

[1:30:01] or Riley, you could comment on this. I know you talked about the uh 60-day

[1:30:06] notice. Um I wonder if you could confirm or or describe the tenant um

[1:30:11] notification and and um eviction process and timeline a little bit.

[1:30:17] » Sure. Um we've been providing regular updates to all of our residents as to

[1:30:22] the status of the project. Um in February we did provide a 180day notice

[1:30:28] that's required under um the affordable housing agreement. Um, and we're

[1:30:33] prepared to provide the 60-day notice, but uh, one of the requirements is that

[1:30:39] we have the demo permit in hand. So, as soon as we get the demo permit in hand,

[1:30:42] then we would issue the 60-day notices. And, um, you know, our objective would

[1:30:48] be to start demolition in August, uh, which would allow us to, uh, complete

[1:30:53] the bulkhead this um, uh, summer season. >> And you've got the same um, water

[1:30:59] moratorum. Is it June to October 31st? >> I think it's October 15th.

[1:31:04] » October 15th. >> October 15th. October 15th is the

[1:31:07] » same as ours or is yours April? Because ours was June, I thought.

[1:31:10] » Yeah, it's different waters. It's the same waters, but it's different

[1:31:14] conditions. >> But ours wasn't April. I guess different

[1:31:18] waters. The bay is is June >> because was it wasn't isn't ours isn't

[1:31:22] ours June. June 1st. >> Yeah, it's yours. It's October 15th

[1:31:26] through April. I believe it's the 15th or or early April is when there's no

[1:31:31] work in water. >> Got it.

[1:31:33] » Okay. Um, thank you. I appreciate that.

[1:31:42] » Okay. Uh, Kevin, I'll go to you next. >> Sure. Uh, thanks. Uh, so one of the

[1:31:49] questions was one that Peter asked, so I'll skip past that. Um, I guess another

[1:31:54] question for our attorney would be, and these are questions that have come up

[1:31:57] through the community. Um, so regardless of what we're considering tonight, uh,

[1:32:02] our job is to represent the community and provide a voice for them. So, I will

[1:32:06] do that. Uh, can the extension resolution include language to clarify

[1:32:10] that all existing conditions in resolution 202416 remain in full force?

[1:32:14] Do you think that's necessary or

[1:32:19] » um, it's certainly not necessary? Um

[1:32:23] but I mean yeah I I think they I think you could say that but the I mean that's

[1:32:30] they're they're asking for an extension of the tenative map and the conditions

[1:32:35] as they've already been approved. >> Got it.

[1:32:38] » Yeah. Um, and then maybe one last thing for our attorney is, uh, if we can't add

[1:32:45] an extension condition, which you've been very clear that legally we cannot,

[1:32:49] um, uh, do existing demolition, design review, final map building, etc., public

[1:32:55] improvement conditions, um, allow staff to coordinate or withhold permit

[1:33:00] issuance for, um, infrastructure, uh, bulkhead, etc. I mean can you make

[1:33:08] » the staff can only do the coordination basically that's allowed by the

[1:33:11] conditions. So for instance in the demolition permit requires that the

[1:33:15] bulkhead permit be um issued at the same time that the bulkhead construction go

[1:33:21] along with the demolition permit. There's not a condition that requires

[1:33:25] that the final map and the final map improvements be built um uh at the same

[1:33:32] time as the demolition. >> Got it. Okay. Thank you. Um then moving

[1:33:36] on to staff. A question for staff is uh and this is different than what the

[1:33:40] attorney had stated or implied I think is I think based on your report 30 of

[1:33:46] the 80 conditions are still outstanding. Is that correct?

[1:33:51] » Yeah. I have uh John Mo is a panelist. He's tracking those through a

[1:33:58] spreadsheet. So, um I John, can you answer this one?

[1:34:05] » Um sure, I can answer that. There are um in my count, there were about half of

[1:34:11] the um conditions still remaining for the for the demo permit, but um several

[1:34:17] of them are minor, very minor items. Um so um it's it's closer probably about

[1:34:22] 85% of the demo permit items have been answered or can very easily be answered.

[1:34:29] It's just a matter of a complete application. And so if you had to

[1:34:33] estimate so in terms of those last 15% are those um significant issues are they

[1:34:41] minor issues? Are they easy to answer? They're timely to answer.

[1:34:47] um they are integral to the improvement, some of which relate to the the

[1:34:51] bulkhead. Um some relate to noise mitigation. Um there's uh permitting

[1:34:57] issues. Um it's just a matter of whether or not they've got their uh paperwork in

[1:35:02] order. It's just a matter of if they've got it submitted.

[1:35:05] » Um and there's also geotechnical peer review that have they have to answer

[1:35:10] those questions relating to the bulkhead.

[1:35:13] » And so why don't we what's the mediest one? Is it the geotechnical um condition

[1:35:18] that's outstanding? I I also I thought I heard that there was something related

[1:35:21] to storm water drain. >> There there is uh timing of drain. There

[1:35:25] is a major um public storm drain that goes through the site. Um it's just the

[1:35:31] timing of when that storm drain is replaced. It must be in place remain in

[1:35:36] place until the new um storm drain that will route it around the new

[1:35:41] construction is installed. So in other words, we have to maintain drainage

[1:35:44] through the site during construction and and certainly through demo.

[1:35:50] » So if 85% of the conditions have already been met or nearly been met, I think is

[1:35:55] what you said. Correct. So the other 15% you would say are um things that can be

[1:36:01] easily addressed within the next 30 to 60 days or

[1:36:06] » I'm just trying to get a sense. It's there was an implication that it's

[1:36:10] basically the city's slow. um and everything's done and uh based on the

[1:36:15] status report that we've seen or what I understand there's still a number of

[1:36:19] issues. It's actually more than what you had suggested. So maybe the status

[1:36:22] report has been updated since the last time I saw it.

[1:36:24] » Um um to answer the amount of time is

[1:36:28] difficult to say if their plans are complete. Um you know we typically try

[1:36:31] to re uh complete our review within two weeks and the city in general is within

[1:36:36] 30 days right all departments. >> Okay. So again going my question though

[1:36:41] is of the remaining like what is your assessment in terms of how long should

[1:36:45] that take to you know if we're meeting our deadlines and doing things according

[1:36:49] to the process what type of time is required to get this to 100%.

[1:36:55] It depends on the completeness of the of the submitt honestly.

[1:36:58] » Yeah, it's difficult to say. >> And your experience and the completeness

[1:37:02] of these submitts has been what? >> Um generally they've been good. They've

[1:37:07] been responsive. U they made good progress. Um it's just hard to say what

[1:37:12] that last 15% might take. Um I I just don't have that before us to to be able

[1:37:18] to tell you that question. So if you're thinking that this 15% is

[1:37:24] it's sounding I again I just want to make sure I'm clear it's it's very

[1:37:28] manageable then then why is why would three years and certainly even two years

[1:37:33] be required or needed for this? I mean it sounds like this could get done in

[1:37:37] months not in years. >> Uh I think for the demo permit that's

[1:37:43] correct. There may be some other outstanding issues that the developer

[1:37:47] may be aware of that I'm I'm not aware of. Um I I don't know.

[1:37:53] » Okay. Yeah. And you were talking about the

[1:37:55] tenative map when I asked the questions. >> Uh 85% or you were talking about the

[1:38:00] demo. >> I was talking about demo, but both the

[1:38:02] the the tenative map, excuse me, the final map in particular is probably uh

[1:38:07] closer to 90% or above. Um they have there's a couple of easement issues on

[1:38:11] the final map. >> So they're very close. The improvement

[1:38:13] plans are very close as well. >> Got it. So I guess they made they've

[1:38:19] made good progress. >> Okay. Uh

[1:38:23] » demolition dependencies. >> Right. Right. Right right. Uh

[1:38:28] yeah, I think that's it for right now, but I'll have others.

[1:38:33] » Okay. >> Thank you.

[1:38:34] » Okay. Jane, do you want to go next? >> I'll try.

[1:38:39] » I'll try. Um,

[1:38:46] so let's see. Um, we we learned about how much is

[1:38:52] left. I I guess I'm just going to jump into how uh asking the um developer, how

[1:39:03] do you anticipate um demolishing

[1:39:08] in August, which would require you to

[1:39:14] um let the tenants or have them be evicted in June for 60 days. And then

[1:39:22] you need the demo permit. But are are you h are you assuming that the

[1:39:29] last 15% which has to do with the bulkheads noise and geotech from what

[1:39:35] we've been told that that can be um submitted, reviewed and responded to in

[1:39:46] two weeks or three weeks.

[1:39:50] effectively correct. Um everything that um uh John just referred to are things

[1:39:55] that we've that he has seen before or the staff has seen before. And frankly

[1:40:00] um the one new item in April we received a um uh uh a geotechnical review uh that

[1:40:11] was uh completed by staff. So that's relatively new uh that we're in the

[1:40:15] process of responding to. as it relates to the bulkhead specifically and to the

[1:40:20] demolition. Um we think that uh we'll have a response here this week.

[1:40:27] » Okay. And um I I agree with uh Council Member

[1:40:33] Burke that um

[1:40:36] it seems that you were saying that the city is causing you to be late on

[1:40:42] several different reasons throughout this report, but according to uh our

[1:40:47] engineer, he does his best to get back to you within two weeks. And I've been

[1:40:52] reading the post entitlement section on uh the California

[1:40:59] uh housing website and certainly they are talking about more like 30 and even

[1:41:05] 60 days would be considered adequate to get back to um after reviewing. So I I

[1:41:13] am also assuming that since you've submitted

[1:41:17] I don't know how many three or four reports four times and a few five times

[1:41:22] and one three three times um that I guess my question is or my assumption

[1:41:29] has to be that what you're sending into the city is not really responding to

[1:41:34] what they need and so it has to keep going back and forth. I don't know, but

[1:41:39] I don't really see how this is a city issue. Uh it sounds to me that it's uh

[1:41:44] the developers submissions that are causing any issue here. Um, and I think

[1:41:52] um, but if you're planning on demoing in the next two months and the final map is

[1:42:00] 90% complete,

[1:42:05] uh, again the question is why would you need three years for this um, tenative

[1:42:11] map extension? >> So let me go back. What I said was

[1:42:17] there's a lot of agencies that are involved with this permitting process

[1:42:21] and there's a lot of coordination that's required amongst those agencies. We do

[1:42:26] get new comments um coming from various agencies including the departments that

[1:42:31] we probably shouldn't be getting under the new permit streamlining act.

[1:42:35] Nevertheless, we are responding to those. Um, as it relates to the reason

[1:42:41] for the MAP extension, the map is independent of the demo permit. It's

[1:42:46] independent or it's uh incumbent upon the demo permit being issued. It's

[1:42:52] incumbent upon easements being removed. There's a process with various utilities

[1:42:57] to get those easements removed and replaced. And frankly, we don't control

[1:43:01] those utilities either. Stuff comes up all the time. We didn't see last year um

[1:43:09] going into the fourth quarter that the government was going to shut down and

[1:43:12] frankly agency review of various permits uh did delay our project. So

[1:43:18] consequently there are just things that are out there and we're not naive to say

[1:43:22] yes we control everything. So

[1:43:28] after you demo, let's say in August, you're saying that to actually

[1:43:35] complete the final map with all the agency requirements

[1:43:39] would take up to three years. could I mean

[1:43:43] » okay >> part of this is frankly one of the next

[1:43:46] steps is to get um PG& to vacate their existing easements and then to place new

[1:43:53] easements on the site and working with PG& right now is that the most

[1:43:57] streamlined uh organization >> yes we've heard that

[1:44:02] um okay so let's see what else do I have

[1:44:09] Um,

[1:44:13] » can I jump in with a question while you're reviewing the others just to

[1:44:16] because we're on this topic. >> Um, if for whatever reason you um

[1:44:22] you don't get the demo permit until September, October, and that runs you up

[1:44:28] against a wall in terms of uh the work that you can do on the bulkhead.

[1:44:32] » Um, that presumably therefore pushes work out into potentially beginning next

[1:44:37] April. >> Affirmative. So the question there is

[1:44:39] would you therefore delay the eviction notices as well or is your intention to

[1:44:44] issue the uh eviction notices as soon as you get the demo permit and I was

[1:44:49] wondering from a legal perspective also whether there's any constraints on that

[1:44:54] meaning does is can there be how long can the gap be between when they issue

[1:44:59] the eviction notice and when they start to demo if there's a legal constraint

[1:45:02] and I'd love to understand from Bruce what your intention is. Our intention is

[1:45:09] um to issue the eviction notices when we get the demo permit.

[1:45:15] » So even if you can't demo for another six months because of the bulkheads,

[1:45:18] » we haven't contemplated that scenario necessarily.

[1:45:20] » But in that scenario, is there a reason why you'd want to lose that income

[1:45:24] because you have other other conditions that you

[1:45:26] » just so that you can deal with um or you don't have to deal with it at some

[1:45:31] future time. >> Okay. So you can't really provide us

[1:45:34] with any clarity on that. You're just saying it will depend on the

[1:45:36] circumstances at the time. >> Affirmative.

[1:45:38] » Okay. Thank you. Sorry, Jane. Back to you.

[1:45:41] » Okay. Um I noticed on one of your slides that there was a mention of um when you

[1:45:50] drew that picture and it said demo um evict um bring that up.

[1:45:56] » Demo permit evict and then actual demo. And then after that it said additional

[1:46:03] geotech after demo. I just wondered what kind of geotech is that that would

[1:46:10] be different from the geotech that's required

[1:46:14] in the demo permit. >> See

[1:46:18] » it was all the little arrows, >> right? The chevron.

[1:46:21] » The chevron. >> Chevron. Thank you.

