[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