[0:00] Belvadier City Council meeting for
[0:02] Monday, July the 13th. Beth, can you
[0:04] call the role?
[0:05] » Council member Cooper
[0:08] » Present.
[0:09] » Council member Burke
[0:10] » Here.
[0:10] » Uh, Mayor Wilkinson
[0:12] » Present.
[0:12] » Council member Mark
[0:14] » Here.
[0:14] » Council member Carropet here.
[0:17] » Great. We will um adjourn into close
[0:19] session. Do I have to read the items or
[0:21] not? No. Okay.
[0:25] Sorry, not awake. Can is there any
[0:27] public comment on the close session
[0:28] agenda items?
[0:29] » There are no public present. Okay. Thank
[0:31] you. And we will adjourn.
[1:30] Great. I will reconvene our um
[1:33] city council meeting for Monday, July
[1:36] 13th. There is nothing to report out
[1:38] from the close session.
[1:41] Um we will therefore move on to um item
[1:45] number three, which is reports and
[1:46] presentations. So firstly, city council
[1:48] reports. Does any council member have a
[1:51] report?
[1:52] Okay. Um, so I attended the um RBR
[1:56] meeting um this month and or actually
[1:59] last week and um we were um uh able to
[2:04] um receive funds from the Marin
[2:07] Community Foundation
[2:09] um to a grant um for the monitoring of
[2:14] the eel grass with a new submersible um
[2:18] device
[2:20] and also that the um county added to
[2:24] their 2627th budget the $300,000
[2:29] shortfall for the housing in um the
[2:32] current RBR um budget. And a big thank
[2:37] you went to Supervisor Stephanie
[2:40] Molton Peters for her championing this
[2:44] with the county and for um future county
[2:48] um resources um to provide um the
[2:52] housing u portion of RB's um mandate.
[2:58] That's it.
[3:00] Anybody else? Jane,
[3:05] » Council member Carropia and I attended
[3:07] the annual Abag meeting in June and
[3:11] unfortunately the report from them about
[3:13] the um housing element number seven um
[3:16] was not very positive. uh they think the
[3:20] numbers are going to go up and they also
[3:23] said on what they considered plus side
[3:26] that the state will be releasing the
[3:28] numbers HCD will be releasing the
[3:30] numbers a year earlier than they did in
[3:33] the past and that um uh jurisdictions
[3:37] should consider
[3:39] uh beginning their process as soon as
[3:42] they hear what their number is and not
[3:44] wait even though uh the date that
[3:47] element six is finished is uh 2031.
[3:52] So they were recommending people start
[3:54] even as soon as 2728
[3:58] uh given that the number will be given
[4:00] out at that point.
[4:02] So not a fun meeting but we were there.
[4:06] That's it. Thank you.
[4:10] » Anybody else?
[4:11] » Nothing to report.
[4:13] » Uh okay. I just wanted to uh report
[4:15] briefly on um marine clean energy or MCE
[4:19] as it's now known. Um I serve as
[4:21] Bvadier's representative um to the
[4:23] agency and MCE provides electricity
[4:26] generation to almost all residents in
[4:28] Balvadier. Um it's gone through some
[4:30] pretty significant changes over the last
[4:32] month. Um there was a very critical
[4:34] grand jury report that was published. Um
[4:37] and the longtime CEO um departed from
[4:41] the agency in the past month as well. Um
[4:44] it's a challenging time for marine clean
[4:46] energy but I regard these um changes as
[4:50] an opportunity to strengthen MCE and the
[4:53] board is working aggressively to
[4:57] hire has hired an independent governance
[4:59] consultant to look at the board
[5:01] structure um as well as put in place a
[5:04] search committee to look for a permanent
[5:06] CEO. Um, sitting on this board, I have
[5:08] always advocated for um, strong
[5:11] governance and procurement decisions
[5:13] that balance affordability, reliability
[5:15] and our climate goals and I will
[5:17] continue to do so and do think that
[5:20] these changes while difficult will will
[5:22] lead in that direction.
[5:24] Um, if nobody has any further comment
[5:27] from the dis, can I see whether there's
[5:29] any public comment on city council
[5:31] reports?
[5:34] Seeing none in the room, is there
[5:35] anything online?
[5:36] » Mayor Wilkinson, there are no hands
[5:38] raised.
[5:38] » Great. In that case, we'll move on to
[5:39] 3B, which is our city manager report.
[5:41] Robert?