[1:46:26] » Here we are. >> Yeah, this one.

[1:46:27] » Yeah. So in row two it said additional geotech exploration

[1:46:33] » right. So we did uh the initial phase of geotech work was specifically for the

[1:46:38] bulkhead. Uh the bulkhead is not a structural element. It's primarily there

[1:46:43] to prevent erosion. Uh the geotechnical work that we're going to be doing on the

[1:46:48] go forward um is for the foundation design of the buildings themselves. And

[1:46:54] so that can be only we can only get a rig in there once we remove some of the

[1:46:59] homes uh that are on the property. >> Okay. So it's for foundation work.

[1:47:06] » Foundation work for the homes that are along the lagoon. That is correct.

[1:47:13] » Okay. Thank you. >> Sure.

[1:47:16] Um, so, um,

[1:47:21] Andrew, everybody else is busy.

[1:47:26] » That's okay. I didn't want to start um interfering with your conversation.

[1:47:32] Um, I unfortunately have tried to memorize all these things, but um, I

[1:47:39] haven't quite mastered it entirely, and I realize I left my important piece of

[1:47:44] paper at home. So, I need your help. And that is um listed on the um demo permit.

[1:47:54] I think it's number 17 was Geotech

[1:47:59] um as I recall. And so what what were the um listed were there any listed

[1:48:07] components of what that geotech was covering? It says that the uh engineer

[1:48:14] shall provide a letter stating that the pro proposed structural construction of

[1:48:18] the structures and uh storm water drainage is in

[1:48:23] compliance with the geotech report. probably I would think this refers to

[1:48:29] the bulkhead which is you know associated with the demo permit and

[1:48:34] » and you're talking about wait you said structures and wait

[1:48:37] » it and proposed site storm water drainage

[1:48:41] » before that one sorry >> um

[1:48:45] the geotechnical do you want me to read you the condition again

[1:48:48] » uh the geotechnical engineer shall provide a letter stating that the

[1:48:52] proposed structural construction of the structures

[1:48:57] which are somewhat unspecified >> and the proposed drainage is in

[1:49:01] compliance. >> So we have no way I mean how would

[1:49:06] anyone make the determination that the use of the word structures only refers

[1:49:12] to the bulkhead and not to buildings since buildings are structures

[1:49:18] that are going to be there. And so my question is if they're not

[1:49:24] doing geotech for the buildings during the demo

[1:49:30] permit, which is what's listed there in the condition, um I guess I have a

[1:49:35] concern that we're not doing this properly or that it should be done that

[1:49:42] the foundation and structures that are going to go on the property that's

[1:49:48] quite a bit of water borders this property not it's not landlocked and so

[1:49:54] there are a lot of differences potentially in weight and size of

[1:49:59] structure etc and how it's going to work and all that is geotech and I question

[1:50:06] why why you think it's only bulkhead >> well the I mean they have submitted I

[1:50:15] you know probably John Mosha it would might be better to Sure.

[1:50:19] » Describe, but they have des they did submit a geotechn sorry a geotech report

[1:50:26] for the original approval which had fairly um which had a lot of borings. Uh

[1:50:32] talked about the bay mud and the kind of treatment they would need to do um in

[1:50:36] order to safely brought up in the peer review also and that they need to still

[1:50:41] respond to. So all that was all that was done I these are the uh detailed

[1:50:48] foundation designs for each structure >> right

[1:50:51] » and for that they probably need a vacant site

[1:50:54] » because their ability to >> we don't know that

[1:50:57] » yeah this is where this is where John Mo should Yeah exactly

[1:51:02] » should >> he might have an idea to

[1:51:06] » Sure sure be happy to chime in um it would be for both the bulkhead and the

[1:51:10] structure it's the foundation for the residences themselves.

[1:51:13] » That's what I would assume. Thank you. Um,

[1:51:15] » so that is required in the demo permit >> noted in number 17.

[1:51:20] » Well, no, no. Um, that was No, no, that was they were noting that they needed

[1:51:25] access for additional geotechnical work to assess the uh

[1:51:30] » geotechnical uh conditions for the residential the homes, the structures of

[1:51:36] the homes, their foundations, but they needed access to get to those locations

[1:51:40] on site.

[1:51:44] So, you're saying they need to demo to be able to determine the ground

[1:51:51] underneath. Is that it? >> Yeah, I believe that's what Bruce just

[1:51:54] explained. >> Oh, okay.

[1:51:55] » That I I >> Okay,

[1:51:57] » that's what I understood him to say. >> Okay.

[1:52:02] And you agree with that? that they need to be.

[1:52:04] » That sounds correct in that uh those that location is unique uh relative to

[1:52:10] the water and they I don't believe they do have access to that location.

[1:52:16] » You don't believe they have access to their own rental property?

[1:52:20] » Well, for a drill rig to drill into this >> Oh, a drill rig. Yeah. Okay.

[1:52:23] » Correct. >> Okay. I don't know what a drill rig is.

[1:52:27] Okay. Thank you. Thanks. >> Okay.

[1:52:31] Can I are you I'm sorry. I just wanted to jump in with one one related

[1:52:36] question. Um >> Barbara on the on the post entitlement

[1:52:40] uh permit provisions and laws that Riley mentioned and we've been talking about a

[1:52:45] little bit. Uh are those applicable to all permits or

[1:52:51] only permits that were in place that are subsequently in place? because it you

[1:52:55] know these these entitlements were made of 24. Are subsequent um post-p permit

[1:53:01] um streamlining provisions applicable to a May 24 entitlement?

[1:53:07] » Um by post entitlement permits they're meaning all the permits that they

[1:53:12] required after after you. >> So it is applicable to the current

[1:53:17] » based on those application dates. >> Yes. the building permits the this uh

[1:53:21] the statute went into effect I think either certainly in 2025 and perhaps in

[1:53:28] 2024. >> So those are pegged to those particular

[1:53:31] post entitlement permits not the entitlement itself.

[1:53:36] » Correct. Correct. They're they're it's the demolition permit. Um the final map

[1:53:42] has separate uh separate timelines. Um the building permits.

[1:53:48] » Wonderful. Thank you. >> Yeah.

[1:53:50] » Let's move down to you, Pat. If you've got questions,

[1:53:53] » I didn't save the best for last. >> No, no, not yet.

[1:53:56] » Oh, not yet. Um so

[1:54:01] um since we're talking about extending

[1:54:06] based on the um final map requirements, um

[1:54:14] we're also waiting for certain conditions of approval for that to go

[1:54:18] forward, but it sounds like we're close. although I don't know what things are

[1:54:23] outstanding so it's hard to judge um how much time might be necessary for them.

[1:54:30] Um

[1:54:34] so uh do you does are you still there John?

[1:54:43] » John yes I am. Okay. Sorry. Um, uh, do you feel like I was trying to review

[1:54:49] some of the information on the website and I saw that a sense technical

[1:54:57] report review had been submitted in 22 and 23 and then resubmitted and then

[1:55:05] revised? Or do you feel that um from what you're saying with the 90% that

[1:55:12] most of these submissions and reviews are have been completed?

[1:55:19] » I couldn't tell if there was a a final version that was totally complete or

[1:55:24] not. >> Well, um yeah, their final map final map

[1:55:27] is well along uh um in the review process. Almost all items are complete.

[1:55:35] One of the big items is the uh P Gen easement as uh Bruce has noted.

[1:55:40] » Um and um >> the other element of that is the

[1:55:46] improvement plans. So it's it's a package of both final map and

[1:55:49] improvement plans along with the subdivision improvement agreement goes

[1:55:52] to council for approval and all of those elements. So it's not just the final

[1:55:57] map, but they're integrated or it's it involves both uh final map and

[1:56:01] improvement plans. So um so it's >> and then are there sorry sorry

[1:56:07] » so it's not just one you know it's not just one element even though the final

[1:56:11] map is well along uh the review process um

[1:56:15] » it's uh there are there are more items that need to be completed. So

[1:56:19] » okay and then are there I understand that you're an authority on this are

[1:56:25] there um separate subdivision map act uh requirements as well? Um they've all of

[1:56:33] this governed by the subdivision map act. The final map is and they've met

[1:56:37] all of those requirements and one of the requirements is to identify the needed

[1:56:43] easements and uh that's one of the final steps.

[1:56:47] » Okay. Okay. Thanks. And um I did have a question based on I I think it was um

[1:56:55] council member Mark's question about the adjustments

[1:56:59] from the February 20 uh February 2nd, 2026

[1:57:04] planning commission meeting. There were some adjustments. I think it was lots 1

[1:57:09] and 12. Um, it it seemed to me that our

[1:57:14] municipal code Oh, and and I think if I recall correctly, that

[1:57:23] some of the footprints of those two buildings did change. Is that correct?

[1:57:28] Or was it just merely an exchange of a per of um

[1:57:34] of numbers of apartments? But I thought the footprint changed. I

[1:57:40] remember seeing something about more open space in between or something like

[1:57:45] that. >> The footprint of the apartment building

[1:57:47] did not change. There was one forplex and one triplex. The forplex became a

[1:57:52] triplex and I believe there's a little bit more space in between the two.

[1:57:56] » Okay. >> Those two structures.

[1:57:58] » And I was just wondering, I know it seems minor, but I would like to ask uh

[1:58:04] that our municipal code 18.24 24.060

[1:58:10] uh states that what was approved in the tenative map must not have changed, but

[1:58:16] you're just saying there was a change. And I wondered if that needed to be

[1:58:20] amended or if that needed any any review or discussion or

[1:58:29] and if that was part of the need to extend out is that

[1:58:35] » it was approved by the planning commission.

[1:58:37] » Correct. But the tenative map is approved by us.

[1:58:40] » Yeah, >> it's a good question.

[1:58:42] » Okay. >> So,

[1:58:46] » we'll dig into that one. Okay. You keep going.

[1:58:48] » Okay. Um, >> it's a clean

[1:58:53] answer. >> Okay. I think I think it's your turn,

[1:58:57] » Pat. No change.

[1:59:01] » All right. I'll try and be somewhat organized here with all my questions.

[1:59:05] Um, have they responded to the um third city response back to the applicant?

[1:59:12] Have we received their response yet? >> No.

[1:59:15] » Okay. Um

[1:59:24] the same question on the tenative map if it needed to be adjusted at this point.

[1:59:29] Um and then um just um well that's more of

[1:59:34] a comment than a question. Um

[1:59:46] So, I think that's what I have for staff. Um, the rest of my questions are

[1:59:52] for the applicant.

[1:59:59] So, um,

[2:00:04] Hi, how are you? Good. Uh, so you've made a comment and I just want to make

[2:00:08] sure I understood it. Um, it had to do around

[2:00:15] Sorry, please go ahead. I just want >> It's distracting. Um, it has to do

[2:00:19] around um P Gen. >> Yes.

[2:00:22] » And you said that something about a conditional basis for the utilities.

[2:00:28] Um that

[2:00:31] I guess in the demo and that you had to wait for the final map.

[2:00:35] » Yes. To clarify, uh a final map cannot be approved on a conditional basis. So,

[2:00:41] you can't look at at the easements and say we'll approve it with the easements

[2:00:46] as is, but um conditional conditional recording. Am I saying conditionally

[2:00:54] record it once the easements have been replaced?

[2:00:57] » Okay. And so, um, that brings up the question, um, regarding your, um,

[2:01:03] easement agreement with PG&

[2:01:08] » So, does that when when you ask them for an easement, does that require like an

[2:01:15] application with a permit number with P Gen or is it like a different

[2:01:19] » So, you actually have a permit number? >> We

[2:01:24] Yeah, come on up.

[2:01:27] Yeah, we've been communicating with PG through our joint trench consultant

[2:01:31] Jackaloney Design. Um, we have a project manager and have gone through their

[2:01:36] going through their process. >> And does the city have a

[2:01:39] » um the city? U final design from PG&

[2:01:46] forthcoming. >> Okay.

[2:01:48] » The permit number is very important. I've learned.

[2:01:52] » Yes. Yes. >> Dealing with PG. So that's a good thing.

[2:01:56] Um, so the other question has to go back to

[2:02:01] your your little display and it was um where you had the uh clockwise.

[2:02:08] » Yes. >> On the sequencing and you're starting

[2:02:11] with the apartment building, then you're going to those condos in lot number

[2:02:15] three, two and three. Um and and you show the sequence as it goes around and

[2:02:21] all the way back to lot number 12. So, the question is, is that the single

[2:02:28] family homes? >> Mhm.

[2:02:31] » Um, you're going to be selling the lots. I mean, you've been very honest about

[2:02:35] that from day one. >> Oh, okay.

[2:02:39] » Okay. Right. Am I correct? >> Well, we're selling homes.

[2:02:43] » So, you're going to be building the homes.

[2:02:45] » That is our current thinking. That is correct. So that's different from when

[2:02:48] you came before us in planning that you were going to sell the lots and let the

[2:02:52] people >> build their homes. It I think we may be

[2:02:56] getting a little bit into the semantics of it of when we close relative to

[2:03:00] construction, but our objective is to try and build this all in one fell

[2:03:04] swoop. >> Okay. Even if you don't sell the lots.

[2:03:09] » Well, I guess our current sense is that we're going to sell all the lots as

[2:03:15] well. Okay. All right. Um

[2:03:22] so, um another question was um well that has to do um with the demo that um

[2:03:32] why originally you didn't sequence it with just the demo and the um bulkhead

[2:03:39] but rather you also did the um infrastructure. So it was just a

[2:03:45] question why it took to this point to realize that you should have separated

[2:03:49] out that process >> because we weren't well

[2:03:54] I don't know John if you want to respond to that.

[2:03:58] Oh,

[2:04:02] » that that's up to the developers discretion to decide what their sequence

[2:04:07] might be

[2:04:11] » relative to the demo and the improvement plans. They were included together for

[2:04:15] » they worked together. Correct. >> And it was recently where uh staff

[2:04:19] requested that we separate it. >> Staff requested you separate it.

[2:04:24] » Affirmative. So, but you chose in what my question, sorry if I wasn't clear.

[2:04:30] You who told you to do the demo and the improvement together.

[2:04:35] » We've submitted the demo and improvement plans together,

[2:04:38] » right? >> And uh they've been processed together,

[2:04:43] albeit with separate permits have been filed for each and uh recently we have

[2:04:48] been requested and it's fine request to pull out the demo plans. So, we are

[2:04:54] doing so. Okay, Rebecca, can you confirm if that's correct?

[2:04:57] » Yeah, I don't remember that's how I remember being in a meeting with John

[2:05:00] and Brian and you guys asked if we could separate them out and Brian said yes,

[2:05:04] they could be separated. >> That was the suggestion in order to

[2:05:07] process the demo plans separately. >> But what's what's changed? I guess the

[2:05:13] question is what's changed to in your thinking that requires those two to

[2:05:17] separate? Is it the PG& issue or what is the reason to separate the two? uh just

[2:05:22] in order to get the demo permit prior to the improvement plan permit.

[2:05:30] » Okay.

[2:05:35] » Pat, do you have more questions? Um

[2:05:41] no, most of my questions um uh oh let well let me ask this question

[2:05:47] of John Mo. Thank you very much. So um it is my understanding that the both the

[2:05:53] geotech and the hydraology

[2:05:58] reports from the applicant and the peer review reports

[2:06:05] um have the have to the peer review um has to approve of what the geotech and

[2:06:15] the hydraology report finally is um that they both have to agree on what that is

[2:06:22] before anything is going to be approved for the geotech or the hydraology.

[2:06:30] » Is that correct? >> Yeah, that that's correct. There's a

[2:06:33] peer review for both the hydrarology and hydraulics and for the geotechnical

[2:06:37] review and they have some comments um regarding those reviews to you know

[2:06:44] better summarize the conditions of the site. Okay. Okay.

[2:06:51] All right. I think that's those are my questions. Everything else

[2:06:56] has been asked. Thank you. >> I'll follow

[2:07:02] » Bruce and company on the uh the the separation of the infrastructure from

[2:07:06] the from the demo permit. Um I I know that this doesn't necessarily mean a

[2:07:11] whole lot necessarily for the extension, but just from an understanding

[2:07:14] perspective, uh you seem to indicate and it makes perfect sense that that you

[2:07:19] need to have um um abandoned easements and then convert it to to final new

[2:07:24] easements for the various services with PG& let alone other service providers.

[2:07:28] » Correct. >> Um in order to fill out the the full

[2:07:32] requirements for the final map. That seems to be how you presented it, which

[2:07:37] seems to be a dependency, not just an option to split split the two apart,

[2:07:42] » right? >> So maybe it's semantics or splitting

[2:07:44] hairs, but I don't think, you know, you saying the city requested it, why would

[2:07:47] the city request it if in fact it's a dependency that just seems a little odd

[2:07:51] and squirly. Um well again um the these plans have gone

[2:08:00] through a process and it's just a mechanics sort of thing. But then to say

[2:08:04] that there isn't a demo permit on file or a demo plan on file. The city has

[2:08:11] already reviewed the demo plans. They're fine. We're going to separate them and

[2:08:15] then we'll resubmit those independently with some of the other elements or some

[2:08:20] of the other uh responses that have been asked for such as the Herzog uh peer

[2:08:26] review letter response to that as it relates to the bulkheads.

[2:08:31] » Okay. Can I follow follow up to the same just so Bruce doesn't have to keep

[2:08:35] jumping back up is so I think maybe just to put it out there I think one of the

[2:08:40] concerns from the community is that you demo and then it just sits there for

[2:08:44] ever >> uh it's just a big black hole um before

[2:08:48] you when and if you do the infrastructure and so I guess maybe I

[2:08:52] mean there's there's not a condition that we can apply to obviously extending

[2:08:56] the tenative map deadline but can you just talk about your thinking or how you

[2:09:01] you envision this happening. Um that gives the community some reassurance or

[2:09:08] some peace of mind to know how this is all going to play out.

[2:09:11] » Sure. Um our objective is to get it done as

[2:09:16] quickly as possible. As I previously stated, uh this is a 150 million to $200

[2:09:21] million project once it's fully built. and consequently between my partners,

[2:09:27] lenders and just you know general economics

[2:09:32] um this isn't going to sit follow provided we can get this going

[2:09:40] » so I had another question >> no

[2:09:46] » just somewhat related and again this is going beyond the scope necessarily of

[2:09:50] why we're here today but I'm just curious

[2:09:52] » because everybody's concerned about whether you actually develop this whole

[2:09:56] project. Can you give some background on where you are on the financing?

[2:09:59] » Meaning um is the bulkhead and demolition one separate part of the

[2:10:04] financing, the infrastructure the second and and where are you on that? Um and

[2:10:07] what contingencies and so forth are associated with that that you can share

[2:10:10] with us? >> Sure. Um no, actually uh we are working

[2:10:14] with a lender right now that uh is financing all of the infrastructure as

[2:10:19] well as all the vertical improvements. of a single source and um uh we hope to

[2:10:25] make an announcement about that in the next several weeks.

[2:10:30] » Okay, that's clear. Thank you. And then in terms of the demo, you've already got

[2:10:33] that funded and ready to go. >> The demo is also part of that package.

[2:10:37] » That's part of the package. Okay, thank you. That was one of my questions.

[2:10:41] » Okay. >> Okay. So, the next last question I think

[2:10:44] I have is you're going to be demoing. >> Okay. You're going to be demoing

[2:10:49] » affirmative. >> Yeah. Yeah. and get your permit. And

[2:10:52] what exactly are you going to be demoing? Are you gonna be taking out all

[2:10:55] the infrastructure, you know, the stuff in the road? Are you taking the road

[2:10:58] out? Are you just taking the vertical housing down or what? What what what

[2:11:01] what exactly are you demoing? What we're demoing is the residences so

[2:11:08] that we can get um as mentioned the boring rig to do the geotechnical and

[2:11:14] also get access to the bulkhead to replace the um uh or access to the

[2:11:20] lagoon so we can replace the bulkhead. >> Okay. So you're not going to rip up the

[2:11:26] road right now? Not to some degree we'd like to use the road and keep dust down

[2:11:32] um to the extent possible but eventually the roads being replaced the

[2:11:37] configuration of Malard road changes. >> So um so this you know all the fun stuff

[2:11:44] underneath the road is going to stay there till you get ready to demo the

[2:11:47] road >> effectively.

[2:11:49] » Effectively you'll cap off all the utilities cap it off and some may be

[2:11:54] abandoned in place. >> Yeah. Okay, then that brings me to a

[2:12:00] question on the demo that they have 75 days to demo, which if you're just doing

[2:12:05] the vertical, you're going to get that done way in advance. But do they then

[2:12:11] need to is is the demoing deconstructing of the road and

[2:12:17] the infrastructure under the road, is that considered part of demo? And you

[2:12:22] know, would they then need to ask for an extension because you have 75 days and

[2:12:27] maybe you need 90 days to get to the, you know, whatever 120 days or would

[2:12:33] that be part of the um improvement the infrastructure improvement permit

[2:12:41] thing.

[2:12:45] U Brian Vanson is on the call. >> I think he can answer that better than

[2:12:50] me.

[2:12:56] Hello everyone. How are we? How are we tonight?

[2:12:58] » Good. >> Fantastic. Um,

[2:13:02] » in terms of the the timing of the demolition, we would have to review some

[2:13:07] of the statutes. Um, it sounds like the application or the new application that

[2:13:13] will be submitted by the applicant um would be just for the vertical elements

[2:13:18] at that point. Um, and so whatever listed whatever is listed on the

[2:13:23] application as a scope of work would be what the permit would be valid for.

[2:13:28] » So they're going to be submitting for a new application for demo just for and so

[2:13:33] that it's not including everything like it did before. And he's they're going to

[2:13:36] do you he's going to they're going to submit a new demo application.

[2:13:42] Is that correct? >> According to the applicant, that is what

[2:13:46] I understand. Yes. >> Is that correct, Mr. Dorfman? We are

[2:13:49] submitting a separate demo application. >> Okay. Thank you. And does that

[2:13:53] » and I do want to clarify. So everything that's included in the demo application

[2:13:58] is what's going to be demoed in 75 days that uh we are allowed. So to the extent

[2:14:04] that it specifically shows foundations or roadway improvements being removed,

[2:14:09] then that's the scope of what we will be doing during that period of time.

[2:14:13] » Okay. All right. And then does the new application

[2:14:18] require another um application fee? >> Yes.

[2:14:23] » Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. >> Sure.

[2:14:29] » No, no, you ahead, Jane. Go ahead. Um I'm about the um new application.

[2:14:36] I'm not I'm not sure. I thought I heard you say you were submitting two new

[2:14:41] applications because this is one application. So would you be submitting

[2:14:45] a demo application and a infrastructure application?

[2:14:49] » Improvement application. >> I mean improvement application

[2:14:51] » effectively I mean we're in the process of new iterations of documents but

[2:14:56] effectively we're going to remove the demo um the demo pages from the uh

[2:15:03] current set of plans issue those and then issue the improvement plans.

[2:15:08] » Okay. And then do you anticipate that they will be identical applications to

[2:15:15] what is written there except they'll just be on two separate or will they

[2:15:19] change? >> No, they are effectively the same but

[2:15:23] updated uh responding to the last set of comments.

[2:15:28] » Okay.

[2:15:31] » But the conditions don't change. I guess that's what I'm asking. the conditions

[2:15:37] that the planning commission that nothing

[2:15:40] nothing along that would change. Okay. >> Okay. I don't have questions because so

[2:15:46] many have been asked, but I just wanted to ask staff before we go to public

[2:15:48] comment. Is there anything extra that you want to add uh from legal or from

[2:15:52] Rebecca that we've sort of skated over at all?

[2:15:57] » Not at this point. >> Okay. So, um I'm going to open it for um

[2:16:01] public comment. Um anybody's free to speak for 3 minutes. Um, please come

[2:16:07] when you come to the podium if you wouldn't mind identifying yourself and

[2:16:11] where you live. You don't have an obligation to do that, but if you're

[2:16:13] willing to do that, that certainly helps us. Um, we won't be addressing any

[2:16:18] questions that might get asked during public comment. Um, it will come back to

[2:16:22] the council afterwards and they may decide to uh to ask questions that have

[2:16:27] been brought up through public comment and that's at the discretion of the um

[2:16:30] of the city council. Again, I would just remind everybody that the item that is

[2:16:34] here tonight is a discussion of uh what level of extension we want to give to

[2:16:39] the tentative um map, but you are welcome to comment on malad point

[2:16:45] related uh uh comments, but this is what we're here tonight to deliberate on. So,

[2:16:50] I'll invite the first person up to >> um Thank you very much. My name is Susan

[2:16:56] Kluff and everybody always says go first, so I'm going to go first here. Uh

[2:16:59] Peninsula Road. I'll be brief. I'll try. I know many of you and I know how hard

[2:17:03] this job is. I you're volunteers and you're handling a lot of competing

[2:17:07] pressures and you're trying to write. So, I appreciate the time and I wanted

[2:17:10] to thank you right off the bat for that because this is a very complicated

[2:17:12] project. On paper and certainly in the noticing, tonight's item looked routine,

[2:17:18] just more time for the applicant to meet project conditions of approval. But I

[2:17:22] don't think it's routine because what we understand now is the applicant plans to

[2:17:26] try and decouple the parts of the project starting with the demolition

[2:17:30] while holding on to the entitlements through a patchwork of agreements and

[2:17:34] bonds and deferring the real hard work. Geotech and soil structural design,

[2:17:39] grading, cut and fill plans and a final survey maybe even until later. That's

[2:17:44] not just a few technical details. That's what determines feasibility, public

[2:17:49] safety, and community impacts. This large subdivision project was approved

[2:17:54] as one integrated hole. It should stay as one integrated hole. So if you grant

[2:18:01] an extension, please keep it tightly aligned with the other expirations that

[2:18:06] this map depends on. Push it out only to the March 2027 when the design review

[2:18:12] and demolition approvals run out and then if needed look at everything al

[2:18:17] together again. Second, I think it's important that you

[2:18:22] know really know where there's a where this project stands. There is no written

[2:18:28] status report. There is no written compliance. This is the same map. And I

[2:18:34] think that's really important. What permits are complete and ready for

[2:18:38] review of you review and approval. What's still pending? Which agencies

[2:18:43] have signed off? Have any of those expired? Have any of those got

[2:18:47] conditions that might affect this suggestion that came through and what

[2:18:51] remains outstanding, particularly storm water, drainage, bulkheads, floodplane

[2:18:57] compliance, and core site improvements. Right now, it's genuinely hard for

[2:19:02] residents and probably city council as well to understand where things stand.

[2:19:07] Third, please state clearly that any proposal to defer, phase, resequence key

[2:19:13] components of this project must return to the planning commission or city

[2:19:17] council for discretionary review in a noticed public hearing, a well-noticed

[2:19:23] public hearing. If project plans or timing or conditions change in a real

[2:19:27] way, which it kind of sounds like it was what's that's what's been talking about

[2:19:31] tonight, it should come back to be discussed and decided in public.

[2:19:37] Lastly, the applicant has already had two years to complete their

[2:19:40] applications. So, please ask them what the critical path is to the final map

[2:19:45] and improvement plans and what the applicant is committing to accomplish

[2:19:49] during the period they're asking for. If current tenants there are being

[2:19:53] displaced this summer, but there's no clear timeline or certainty the full

[2:19:57] project will be built as approved. That just feels wrong to me. Thank you.

[2:20:04] » Thank you, Susan. Would anybody else like to make public comment in the room?

[2:20:15] » Good evening. Uh David Kenneth Smith at 7 Leeward Road. I thank the city council

[2:20:20] and the city engineer for their careful review of the proposed Malard Point

[2:20:24] development plan. I speak tonight only as a Leeward road neighbor to Malard

[2:20:29] Point with considerable time spent reviewing the geotechnical aspects of

[2:20:34] the soil water interface as well as the sites winter storm water drainage.

[2:20:40] I currently hold a license from the state of California Department of

[2:20:43] Consumer Affairs as a registered professional geologist number 5689.

[2:20:49] Tonight we are deliberating about the timing and sequencing of the project. In

[2:20:54] this context, I applaud the city for taking the vital steps of contracting

[2:20:58] for expert independent third-party peer review of what continues to be the most

[2:21:03] delicate and technical aspects of the project. The performance of the geology

[2:21:08] beneath the Malard Point site as a foundation for the vertical

[2:21:14] infrastructure as well as the flow of peak winter storm water drainage from

[2:21:19] Belvadier Island to discharge in the Belvadier Lagoon. The contracted peer

[2:21:24] reviews are objective and provide a comprehensive evaluation of engineering

[2:21:30] reports supporting the project application. They also frame criteria

[2:21:35] for the project to go forward with full confidence. There are many technical

[2:21:39] issues here that are the the domain of engineers, geologists, and construction

[2:21:44] specialists. However, I will focus on one topic that

[2:21:48] is easy to understand and conceptualize particularly in the project of timing

[2:21:54] and sequence and that is storm water drainage.

[2:21:58] The lagoon functions as the downstream boundary condition for the entire mallet

[2:22:02] point drainage system. In the absence of an implemented drainage infrastructure

[2:22:07] plan, demolition of existing

[2:22:13] structures would alter site conditions in ways that could materially affect

[2:22:18] runoff behavior. Specifically, changes in the timing, volume, and peak flow of

[2:22:23] storm water could discharge directly into the lagoon in an unexpected ways

[2:22:30] without adequate engineering controls to moderate or attenuate flow. Demolition

[2:22:35] activities could also expose soils and disturb existing surfaces, increasing

[2:22:40] the likelihood of sediment transport. Temporary or disrupted drainage pathways

[2:22:45] may further alter hydraulic conveyance to the lagoon. In addition, fine

[2:22:50] sediments and residual materials from structural demolition could be mobilized

[2:22:54] during storm events, contributing to turbidity, localized sediment deposition

[2:22:58] near lagoon margins or outfalls, and potential impacts to adjacent bulkhead

[2:23:03] structures. Importantly, the peer review also

[2:23:08] highlights that system performance under a mandated 100-year maximum of storm

[2:23:13] event has not yet been adequately evaluated.

[2:23:17] If demolition proceeds immediately after the site is vacated in August 2026

[2:23:23] and by agency requirement, further construction work must be suspended

[2:23:27] before the next winter rains commence. Drainage analysis does not appear to

[2:23:31] provide defensible mitigation strategies for these conditions should demolition

[2:23:36] and construction phases not be sequenced properly. I urge the city and its

[2:23:40] engineering staff to proceed in a sequenced and deliberative manner to

[2:23:45] answer questions posed by their own third-party experts which raise issues

[2:23:50] essential to the success of the project. Thank you.

[2:23:54] » Thank you, David. Is there any other public comment in the room?

[2:24:01] Ken, come on up.

[2:24:09] Good evening, Ken Johnson. Um, uh, we've worked with the BLPA is I'm

[2:24:15] president of the BLPOA. We've worked with Bruce and Jay and, um, our

[2:24:19] subcommittee of the board of directors and I think we're gaining a lot of

[2:24:25] traction. Um, but I think that we're in a position here and I have no

[2:24:30] recommendation regarding the time for an extension. I think it should be given.

[2:24:36] Um the time is is really um you know in my opinion personally um um a little bit

[2:24:46] of a um side issue. Um I think it should be given but I think we have to look at

[2:24:52] the consequences of the demolition. Uh and perhaps this is in the city

[2:24:57] engineers bivwok but we've got two peer reviews uh one in February of this year,

[2:25:03] the other one in April of this year. Uh the BPA has um written its own

[2:25:09] evaluation in April of this year. Um and um here we are tonight. Um you know we

[2:25:17] don't have any documentation or response to those peer reviews. And what worries

[2:25:22] me from a practical standpoint, and it's not Bruce's fault that um the economic

[2:25:29] situation has changed so much, uh thank you Riley. Um the uh

[2:25:36] city nor um Bruce have been responsible the city nor Bruce have been responsible

[2:25:42] for the economic situation of our country. Um the issue we have here and

[2:25:48] my worry is simply um we go forward without accounting for the potential of

[2:25:55] uh having a demolition um and just empty dirt um without a

[2:26:02] mitigation um as to what would happen when the storm

[2:26:07] comes up this winter. Um, and we all know there's an October

[2:26:11] 15th date set by the state of California that the bulkhead must be completed. No,

[2:26:18] I'm sorry. They have until October 15th to do work on the bulkhead. There is no

[2:26:25] um, in my understanding of that permit requirement that they complete it. um we

[2:26:32] could end up with a situation if people are forced into it. We have demolition

[2:26:37] and we have no bulkhead. Um those are the worries that uh concern

[2:26:43] the BLPA. We're continuing to work with Bruce and his team. Um but somehow in

[2:26:50] this mixture of things uh it's just kind of human nature uh we need deadlines to

[2:26:57] uh get things done. But so far the deadlines in terms of responses are not

[2:27:03] complete. Um I'm sure they'll be done soon, but then what happens if those

[2:27:10] responses have an issue? What happens if the city um engineer finds them not

[2:27:17] completely 100%. Um so those are the concerns that we

[2:27:23] have and we asked for the city's help in helping resolve them. Thank you.

[2:27:29] Thank you, Ken. Is there anybody else? Jill coming up.

[2:27:39] » Uh Jill Barnett, 50 Peninsula Road. Okay. So, I agree with all the other

[2:27:45] comments from the residents and just to add to it, the Malard project was

[2:27:51] approved as one whole project. All approvals and expiration dates must

[2:27:57] align so that the project moves forward as one project just as it was approved.

[2:28:04] So if you grant an extension, because that's what I understand we were

[2:28:08] supposed to be discussing tonight, not demolition permits, etc. If you do grant

[2:28:14] an extension, make it a 9-month extension so that the project lines up

[2:28:19] with the other approvals, design review, and demolition expirations. Then you can

[2:28:24] look at everything together. I believe that that would be the most organized

[2:28:28] and clear direction to take. And speaking of being organized, uh you must

[2:28:34] I feel you must require a written status report of items that are pending in

[2:28:39] process where they are in the process. Have they started? Are they almost

[2:28:45] finished? I asked this same question the last time I spoke to the council. It was

[2:28:51] a request to have a swim lane diagram, which is common in construction

[2:28:56] projects. So, I think that should be uh made available.

[2:29:01] And the city's latest incompleteness letters and peerreview comments show

[2:29:06] that the developer is still far from providing a complete permit approval

[2:29:11] ready package, especially on the key technical items like geotechnical and

[2:29:17] drainage and storm water. So anyhow, that's my comments. Thanks.

[2:29:24] » Thank you. Any other comments in the room? Yes. Come on up, Andy.

[2:29:34] Andrew Barnett, 50 Peninsula Road. Um, I'm a surgeon and we frequently go into

[2:29:39] the operating room um, planning to remove or to change

[2:29:45] things. And we always go in with an A, B, and a C plan. What'll happen if the

[2:29:50] best happens? What we'll do if it's more difficult, and what we're going to do if

[2:29:55] it's a disaster. And I think that SP 330 is designed to

[2:30:02] make sure that there's no net loss. There's no reason that we can't expect

[2:30:10] rather than decoupling these two things, the demo and and the replacement that

[2:30:16] the developer provide an AB and C plan and how they're going to respond based

[2:30:21] on what the geotechnical studies show after the demolition is

[2:30:26] concerned. What are they going to do if it's B or C? Are they going to be

[2:30:32] equipped or able to do their construction? So, I think it's

[2:30:35] reasonable for to expect that they provide multiple scenarios and how

[2:30:40] they're going to satisfy the no net loss requirement of SP330

[2:30:47] to replace those things. And that includes financing as a major part of it

[2:30:52] because you can build almost anything if you can get the financing. And we don't

[2:30:57] know that this developer can. So I I request that the uh council consider

[2:31:05] requiring that the developer provide comprehensive solutions to the various

[2:31:13] potential responses to the geotechnical

[2:31:18] studies that were will be done after the demolition

[2:31:24] but prior to issuing the demolition permit.

[2:31:33] Thank you. Any other comments in the room?

[2:31:37] Okay, seeing none, we're going to go to public comment online. Beth, can you

[2:31:40] invite the p first person in? >> Yes, Mayor Wilkinson, we have uh Delhi

[2:31:45] Woodring.

[2:31:48] Deli, you should be able to speak.

[2:31:53] Hi everybody. Uh Deli Woodring. I live on Peninsula Road. Following up on what

[2:31:58] Andrew Barnett just said, um should financing for the whole project be

[2:32:05] approved, what guarantee do we have that funding will be available after

[2:32:11] demolition if there should be some geotechnical problem that involves

[2:32:17] completing the project. I think this is really a loophole that needs to be

[2:32:23] tightened before anything is even thought of being started. Thank you.

[2:32:32] » Apologies. We have Ruben Gelvin.

[2:32:38] » Ruben, welcome. >> Hi. Uh, good evening, mayor, council

[2:32:42] members, staff, members of the community. My name is Ruben Galvan. I'm

[2:32:46] a field representative of the North Coast State's Carpers Union Locosa 51

[2:32:53] » which covers Ring County. As we discuss development and growth in

[2:32:59] Velvir, we know housing is needed, but it's important the new projects don't

[2:33:04] just add units. We must also set standards to protect the workers who

[2:33:09] build them. That's why I'm here asking, will there be strong labor standards on

[2:33:14] this project?

[2:33:18] When I say labor standards, strong labor standards, I mean contractors that pay

[2:33:22] fair wages, that support working families, access to health care, so

[2:33:27] workers don't have to choose between going to work or taking their kids to

[2:33:30] the doctor. Giving real opportunities to apprentices

[2:33:35] from state accredited programs who want to the apprentices who want to learn a

[2:33:40] trade and build a career and meaningful labor compliance.

[2:33:45] real enforcement to make sure contractors follow labor laws, pay

[2:33:49] workers properly, and provide safe working conditions. These protections

[2:33:53] don't just help workers, they also help the community as a whole. When workers

[2:33:58] earn fair wages and get health care, they can better support their families

[2:34:03] and contribute to our local economy. Apprenticeships train the next

[2:34:07] generation of skilled workers who will keep our city growing strong for years

[2:34:12] to come. On the other hand, when labor standards

[2:34:15] are ignored, we leave the door wide open to irresponsible contractors.

[2:34:20] The kind who pay low wages and offer no benefits, mclassify workers to avoid

[2:34:27] paying those benefits, and even uh worst cases wage theft. These bad actors don't

[2:34:34] just hurt or workers, they hurt the community by lowering the quality of

[2:34:38] work and putting safety at risk. Velier deserves projects built by responsible

[2:34:43] developers and contractors who will treat our working families with respect

[2:34:48] and dignity. I urge the council to encourage strong labor standards on this

[2:34:52] project to make sure the development benefits everyone, not just the

[2:34:56] developer. Thank you for your time. >> Ruben, thank you for your comment. Beth,

[2:35:02] is there anybody else? >> Yes, we have Jim Hornthal. Evening Jim.

[2:35:09] Hi, can you hear me? Okay, >> we can hear you.

[2:35:12] » Perfect. Perfect. I'm going to be very brief. I think that, you know, this is

[2:35:15] by my count almost six years since this project began and rather than getting

[2:35:19] into issues of microeconomics or macroeconomics, I think the city needs a

[2:35:24] developer who's solvent. I think that working on financing six years into it,

[2:35:30] I don't know why the council wouldn't just require this financing being in

[2:35:34] place before any demolition's done. The risks seem too high. And I'm also very

[2:35:40] disturbed by the way the developer said tonight that the that the staff asked

[2:35:47] for the permits to be split when it's my understanding that quite the opposite.

[2:35:52] The staff was reluctantly willing to allow it because they thought they

[2:35:56] didn't have a choice and that it came from the developer. And a sense of

[2:36:00] honesty would be really nice and transparency I think is essential and

[2:36:06] six years into a project to not have the financing in place is not the city's

[2:36:09] problem. The laws in Sacramento do not guarantee developer profitability. We do

[2:36:14] need more housing. We do need more low-income housing. And how we get there

[2:36:17] is the question of if we get there. So, I'm troubled by that depositioning and

[2:36:22] disinformation statement that's fundamental to the trust that the city

[2:36:27] and the residents are looking to have with a developer who's got such a big

[2:36:31] responsibility to improve the area. That's all.

[2:36:36] » Thank you. >> Anybody else?

[2:36:39] » Mayor Wilkinson, there are no other hands raised.

[2:36:41] » Okay. We will bring this back to um the city council um essentially for

[2:36:46] deliberation, but I do have a few follow-up questions if that's okay from

[2:36:50] things that have been uh mentioned by through public comment and others might

[2:36:53] also have questions as well. I'm going to start.

[2:36:57] Um the first is obviously we've heard um concerns about um potentially some

[2:37:06] demolition happening the bulkheads being partially done before we we go into the

[2:37:12] the winter season and the and the issues associated with that. I wonder if our

[2:37:17] building official or John can comment about the sequencing of that and who

[2:37:21] makes those determinations to make sure that it is safe.

[2:37:29] Rebecca, is that a Brian question or is that a John question?

[2:37:33] » Well, let me read the condition of approval or just summarize it quickly um

[2:37:38] to refresh Brian's memory. Um and then I think he can comment on it. Um so it

[2:37:43] says the demolition permit shall be the demo permit application shall be

[2:37:47] accompanied by a permit application to replace the lagoon bulkheads along the

[2:37:52] entire length of each property adjacent to the lagoon. Bulkhead shall be

[2:37:55] replaced as soon as reasonably possible in conjunction with demolition of the

[2:38:00] existing buildings based on recommendations from the city building

[2:38:03] official and city engineer. So Brian, would you like to um comment

[2:38:08] on that condition in terms of the time frame and

[2:38:15] when that will happen? Uh yeah. So again, as as per the

[2:38:21] developer statement, um it's going to be far easier to install the bulkhead

[2:38:28] um once the structures are removed due to

[2:38:32] the length of the bulkhead that the uh that is intended to be replaced.

[2:38:37] Um in terms of the timing,

[2:38:42] we could have both permits issued. Um however it would be up to the the

[2:38:48] applicant or the developer at the time to install the bulkhead on in a timely

[2:38:53] manner. Um

[2:38:57] per per the conditions um

[2:39:02] we we could not limit issuing the permits. Um, however, we would be able

[2:39:07] to follow up with the developer um and make sure the installation of a bulkhead

[2:39:11] is is timely with um the demolition work.

[2:39:17] If that answers your question, mayor, >> I guess it's just there's no condition

[2:39:21] in which during the winter season we're going to leave a half removed, half

[2:39:24] built bulkhead.

[2:39:28] » Yeah. I mean, the building off Go ahead, Rebecca. Go ahead. I'm sorry. the

[2:39:32] building official and the city engineer will work on the sequencing of issuing

[2:39:38] the demolition permit and the bulkhead replacement only when it is permitted

[2:39:45] which is >> so are you

[2:39:48] » not between October and April. >> So you're saying you wouldn't issue a

[2:39:51] demo permit in in October or November because they can't do the bulkhead till

[2:39:56] April. >> I don't know.

[2:39:58] » I'm not saying that. That's something the engineer and the building official

[2:40:02] need to >> Okay. So the other thing is is that

[2:40:07] there's also a condition 23 that addresses I think the same subject about

[2:40:13] if the bulk if the demo is done and the bulkhead is not complete or isn't

[2:40:18] started that I think condition of approval number 23 addresses that. And

[2:40:24] so that brings the question of um having a robust site protection and

[2:40:32] mitigation uh for that in place in case it's not done.

[2:40:40] So, could Brian or John Mo address that item

[2:40:46] number uh condition of approval number 23 that would give

[2:40:53] » the sweat plan and the replan? Uh it's it's well no it's not it's a um

[2:41:00] » if it disturbs more than an acre number 23 it's not the storm it's

[2:41:06] » right the plan if it disturbs more than an acre then it's required to have

[2:41:09] staging and scheduling component um indicating when facilities must be

[2:41:14] installed and when they may removed a separate rain event action plan shall be

[2:41:18] required and prepared as part of the sweat plan the storm water pollution

[2:41:22] prevention plan >> yeah So that will be also be required as

[2:41:27] part of the demolition. And would that would that um

[2:41:32] » John Mo we have here um the expert um would would you put in place would that

[2:41:38] properly address any issue and who if it doesn't who's

[2:41:45] responsible in case there is a uh incident in the water that will bring in

[2:41:52] the um agencies >> right there's a it's a storm water

[2:41:56] pollution pre prevention plan and that's required ired before the uh

[2:42:00] » before the permit would be issued. So they'd have to have that in place and

[2:42:04] they would uh um submit that to the state water board which issues the

[2:42:09] permit for that that SWIP reviews that and there's

[2:42:14] um a process for the submitting of that. Um and they as along with that they have

[2:42:20] to monitor um the rainfall events and monitor uh storm water discharge on

[2:42:26] site. Um, >> and that that's included in condition of

[2:42:29] approval 23. >> That correct?

[2:42:32] » So, does that storm water um prevention plan carry all the way through while

[2:42:37] it's still a muddy lot before anything gets added in? Meaning, if if for some

[2:42:41] reason the developer decides to sit on an empty lot, does that plan still apply

[2:42:46] and they still have to follow those conditions?

[2:42:48] » That is correct. Yes. And it it and it can change. It can change as the site

[2:42:52] conditions change as they phase their work. um that plan is to be updated uh

[2:42:58] to meet the site conditions as they progress through the project.

[2:43:03] Okay, that's >> and are there protections there that um

[2:43:09] you know taking a worstc case scenario that you know things don't get build for

[2:43:15] three four years and you know then the developer needs to do a new kind of uh

[2:43:21] improvement because of the situation and they choose not to do it. What what are

[2:43:28] the resources the city has to make sure that whatever is required um will be

[2:43:33] done? >> I um are we talking about just the demo?

[2:43:38] Are we talking about improvement plans there? No, we're talking we're talking

[2:43:41] about um if we have a dirt lot >> or a partial dirt lot, you know, part of

[2:43:46] it gets built and then part of it not. Um you know, worst case scenario and

[2:43:51] we're left with a dirt pile and over the years the conditions change and this and

[2:43:57] that and you go to the developer and of course he wouldn't do that. Um but you

[2:44:02] go to the developer and you say, "Okay, now you need to do XYZ." And he goes,

[2:44:05] "I'm not paying XYZ. I'm not doing it." What what protections do the city does

[2:44:11] the city have to make sure that that is always protected?

[2:44:15] » Yeah, they they they have to stabilize the site um and um in whatever condition

[2:44:21] it's in. Um so whether it be for a month or two months, what whatever it is, 3

[2:44:26] months or more, that site's required to be stabilized. And so um no, um muddy

[2:44:32] water runs off the site. They have to have best management practices in place,

[2:44:36] that sort of thing. But beyond that uh you know fines for you know clean water

[2:44:42] from the you know uh monitoring by the state um that's the limit I think of the

[2:44:48] SWIP um there's no other teeth in that to say oh you must develop further

[2:44:52] regarding that particular condition and that that storm water pollution

[2:44:57] prevention plan >> and if the B bla is forced with

[2:45:02] additional costs for um cleanup the uh I yeah I believe there's

[2:45:08] » property owner is responsible. >> I I correct.

[2:45:11] » Thank you. >> Um I had one additional just a

[2:45:15] confirmation. So obviously there's been lots of requests around us somehow

[2:45:19] imposing some financing conditions or financing certainty and just to stress

[2:45:23] again and confirm with legal we have no ability to attach any additional

[2:45:27] conditions to the extension of this permit.

[2:45:32] Barbara Andrew, >> I apologize.

[2:45:36] » Do you need me to ask the question again?

[2:45:38] » Question. >> Sure. The question was um there's been

[2:45:41] requests for us to attach certainty around financing and financing

[2:45:45] conditions to confirm again. We have no legal authority to apply any any

[2:45:51] conditions to this extension. >> No.

[2:45:54] » And at no point in the future will we have any ability to attach new

[2:45:58] conditions to this project. >> That's correct. unless the applicant,

[2:46:03] you know, requests changes in the conditions already adopted.

[2:46:06] » Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. I will go to Peter next in terms

[2:46:10] of any follow-up questions you might have.

[2:46:12] » Uh I'm not sure where I come out on this from a from a from a correlating various

[2:46:17] uh ex um extensions and uh expiration dates of various entitlements. But

[2:46:24] Rebecca, do you know what the demo expiration date is as it was extended?

[2:46:30] and the and the design I don't think demo was extended. Design review was

[2:46:33] extended recently. Do you know what those were?

[2:46:35] » I do. The um design review will expire on March 19th, 2027

[2:46:43] unless the city has issued both a demo permit for all required demolition and a

[2:46:47] permit for all subdivision improvements >> and a demo.

[2:46:53] » Well, the demo the design review is contingent on the demo. If the city has

[2:46:57] issued the demo permit, all of these entitlements are contingent

[2:47:03] on us issuing the demo. >> But does demo expire itself?

[2:47:07] » I don't know if there's an expiration for the demoired

[2:47:14] appear to be an expiration date for the demo permit. Um the condition on the

[2:47:19] demo permit is that the demo has to be completed within 75 days after after

[2:47:25] it's issued. Yeah. >> Okay. Um and then the design review if

[2:47:30] the demo had been had not been issued by then it it expires on March of 2027.

[2:47:35] » Both the demo and effectively the final map because the public improvements go

[2:47:40] along with the final map. >> Got it.

[2:47:42] » Yeah. >> And uh and the final map was is the May

[2:47:45] of 26. I understand that. Um, and John, uh, there's been a lot of questions and

[2:47:50] and and I think the, uh, storm water pollution prevention plan you talk about

[2:47:54] goes a long way towards this, but it's my understanding and my experience

[2:47:59] that all the technical requirements,

[2:48:03] geotechnical, storm water, and so forth for the demolition plan are handled for

[2:48:07] the demolition permit. And likewise the infrastructure improvement requirements

[2:48:13] are handled in the in the review and and subsequent issuance of that permit and

[2:48:19] subsequent building permits. One of many perhaps the infrastructure um sorry the

[2:48:25] uh uh uh geotechnical storm water and any other structural requirements are

[2:48:29] resident in that review as well. only mention that because I want I'm I'm

[2:48:33] curious, you know, the the discussion about the

[2:48:37] whole project being being being being being being uh uh reviewed in its

[2:48:41] entirety. I don't know that that can really be the

[2:48:45] case because without this a a a segmented approach to some degree. Um, I

[2:48:52] mean certainly you could have a demolition permit that's complete and

[2:48:55] final and put it on a shelf and then do your infrastructure review and analysis

[2:48:59] assuming you can get access with your rig to to do those various various um um

[2:49:03] investigations and do the subsequent review and analysis associated with the

[2:49:07] building permits. But it would seem logical to do it in a stepped fashion.

[2:49:10] And I'm just want to confirm whether whether that's true or whether you think

[2:49:17] we have some some resident assertions that it should be held all together as

[2:49:21] one and the applicant is saying that they can't do that physically not only

[2:49:24] with the requirements of their easements but that's not not the practical way to

[2:49:27] do it. I just wanted your comments on that please. Yeah, I I don't think this

[2:49:31] is unusual in that uh many times people or developers rather come forward with u

[2:49:37] demo permits prior to um to improvement plans um and final maps being complete.

[2:49:44] Um a lot of times it's timing. They also want to um potentially get rough grading

[2:49:49] done. Um this is unique site next to the lagoon. Um but it it's not unusual for

[2:49:56] uh applicants to come in with rough grading and demo permits in this

[2:50:00] fashion. >> And do you have any uh with the the um

[2:50:06] the various um prevention plans which are state regulated and fines associated

[2:50:10] with lack of lack of upkeep and maintenance with those whether it's

[2:50:13] three months or three years. Uh do you have any concerns about our city's

[2:50:18] ability or your ability uh with your um uh support to to adequately review the

[2:50:27] geotechnical and um structure requirements of the subsequent

[2:50:31] infrastructure plans and building permit plans beyond the demolition?

[2:50:35] Uh yeah, we we've reviewed almost all of the improvement plans to date and we did

[2:50:40] get assistance for um the geotechnical peer review and the hydraology and

[2:50:45] hydraulic peer review for the drain uh for the drainage system. Um

[2:50:51] structural review is is separate as well. So, um um

[2:50:57] yes, we're we we feel like we have the resources that we are needed that are

[2:51:01] needed rather uh for the imp improvement plan review. If there if there's if

[2:51:06] we're not then, um you know, we would certainly u seek outside help for that.

[2:51:11] But but I think we do uh we've got that those u those consultants in place to

[2:51:17] provide that support. >> Thank you.

[2:51:24] Um so I have a question on um actually two. So

[2:51:31] they submitted a letter for the extension which allowed an automatic

[2:51:36] 60-day administratively approved extension which brings us to

[2:51:41] this evening. So when we give the extension whatever the amount of time is

[2:51:47] we give does it include that 60 days or is it

[2:51:53] from like today? >> It's from the uh it's from the date of

[2:51:59] expir that it would otherwise that it would have otherwise expired.

[2:52:05] » Okay. Yeah. >> And then I had a follow-up question

[2:52:07] because you made a comment and said that uh regarding that we can't put any new

[2:52:12] conditions on any of the conditions of approval for anything that all of that

[2:52:18] is set in stone right now. As long as the applicant doesn't ask for

[2:52:26] a revision. If the applicant asks for a revision on a condition, then the door

[2:52:33] would be open for us to add more conditions.

[2:52:36] » I think let's see. I did say that. Um >> yeah, you did say that.

[2:52:44] » Gotcha. >> I mean, I think you would need to um I

[2:52:50] think they would need to be related to what the applicant was requesting the

[2:52:54] additional conditions. So whatever the condition was, it would kind of have to

[2:52:58] be related to that. Yes. And not to something over here in left field.

[2:53:02] » Something over here or you suddenly say uh the building has to be moved or you

[2:53:06] know something like that that has no relationship.

[2:53:09] » But it does request. It does give a crack in the door.

[2:53:12] » It's a small crack in the door. Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. Those were my followup

[2:53:16] questions. Anybody else have follow-up questions?

[2:53:21] I was wondering um I know there was a question about the agency letters and if

[2:53:28] they had all been submitted if they were reviewed and if they were still valid

[2:53:34] given the number of years that uh they may have um been already submitted to

[2:53:41] the city. who who reviews those agency letters and determines whether they need

[2:53:48] to be resubmitted or redone. >> Brian and John review those letters.

[2:53:58] Um,

[2:54:02] I think my other questions, um,

[2:54:07] I mean, John, I guess I think I know how you're going to answer this, but, um, it

[2:54:14] is nerve-wracking to to, uh, one of the questions I asked Mr. Dorfman was even

[2:54:22] after demo and the requesting of the three years um more time that he agreed

[2:54:31] that it could take a while uh to get what is necessary for the final map um

[2:54:38] and things could sit there for a while empty. Um is it your belief that

[2:54:47] when um the geotech can be done the second parts of the geotech after the

[2:54:56] demolishing um is it your belief that

[2:55:02] these type of structures can actually be built in this location without so that I

[2:55:09] think the fear is from many people in the community. The demolish will occur

[2:55:16] and then they'll do the geoteex study to see if the land actually could support

[2:55:23] um what's being uh proposed there or what was in the application and do you

[2:55:29] have any um concerns along those lines or can

[2:55:34] anything be built anywhere? Uh, no, no. I think that's why we need

[2:55:40] the geotechnical evaluation to determine, you know, um, what that

[2:55:44] foundation >> Yeah. But they're demolishing first. So

[2:55:48] then if it turns out that, oh, oops, these things can't be built here, then

[2:55:54] what happens? >> Well, I think it's the the type of

[2:55:57] foundation that we're talking about. >> Okay.

[2:55:59] » Yeah. >> Okay. Thanks.

[2:56:05] » Okay. If all questions have been asked and answered, I'm going to see if a

[2:56:10] council member wants to uh open the discussion around the actual extension

[2:56:16] of the map. Kevin, would you like to go first?

[2:56:21] » Sure. Okay. So, there's two issues and the one that we're here to answer or

[2:56:25] address is the timing, which unfortunately I'm going to make you wait

[2:56:28] till the second half of my conversation. Um, for fear that you'll tune out on the

[2:56:33] first part. Um, no seriously is I think that um all of the context that we're

[2:56:38] talking about and the concerns that have been raised by um the community like

[2:56:42] Susan, David, Ken, Jill, Andy, Deli, um Jim, Jimh, uh the folks who had sent in

[2:56:50] letters uh are really valid. We had a meeting uh a week ago where um some of

[2:56:55] those individuals and other community members also voiced their concerns. And

[2:56:58] so while this may not be a popular opinion um among some people, I do feel

[2:57:03] like many of the concerns or a number of the concerns are things that we the city

[2:57:08] we the city council as a governing body can do a better job at communicating. I

[2:57:14] think that this the community has sort of raised the bar in terms of what they

[2:57:18] want to hear about this project, how informed they want to be about this

[2:57:21] project, the things that they are most concerned about this project. And I

[2:57:25] think we have to find a way of upping our game too um to rise and meet that

[2:57:30] standard. And I know that's going to require more work of staff and I

[2:57:34] apologize for that. I'm hoping the consultant can be further engaged to do

[2:57:37] that. I'm certainly willing to jump in and help wherever I can to do that as

[2:57:41] well. Um but some of the comments, especially the ones made by the public

[2:57:45] today, um during the open forum were things that could be better managed or

[2:57:51] better addressed with just more transparency and more detail and more um

[2:57:57] you know telegraphic communications as to where things stand, what's

[2:58:01] outstanding, to what degree are we near completion and so forth. So that's one

[2:58:04] part. Um so I think that's on us. Um, I do think that we have to continue to

[2:58:10] work with the developer to um move this project along quickly. Uh, because I

[2:58:16] think at this point in time now, it's really about getting it done. Um, that's

[2:58:20] the most important thing and get it getting it done uh even more importantly

[2:58:24] based on all of the conditions that we all agreed to. Um, and we've heard many

[2:58:29] times tonight we can't add any more conditions, but I think it's super

[2:58:32] important for us to ensure that every single one of those conditions is met to

[2:58:36] its fullest extent. Um, and I know that I have the city's commitment that they

[2:58:41] will do that. We will not issue any permits unless every single condition

[2:58:45] has been met to the fullest extent that it requires or it needs to be um, met.

[2:58:51] And nobody's nodding their head, but I'm sure you're nodding it inside your

[2:58:56] » you're envisioning what it would look like to nod your head, but go ahead. Um,

[2:59:00] so I think that's another thing that um we all need to just, you know, put in

[2:59:05] the public record that we're we're all agreeing that that's in true and and I I

[2:59:09] saw actually Bruce not his head um and he is agreeing that those conditions

[2:59:14] need to be met. Um and in the details is where the challenge will be. But again,

[2:59:18] I think that's uh on us to make sure that they're met to the standard that we

[2:59:22] agree to. Um I do think though that uh the

[2:59:29] you know some of the things that are most concerning um are are covered by

[2:59:33] many of the conditions the storm water drain the geotech um you know obviously

[2:59:37] the peer reviews I think there's you know condition 10 17 18 23 I mean

[2:59:42] there's there's a number of conditions again I think we just need to make sure

[2:59:44] that those are delivered on fully and completely. Um the sequencing is more

[2:59:50] troubling because I don't think there's really um much we can do about that. Um

[2:59:56] again we'd have to impose a condition to order a sequence that we prefer and we

[3:00:01] are being told by legal we can't we can't um require that um uh in the

[3:00:06] context of offering an extension to the tenative map resolution. Um that would

[3:00:11] be the only way of doing it. I mean, I'm I'm taking the developer, Bruce, at at

[3:00:16] his word that they want to get this done and get it done quickly. Um, I do know

[3:00:20] based on what we have in our conditions that the sequencing between the demo and

[3:00:24] the bulkhead are things that we can heavily influence. I mean, that permit

[3:00:28] requires that the uh building official and the engineer um provide a

[3:00:33] recommendation as to when that bulkhead will be um replaced. Um, and so that's

[3:00:38] part of the permit. At least that's the way I'm reading the condition is that

[3:00:41] you know so we have the ability to ensure that the demo and the bulkhead

[3:00:45] are um tied in a way that makes sense. Obviously you can't demo and then let it

[3:00:49] sit there throughout the winter um with nothing happening. So again more work

[3:00:55] for us to do on our part to ensure that all of this is delivered on. I mean in

[3:00:59] terms of the timing. So now to part two what we are here to answer tonight. um

[3:01:04] you know uh throughout my career I mean we often uh used a quote to bring focus

[3:01:09] to some of these things and it was nothing makes a person more productive

[3:01:13] than the phrase I needed tomorrow and so I very much agree that a shorter

[3:01:18] timeline is a better timeline I know it's uh not uh an exciting prospect to

[3:01:23] think about coming back to this meeting um uh in the near future but I think

[3:01:28] given the complexity given the community's interest um given all of the

[3:01:32] variables I that we should we we should take the time um even though it might

[3:01:36] require a little bit more more work on everyone's part. So I actually like the

[3:01:40] suggestion um March 19th to 27 um that we extend the tenative map uh until

[3:01:46] then. Um it does co-terminate with the design review which uh is interesting

[3:01:51] but again um I do think that in a shorter period of time I'd love to come

[3:01:56] back and it just keeps the pressure on. Um, and it sounded like from my

[3:02:01] questions earlier on that, you know, we were nearly there. A lot of the things

[3:02:05] are just about to come in. Um, you know, we're at 85%, the 15%, again, John, I'm

[3:02:10] using this all against you. I'm sorry. Um, but, uh, again, if it is true, if

[3:02:15] that is in fact where we are, then, um, that seems reasonable. Uh, and if it

[3:02:20] isn't, we'll know in a short order um, why it's not, and then we'll have to

[3:02:24] make um, additional decisions. So, there you have it.

[3:02:28] Um, okay. Who would like to go next?

[3:02:33] So, um I um thank Vice Mayor Burke for a very eloquent explanation

[3:02:42] on um our responsibility to our community and um I totally support and

[3:02:51] stand behind what he says um about how we need to improve and hopefully with

[3:02:59] this um project coordinator and an improved website that we will be

[3:03:04] having more transparent communication to everybody. Um, but I want the community

[3:03:09] to know not to feel bad because sometimes we don't know till the last

[3:03:13] minute either. So, um uh but to um address what we're here tonight for the

[3:03:23] final map, um I I also agree that um uh from what John Mo has said that we're

[3:03:34] so close on the final map and the improvement plans that um 3 years seems

[3:03:42] excessive. And um I think um if we had been able to

[3:03:49] see their response, we might have been able to better understand exactly where

[3:03:54] we're at. But the commission is pretty much in the same unknown space as the

[3:04:00] rest of the community. And so I sat here and after asking my

[3:04:07] question on does a 60-day improve, I was ready to give them till I believe it was

[3:04:13] the May 13, 2027 date, which would be a year, but um I am also fine with giving

[3:04:21] them to the March date. Um the tenative map always had a different date.

[3:04:27] Everything was approved at the same planning commission meeting, but the

[3:04:31] tenative map had to go to city council, and that's why it's got a two-month

[3:04:35] later date. So, I mean, I I am fine with either the May or the March date. Um, I

[3:04:44] would support either one of those dates um for an extension. And I just had one

[3:04:49] more comment that I don't know who wrote it, but condition 17 on the demo is very

[3:04:57] poorly worded. Um, I would never have said it would had to do with

[3:05:05] the bulkhead or anything else. I would have thought that it had to do with the

[3:05:10] structures of the building. So I would just say in the future um we

[3:05:15] whoever does those conditions needs to be more um watch as I have said many

[3:05:23] times words matter and using the correct words for specifically what you're

[3:05:28] addressing is going to be very important going forward. Thank you.

[3:05:34] Um, Peter, you want to go next? >> Uh, thank you. Uh, I agree, Kevin. I

[3:05:41] think I think you you you highlighted it very well and using your same rubric. um

[3:05:46] your first point I I agree we need to be do do better at communicating this and

[3:05:50] and I was a bit um frustrated I think with with the community that um our

[3:05:56] project manager consultant is not involved in the upfront which Jane

[3:06:00] talked about in the early part of the meeting and

[3:06:04] contract um scope notwithstanding we absolutely this definitively talked

[3:06:09] about adding some of the permit um conditions and summaries

[3:06:15] checklists, outstanding issues, key omissions to their responsibility to

[3:06:19] help us document those and outline those for the community both online and so

[3:06:23] forth. So, I would I would encourage us to uh

[3:06:27] strong encouragement. I'd really like to ask us to uh uh better utilize that

[3:06:31] resource because I don't know that we're um have the the the the bandwidth to do

[3:06:37] that. um as Kevin said, um that we need to step up that scope of work. Uh

[3:06:46] tying it to the um design review I'm okay with, but I think there's a

[3:06:51] there's a complexity there in that the design review March 20 of 2027 moves

[3:06:58] with the demolition permit. So, right, >> well, it's true. demo in. I think

[3:07:04] » it has to it has to have actually both public improvements which basically is

[3:07:10] the final map. >> Not necessarily. I mean I mean

[3:07:14] » well you could hold off on the final map for as long as you really want to.

[3:07:17] » Yes. It's in this case the the public improvements are running along with the

[3:07:23] final map and the subdivision improvement agreement and the developer

[3:07:26] has to post a bond. >> Okay. So you're you're okay with

[3:07:29] understanding that the applicant can come back and extend them all. You're

[3:07:32] you're okay with Lani with that um because because you presume that

[3:07:39] that wouldn't move unless the final map were were subsequently approved.

[3:07:43] » Yes. >> Okay, I understand. I'm okay with that.

[3:07:46] I think it's shorter than the applicant wants. Um but I I I understand your

[3:07:50] perspective relative to holding their feet to the fire. um and recognizing

[3:07:55] that um if nothing else, it's a good opportunity to to readress this as we go

[3:07:59] forward. >> Jane,

[3:08:02] » hey. Um thanks. Um I I think at after this process, I also

[3:08:09] agree that we have to pay uh close attention to what we're saying and

[3:08:17] making sure it's what we mean. And so I'm going to hold Kevin here and say uh

[3:08:24] I think it's a great idea to share as much information as possible with the

[3:08:29] whole community and with the council on where where everything is on this

[3:08:36] project, but I'd like to know how you propose that happening. So we don't just

[3:08:41] say we want it, but how how a spreadsheet that's online? uh what what

[3:08:47] how do we do this? >> So, Rebecca, can I sort of jump in there

[3:08:50] because I know you're developing these Excel spreadsheets. Do you want to talk

[3:08:53] a little bit more about that and how much you plan to share or can share with

[3:08:56] the community?

[3:09:00] » Sure. Yes, we have um we're almost complete on two spreadsheets. One for um

[3:09:06] that lists each condition of the demolition, one that um lists all the

[3:09:12] conditions of the tenative map. and we will make one for the design review and

[3:09:16] it's has the condition listed a column that says check done or pending and then

[3:09:23] notes. So um we are planning on getting making those public once they're

[3:09:28] complete. >> So what do you how long is that two

[3:09:32] weeks away? How long you think until >> No, by next week.

[3:09:35] » And you will update those whenever something changes and how will you let

[3:09:38] the community know? Will there be a date that sort of states when it was last

[3:09:41] updated so that >> because it's a constantly sort of living

[3:09:44] document and so we need to people need to know.

[3:09:46] » We can do that. We can do that. >> Okay.

[3:09:49] » So as things change they need to indicate what's changed so the community

[3:09:53] can can see that visually. >> I might suggest that we consider the

[3:09:57] Belvadier breeze. We put it in that. Well that's not frequent enough

[3:10:00] actually. You'd want to do it more often than that. The other thing and we should

[3:10:02] talk I mean it's the I think in those spreadsheets it would be very helpful if

[3:10:06] then there's a live link that you can get then click through to the section of

[3:10:09] the website that has the supporting material. So if you're talking about

[3:10:13] condition 31 and it's the storm water drain yada yada yada well then you can

[3:10:16] go and look at >> you know the sub whatever I mean it's

[3:10:20] most recent. >> Yeah. Yeah. It's it's it's easy to do

[3:10:22] and happy to help in that regard. But I think that kind of dashboarding approach

[3:10:26] would be very helpful at giving people a telegraphic view as to where things are

[3:10:31] and then if they choose to dig in deeper, they can then easily do that.

[3:10:34] » Sure. >> And can we put it at the top of the

[3:10:37] website? I know the website's going to get adjusted with the coordinator, but

[3:10:40] he's going to take some time. >> Probably won't be ready by next week to

[3:10:44] revise the website. So if you could put that at the top so it because it's

[3:10:51] organized differently. So and it's a new thing. So I think if it was at the top

[3:10:55] it would be really helpful. >> Sure.

[3:10:58] » Okay. Jane, do you want to continue in your comments

[3:11:00] » and then um thank you for that and I agree with the um March 19th, 2027. It's

[3:11:07] fine. >> Okay. Um I have absolutely nothing to

[3:11:11] add. I agree with what's been said so far. So would somebody like to make a

[3:11:14] motion? >> I can read a resolution. Um I'd propose

[3:11:18] a motion to approve the resolution of the city of Belvadier. City Council

[3:11:22] approving an extension of the tenative subdivision map for the Malard Point

[3:11:25] project at 1 through 22 Malard Point Road to March 19th, 2027.

[3:11:32] » Second. All in favor? >> I I motion passes. Okay. Thank you to

[3:11:37] everybody uh who's uh spoken. Thank you to the applicant. Um we'll take a five

[3:11:42] minute uh recess so that people can leave if they would like to. Um and

[3:11:48] we'll come back in five minutes. Thanks.

[3:11:53] » I know. Jesus.

[3:12:04] Which is discussion and approval of the city of Badir annual operating and

[3:12:07] capital budget for fiscal year 2627 and 5year capital plan. Helga, I believe you

[3:12:12] have a staff report.

[3:12:16] » Good evening, Mayor Wilson. Good evening, Mayor Wilkinson and

[3:12:21] council members. Since the proposed fiscal year 2627 budget was discussed in

[3:12:27] detail at May, we will only focus on the changes since then and actually there

[3:12:32] have been very few revisions. On the revenue side, based on the latest

[3:12:36] estimate from Maring County, secured property tax revenues

[3:12:41] are now projected to increase by 5.12% in fiscal year 2627.

[3:12:48] higher than the 4.06 growth assumed in the proposed budget. This results in an

[3:12:54] additional 73,277 in security secured property tax

[3:13:00] revenue, increasing the fiscal year 2627 estimate from 7.06

[3:13:08] million to 7.13 million with no changes to other property tax revenue

[3:13:13] projections. The projected buyer tax revenue has been

[3:13:17] increased by $14,416 based on updated state price and

[3:13:23] population data. The preliminary budget assumed a 3% increase while the revised

[3:13:29] estimate reflects an updated growth rate of 4.19%.

[3:13:35] As a result of the higher fire tax revenues, the amount required to be

[3:13:40] transferred from the general fund to support fire services will be reduced

[3:13:45] accordingly. The city receives donations to support

[3:13:49] the concerts in the park series, which help fund the program each summer.

[3:13:54] Donations supporting the concert in the park series are now anticipated to

[3:13:58] exceed 59,000 in fiscal year 2526 compared to the original estimate of

[3:14:04] 32,000. Based on this performance, the fiscical

[3:14:08] year 2627 budget increases anticipated concert in the park donation revenue

[3:14:14] from 32,000 to 50,000. In addition, a new revenue line item has been

[3:14:20] established for the Belvadier Film Festival to separately account for

[3:14:25] donation supporting that event. Based on fiscal year 2526 contributions, film

[3:14:32] festival donation revenue is projected at approximately 18,000 in fiscal year

[3:14:37] 2627. And that brings us to the expenditures.

[3:14:42] The wildlife mitigation funding included in the administration budget has

[3:14:46] increased from 7,000 to 13,000 in fiscal year 2627 to support continued coyote

[3:14:54] monitoring and the implementation of the contraceptionbased rat mitigation pilot

[3:14:59] program. In the police department budget, vehicle maintenance expenditures

[3:15:05] have been reduced by $30,124 from 41,263

[3:15:11] to 11,139 to correct a budget entry and better

[3:15:15] align the budget with actual expenditure levels. Under the non-dep departmental

[3:15:21] budget, concerts in the park expenditures have been increased by

[3:15:26] 18,000 from 42,000 to 60,000 to better reflect anticipated program costs. In

[3:15:32] addition, the Belvadier Film Festival expenditures have also been established

[3:15:37] as a separate budget item with an appropriation of 22,000 based on prior

[3:15:43] year spending. The majority of these costs are offset by donations received

[3:15:48] by the city to support these community events. As a result of these revenue and

[3:15:52] expenditure changes, an additional 120,000 has been allocated to the

[3:15:57] long-term capital pling planning fund in fiscal year 2627,

[3:16:03] increasing the transfer from 110 one, sorry, from 1.1 million to 1.22

[3:16:12] million. This additional funding raises the projected fund balance at the end of

[3:16:17] fiscal year 20 3031 to 2.42 million, an increase of 550,000

[3:16:24] over the 1.87 million balance originally projected, further strengthening the

[3:16:30] city's long-term capacity to fund future infrastructure needs.

[3:16:36] When everything is said and done, this budget will exceed the general fund

[3:16:39] reserve policy goal by 415,000, which is slightly less than the previous

[3:16:44] version. However, it still projects that the city will meet its reserve goals for

[3:16:48] the next five years. And with that, I'd be happy to take questions.

[3:16:52] » Does anybody have any questions for Helga?

[3:16:55] Any questions? >> I I just had one. Helga are it sounds

[3:17:00] like you have to do a lot of work for all these donations that then turn

[3:17:04] around and go out. Is that is that a huge impact on your time?

[3:17:10] » Um usually our administrative tech takes most of it.

[3:17:14] » Okay. So >> because I was thinking about the fun run

[3:17:18] which also is adding to your workload. >> No, the admin tech will handle most of

[3:17:24] that. >> Okay. Okay. Well, we don't care about

[3:17:27] that. I'm just kidding. >> No, it's fine.

[3:17:30] » Okay. Thanks. >> Okay. If there's no other questions,

[3:17:34] let's open for public comment.

[3:17:38] » You see none. Okay. Let's bring this back for um any discussion and a motion.

[3:17:43] And I would just caveat that this has already been reviewed twice by the

[3:17:47] finance committee. >> Uh once

[3:17:49] » once by the finance committee. This is a second reading for the city council with

[3:17:52] some minor amendments. So if anybody has any discussion, speak up. If not,

[3:17:56] someone can make a uh a motion. Anybody want to comment or

[3:18:04] » just motion? >> Uh we can make a motion to adopt the

[3:18:10] attached resolution appropriating funds necessary for fiscal year 2026 through

[3:18:16] 2027. >> Second. All in favor?

[3:18:19] » I. >> I. Motion passes. Move on to item 6 C

[3:18:23] discuss discussion and approval of fire and emergency medical services special

[3:18:27] tax rates for fiscal 2627. Helga, this is you again.

[3:18:31] » Yes, thank you. In your packet this evening is a re resolution to levy the

[3:18:36] previously approved special tax for fire protection and emergency medical

[3:18:41] services. This is an annual item we need to pass to levy the tax that was

[3:18:46] approved by voters in 2000. The fees per parcel for the upcoming fiscal year will

[3:18:51] be $1,143.40

[3:18:55] for residential dwelling units, $1,31.50 for commercial occupancies, and $228.94

[3:19:05] for vacant parcels. The revenue received from this assessment is spent only on

[3:19:11] fire services. However, it does not cover the full cost of fire services

[3:19:15] budgeted at 2.67 67 million for fiscal year 2627

[3:19:20] and will require a transfer from the general fund of 1.41 million to cover

[3:19:25] the difference. And with that, I'd be happy to take questions.

[3:19:30] Any questions for Helva? Sorry. >> Can I make a motion?

[3:19:34] » Sure, I'll go for it. >> Oh, sorry. Can is there any public

[3:19:38] comment? >> Okay, perfect. Jane.

[3:19:42] » Okay. In that case, I make a motion to adopt the resolution levying previously

[3:19:47] approved special tax for fire and emergency medical services and fixing

[3:19:52] the rates thereof for the fiscal year 2026 2027.

[3:19:56] » Second. >> All in favor?

[3:19:58] » Motion passes. Moving to 6 D um introduction and first reading of

[3:20:05] an ordinance amending Belvadier Municipal Code section 3.28.080

[3:20:10] 080 to implement annual update of fire and

[3:20:14] emergency medical services special tax rates for fiscal 2627.

[3:20:20] » Thank you. Uh this is the first reading of a proposed amendments to Belvadier

[3:20:24] Municipal Code section 3.28.080. Chapter 3.28 28 of the municipal code

[3:20:31] was enacted by voter initiative in 1980 to establish the city's fire and

[3:20:36] emergency medical services tax with section 3.28080

[3:20:41] setting the applicable parcel tax rates. The proposed administ amendments are

[3:20:47] administrative in nature and update the ordinance to reflect the fiscal year

[3:20:51] 2627 tax rates approved by the council, ensuring the municipal code remains

[3:20:56] current and improving clarity and transparency. Earlier this evening, the

[3:21:01] council held a public hearing and adopted a resolution approving the

[3:21:05] fiscal year 2627 fire and emergency medical service tax rates. The approved

[3:21:11] flat fees per parcel are the $1,14340 for residential dwelling units, $1,30150

[3:21:20] for commercial occupancies, and $228.94 for vacant parcels. Because the

[3:21:27] associated tax revenues have already been incorporated into the fiscal year

[3:21:31] 2627 operating and capital budget, these ordinance amendments have no additional

[3:21:37] in fiscal impact. Staff will present this annual ordinance update as part of

[3:21:43] the June budget process to ensure the municipal code continues to accurately

[3:21:47] reflect the rates being levied. We will bring this back to council for a second

[3:21:52] reading at the July 13th meeting if approved tonight.

[3:21:56] » Uh great. Any questions for Helga? Seeing none, is there Oh, Jane, hold on.

[3:22:02] Is public comment? >> I see none. Jane.

[3:22:07] » Uh, I move that we approve the first reading of ordinance 3.28.080.

[3:22:15] » Can I get a second code? >> Can I get a second?

[3:22:17] » Second. >> All in favor?

[3:22:19] » Motion passes. Um, and I would just uh preview that at some point during this

[3:22:25] year, we'll be bringing back some updates to all of this from what we're

[3:22:29] learning through our uh conversations around annexation. And we've learned

[3:22:33] some interesting things around our fire tax. And that will be coming uh in

[3:22:36] future months. >> Correct.

[3:22:38] » Also, Hog um I I appreciate I know we had this conversation last year because

[3:22:41] we hadn't update updated our ordinance in a while while we had updated the

[3:22:45] fees. I think it's great that we're keeping up on this so that the ordinance

[3:22:48] itself has the transparency that you're you're you're intending.

[3:22:52] » Thank you. Okay. I forgot to mention at the

[3:22:55] beginning of the meeting that we have, if it's still on anyone's agenda, 6E,

[3:22:59] which is around the introduction of a drone uh ordinance has been uh moved to

[3:23:06] the next meeting. So, we will not be discussing that tonight. Okay. We'll

[3:23:10] close the public hearings and moving on to other scheduled items. Uh 7A,

[3:23:15] adoption of resolutions calling a general municipal election on November

[3:23:19] 3rd, 26 and requesting the Marine County Board of Supervisors consolidate this

[3:23:24] election with the November 3rd, 2026 general election. Um is there a staff

[3:23:29] report here and who's giving it? >> Uh thank you, Mayor Wilkinson and

[3:23:33] council. Be really quick. Uh in December, the terms of office of council

[3:23:38] member Jane Cooper and Peter Mark will expire. The city must notify the c the

[3:23:42] marine county of registers the marine county register of voters of

[3:23:47] the city's intention to conduct a general municipal election on November

[3:23:50] 3rd 2026 um for the purpose of electing two

[3:23:54] members to council. The election the California elections code also requires

[3:23:59] council to make several additional decisions after calling an election.

[3:24:03] These routine matters are also addressed in the resolutions in front of you.

[3:24:07] Staff recommends that council adopts the two resolutions for the November 3rd,

[3:24:11] 2026 general municipal election. >> Thank you. Any questions,

[3:24:19] » can they be adopted together >> or separately?

[3:24:24] » It's motion. >> It's one resolution.

[3:24:27] » And I make a motion to adopt. >> Oh my god. Open for public comment.

[3:24:30] » Oh yeah. Jeez, that's smart. Hurry up. >> Uh I see no hands raised. Okay, Jane, go

[3:24:35] for it. Um,

[3:24:37] » you're on a roll tonight. >> I know. I'm really into it. Uh, I make a

[3:24:41] motion that we adopt two resolutions for the November 3rd, 2026 general municipal

[3:24:47] election. >> Second.

[3:24:49] » All in favor? >> Um, and we do have uh am I allowed to

[3:24:54] ask whether our current sitting council members are intending to run again in

[3:24:57] November or is that >> you're not allowed to ask.

[3:25:01] » You should probably find another form for that announcement. Okay. Thank you,

[3:25:04] mayor. Just out of curiosity,

[3:25:06] » you're the secret. >> Okay, we are moving on to 7B. Uh, first

[3:25:13] reading and >> we're going to have a balloon

[3:25:14] announcement. What is that when you have a baby?

[3:25:18] » We're going to have a gender reveal.

[3:25:23] » 7B. We're going to get through this meeting if it kills me. 7B. First

[3:25:28] reading and review of a resolution for period July 126 through June 3029

[3:25:34] establishing salaries and benefits for miscellaneous non-represented employees

[3:25:38] of the city of Balvadier. Helgar, is this you or is this Robert?

[3:25:41] » I'll take this one. >> Okay, mayor. Uh item 7B is the first

[3:25:45] reading of the resolution for employee salary. It's going to be what's proposed

[3:25:49] as a three-year contract as you mentioned starting July 1st, 2026

[3:25:53] through June 30th, 2029. The proposed resolution implements the results of the

[3:25:59] city's recently completed classification and compensation study, which was the

[3:26:03] first comprehensive review of this kind in more than a decade. Overall, the

[3:26:08] study showed that Belier's compensation levels for some employees was low

[3:26:12] compared to other Marin County agencies. The resolution seeks to realign these

[3:26:16] low positions with a one-time salary adjustment across the board. The

[3:26:21] agreement also includes a 2 and a.5% cost of living adjustment. That's a cola

[3:26:26] affected with with the f within the first full pay period of uh July 2026.

[3:26:32] Uh that percentage uh matches the consumer price index

[3:26:37] inflationary data for the Bay Area. Uh and then for the second and third year

[3:26:42] of the contract, CPI based cost of living adjustments will be applied with

[3:26:46] a floor of 2% and a ceiling of 4%. benefits generally remain unchanged with

[3:26:53] only minor housekeeping updates including a small increase in the boot

[3:26:57] allowance for public works maintenance staff. Um bothus I'll mention the

[3:27:02] miscellaneous and the police departments which we're about to hear as the next

[3:27:05] item also include transitioning to a sevenstep salary or pay schedule system.

[3:27:11] We're currently on a five-step um and that'll be effective July 1st and it

[3:27:15] will only impact new employees hired after July 1st, 2026.

[3:27:20] The estimated fiscal impact is approximately $84,000 annually over a

[3:27:25] three-year term and has been assumed in in the proposed budget that was adopted.

[3:27:30] That's all I have for now and open to questions.

[3:27:33] » Questions from council? No. Seeing none, um the $84,000 is the

[3:27:41] impact of the colas or the impact of the of the salary adjustments from the

[3:27:45] compensation study. >> I believe it's all the above, right?

[3:27:51] It was an average over three years that included both.

[3:27:54] » It included both. Okay, perfect. Um Okay. Um any public comment, Beth?

[3:28:00] » See none. >> Okay. Can I get a motion?

[3:28:03] » I think it it I think we're just considering. Is there a motion to be

[3:28:06] made on? >> It's not a first reading. It's just

[3:28:12] » reading.

[3:28:15] » Yeah. We we bring it back in July. So >> yeah.

[3:28:20] » Oh, how does that work then?

[3:28:25] » I think the council should approve it tonight. And it's sort of a

[3:28:28] » requirement

[3:28:32] because there two times. >> Thank you.

[3:28:34] » To approve a resolution for the period of July 1st, 2026 through June 30th,

[3:28:38] 2029 establishing salaries and benefits for miscellaneous non-represented

[3:28:42] employees of the city of Belvadier. >> Can I have a second? Second.

[3:28:46] » Who wants it? >> Jane can have it.

[3:28:50] » All in favor? >> I I um motion passes. Let's move on to

[3:28:55] um uh 7 C, which is essentially identical, but Robert, do you want to

[3:28:59] give a quick one sentence? >> Sure.

[3:29:03] It's substantially the same as a previous item, but does apply to

[3:29:07] employees represented by the Beloved Police Officers Association. The

[3:29:11] agreement incorporates the same compensation study adjustments and cola

[3:29:15] structure that was discussed under item 7B. Um the cost to this for the city is

[3:29:20] approximately $30,000 annually. Uh as Helga mentioned, this includes both

[3:29:25] items and it's averaged over a three-year period.

[3:29:28] » Perfect. Um any questions? >> Nope.

[3:29:31] » Public comment. Beth, >> can I get a motion? I can make a motion

[3:29:36] to approve a resolution for the period of July 1st, 2026 through June 30th,

[3:29:41] 2029, establishing salaries and benefits for the Belvadier Police Officers Assoc

[3:29:45] Association employees of the city of Belvadier.

[3:29:48] » Second. >> All in favor?

[3:29:49] » I. >> Motion passes. 7D. Um, this is the

[3:29:54] discussion and approval of a resolution approving an amendment to the city

[3:29:57] manager employment agreement. I believe Andrew that you wanted to take this.

[3:30:01] » Yeah, thank you, mayor. Uh it seemed appropriate for me to briefly address

[3:30:04] this one. Um so this would extend uh address the city manager salaries of the

[3:30:08] next two fiscal years. In the first fiscal year there would be increase in

[3:30:12] the salary of $29,200. In the second year there would be

[3:30:16] increase according to a similar simp CPI mechanism than the other employees

[3:30:20] basically adjusted for CPI with a ban of 2 to 4%. Thank you.

[3:30:25] Um, I don't really have I will just add there that this was a conversation

[3:30:30] between the city council during the performance review uh of Robert and then

[3:30:33] a conversation um with Robert. Um I think we're very pleased to be offering

[3:30:37] you um this package. Um and we look forward to the next two years of of work

[3:30:42] with you. >> Thank you.

[3:30:45] » Um does anybody have any questions before I move to public comment?

[3:30:49] No. Any public comment? >> Mayor Wilkinson, there are no hands

[3:30:53] raised. >> Great. Can I get a motion, please?

[3:30:57] » We don't have anything to make. >> I don't have it in front of me.

[3:31:01] » That's the resolution for the city manager's pay for the next two years.

[3:31:07] » Second. >> All in favor? I

[3:31:10] » I >> Okay, we're bringing it back to 7E,

[3:31:14] which is a discussion of appointments the planning commission, the finance

[3:31:17] committee, and the Belvadier Tibbron Libr.

[3:31:22] Um, as we know for the finance committee, we've had we have our two

[3:31:28] uh representatives who are currently on the

[3:31:34] uh finance committee that are renewing. So, thank you to that. And that is Bob

[3:31:38] McCascal and Patrick Federer that have renewed.

[3:31:41] » Correct. >> Yes.

[3:31:42] » And so, our only discussion tonight is around uh the appointment of Jacob

[3:31:48] Lanetski to the planning commission. So, should we deal with that one first?

[3:31:52] Would anybody like to uh Is there any discussion here? Would anybody like to

[3:31:55] make a motion?

[3:32:02] » Oh, go ahead. >> No, no, no. I'm saying we go in order. I

[3:32:04] mean, I think I think Jacob being the only candidate is is our only choice. Um

[3:32:09] I I see that with with the measure of Jess. No, I'm I'm I'm thrilled to to

[3:32:14] have uh the opportunity to have Jacob join our planning commission. And I

[3:32:19] think he brings uh not only the experience um but the uh temperament,

[3:32:25] the the the communication ability and I think the um added depth that we uh have

[3:32:32] come to expect on our funding commission and I think would be a wonderful

[3:32:35] addition. >> Anybody else?

[3:32:37] » I second that. >> Yeah,

[3:32:39] » agree. Okay. And so we'll make one motion at the end. Is that okay for all

[3:32:43] of these different appointments? >> Right. And then I I I'm sure the council

[3:32:46] did not mean to gloss over it, but we did have to consider also a

[3:32:49] reappointment to the planning commission.

[3:32:51] » Yeah. >> Of

[3:32:53] the >> there's

[3:32:55] there's there's two motions, right? I mean I mean you have in the start should

[3:32:58] make make a first motion to reappoint incumbents Bob Mcascal and Patrick

[3:33:01] Federer to the respective seats on the finance committee.

[3:33:04] » I was going to do it all at the end. >> Oh, you can do it all at the end. Okay.

[3:33:07] » But I just didn't want to lose that lose sight of the reappointment. Thank you.

[3:33:09] Got it. >> Sorry. Um and so we are now moving on to

[3:33:12] the Balvadier Tibberon Library Agency board of trustees and we have two

[3:33:16] applicants there for the position Tony Hooker and Andrea Barish. Um would

[3:33:21] anybody like to go first on those deliberations?

[3:33:24] » Well, I I would like to recommend that Tony continue in his role. I think the

[3:33:30] consistency of someone doing this for four years and then having another

[3:33:35] opportunity, a lot of learning experience and he brings a lot of

[3:33:39] experience anyway. And I I do feel that Andrea would be perfect for the

[3:33:45] foundation and it it just so happens that there is a position available

[3:33:51] there. and um and uh in speaking with the library director uh she thinks that

[3:34:01] some of the best way the best way to prepare to get on the actual library

[3:34:06] board is to start at the library foundation. So, um I'm hoping that

[3:34:12] Andrea would uh accept that idea and so that we can keep her involved. As Pat

[3:34:18] said, we don't want to lose a great volunteer. And um I really think this

[3:34:24] would be a terrific spot for her skills. So um maybe when we write her the

[3:34:29] letter, can we put something in about that, Beth?

[3:34:33] » Okay. >> Well, let's hold on and see where

[3:34:34] everybody is. >> I meant if after the vote.

[3:34:37] » Is is the foundation um under the director's crystal's responsibility or

[3:34:41] is it >> I'm not sure. She said she would be

[3:34:44] happy to um introduce her to the foundation board president.

[3:34:49] » So someone would you two are you you were and you are the library, right?

[3:34:54] You're not >> we're no longer doing covering the

[3:34:56] librarian library >> because we have board members seem

[3:34:59] redundant. >> It's like the ranch or anywhere else,

[3:35:01] » but but someone someone should take someone should take the lead to

[3:35:05] introduce Andrea. >> I'm happy if we go that route to take

[3:35:08] the lead. >> I think that makes sense. Does anyone

[3:35:10] else want to express their opinion? >> Yeah, I mean I think that um

[3:35:16] Andrea um is exactly what we're looking for in

[3:35:20] a volunteer in the city and it's just unfortunate we only have one position

[3:35:26] because I think she's an excellent candidate. Um, but I agree with Jane

[3:35:31] that um getting up to speed and being able to bring that um

[3:35:39] expertise to the next four years is uh very beneficial for the library. Um and

[3:35:46] I would encourage her to look at other committees that we have available.

[3:35:52] um because I think her skills are things that um communication we could all um

[3:35:59] benefit from. Um so it's just unfortunate we don't have another

[3:36:04] position because I think she would be terrific. Uh and would like to encourage

[3:36:08] her to seek other volunteer positions in the city. Um that's my feeling.

[3:36:14] » Peter, do you have a differing opinion? I think she seems wonderful and as

[3:36:21] everyone said, I hope we can find a place for her.

[3:36:23] » Yeah, I mean my only additional comment there was I got feedback from um

[3:36:26] existing library agency board members that Tony brings some financial skills

[3:36:31] that others don't have. Um and so that might be an additional reason to keep

[3:36:34] him on as our representative, but agree with everybody else that um Andrea seems

[3:36:39] to be a great candidate and we should bring her into being involved. So, um,

[3:36:43] with that, can I first, um, get a motion to reappoint incumbents Bob McKascal and

[3:36:50] Patrick Federa to the, uh, two seats on the finance committee?

[3:36:54] » Mayor Wilkinson. >> Oh, you want me to go public comment?

[3:36:56] » Public comment. >> Any public comment?

[3:36:58] » We have no public comment. >> Okay. So, can I get a motion to

[3:37:01] reappoint incumbents Bob and Patrick to their respective seats on the finance

[3:37:05] committee? >> I can make a motion to reappoint

[3:37:06] incumbents Bob McCascal and Patrick Federer to their respective seats on the

[3:37:09] finance committee. >> Second. All in favor?

[3:37:12] » I >> I.

[3:37:13] » And then can I get a motion to appoint who wants to make the to appoint Azel

[3:37:18] and Jacob Lanetski to the planning commission

[3:37:22] » and >> and Tony Hooker

[3:37:24] » and Tony Hooker to the library agency. make a motion to appoint uh

[3:37:30] starting with um Azel >> Jumai

[3:37:35] » Jama um to complete for to her four-year term and

[3:37:43] um I'm sorry um Jacob Lineski to the complete the two-year term uh on the

[3:37:50] planning commission and appoint Tony Hooker to the library timber library

[3:37:56] agency board of trust Second. All in favor?

[3:37:59] » I. Motion passes. Um, okay. I think we are moving. Congratulations, Jacob.

[3:38:05] » I'm shocked that you sat through the entire meeting. So, welcome to Welcome

[3:38:10] to Public Service.

[3:38:14] » Yeah, this is a short meeting.

[3:38:18] » Okay, we are not done. We are moving to open forum.

[3:38:21] » Oh, open. >> I'm not going to read it. Is there

[3:38:23] anybody here that would like to make public comment during the open forum?

[3:38:26] » Mayor Wilson, there are no hands raised. >> Okay, with that we are ajourned. Good

[3:38:29] night everybody.

[3:38:33] Here, this is

City Council Meeting: June 8, 2026

Agenda

Transcript