[5:43] » Yes. Good evening, mayor and council
[5:44] members. Uh we do have a full agenda
[5:46] tonight, so I'll be brief. I wanted to
[5:48] point out a new item category on the
[5:51] agenda this evening. It's number seven,
[5:53] future agenda items. Uh many, many
[5:55] agencies include this as part of the
[5:57] regular meetings. I think it's a helpful
[5:59] tool and a transparent way for council
[6:01] members to suggest issues or topics for
[6:04] future consideration. I'll describe the
[6:06] functionality and parameters of that
[6:08] item as we get to it later this evening.
[6:10] Uh switching gears, Malard Point has
[6:12] seen some significant movement in the
[6:14] past month. After confirming with legal,
[6:16] the city has determined that most of the
[6:18] conditions of approval for the
[6:19] demolition permit have been met. Staff
[6:22] held a community meeting last Thursday
[6:24] to discuss the nuances of the project
[6:26] with residents and answer questions. The
[6:28] city committed to double-checking again
[6:30] that all the conditions of approval for
[6:32] the permit have been satisfied and also
[6:34] posting some requested documents to the
[6:36] city's website. As of today, we do
[6:38] expect to issue the permit very soon.
[6:42] One ongoing challenge with this project
[6:44] has been communicating uh complex ideas
[6:47] and consistent updates to the community.
[6:49] To address this, the city has
[6:51] established a working group that will
[6:52] meet weekly to review the project
[6:54] status, timelines, deliverables, and
[6:57] community inquiries. On the Monday
[7:00] following each meeting, the group will
[7:01] issue a weekly update to community
[7:03] members subscribed to the Malard Point
[7:05] updates. Members of the working group
[7:07] group will include the director of
[7:09] planning, the building official, city
[7:11] engineer, and council members Burke and
[7:13] Mark.
[7:15] Um, in the meantime, the community
[7:16] members can submit questions or feedback
[7:18] via the report an issue feature that is
[7:21] on the city's website. So, that's all I
[7:23] have for now. I'm happy to take
[7:24] questions.
[7:25] » Do council members have any questions
[7:27] for our city manager?
[7:29] » Um, I did have one question about Malard
[7:33] Point. Um I know that there was a lot of
[7:37] comments at the meeting on meeting the
[7:40] COAs as you mentioned and I know in the
[7:44] past our engineer Mr. Mo had written
[7:48] completeness
[7:49] letters his most recent one was June
[7:52] 22nd but I wondered if he had written a
[7:56] completeness letter for what's um what's
[8:00] complete this point. Is he planning on
[8:03] doing that or not?
[8:05] » Yes, I'm guessing it's coming soon.
[8:11] » At this point, we um
[8:14] he's finished his sort of completeness
[8:16] check and it has been deemed
[8:19] complete. However, we are double triple
[8:21] checking all of the conditions of
[8:23] approval. So, there will not be another
[8:25] completeness or incompleteness letters.
[8:27] » So, they're really incompleteness
[8:29] letters, not completeness letter.
[8:31] » Exactly. Okay, thanks for explaining
[8:33] that.
[8:33] » Sure.
[8:35] » Any other questions from council
[8:36] members?
[8:38] Seeing none, let's open this up for
[8:40] public comment. If anyone would like to
[8:41] make public comment, please come up to
[8:43] the stand
[8:51] although it's not required. If you
[8:52] wouldn't mind uh just saying your your
[8:54] your name and limit your comment to
[8:56] three minutes, please.
[8:57] » Yes, of course.
[9:00] and speaking to the mic, please. Is it
[9:02] on?
[9:04] » Is it on now? No. Yeah.
[9:07] » Closer.
[9:07] » Closer. Yes. Like that. Okay.
[9:10] » Thank you.
[9:11] » Um, good evening, council members and
[9:14] mayor Wilkinson. My name is Robin
[9:16] Watson, and I'm speaking on behalf of
[9:18] the Beladier Residents for Intelligent
[9:21] Growth, Brig. On July 9th, our attorney
[9:25] sent Director Marwick a detailed letter
[9:27] about the Malard Point demolition
[9:29] permit. That letter isn't a request to
[9:32] open the Malard Point approval. It asks
[9:35] the city to do something much simpler.
[9:38] Explain its reasoning in writing before
[9:40] 22 homes come down and their residents
[9:43] displaced. Specifically, we asked the
[9:46] city to confirm that the June tenative
[9:48] map extension did not approve standalone
[9:51] demolition. We ask for a determination
[9:54] on whether demolishing first before the
[9:57] final map, infrastructure, and bulkhead
[9:59] work is a minor detail or a material
[10:02] change to the project as it was
[10:04] approved.
[10:06] And we asked the city to confirm that
[10:08] conditions marked pending or not needed
[10:11] on the compliance table are actually
[10:13] satisfied, not just checked off. None of
[10:17] this is complicated. It's simply asking
[10:19] the city to show its work. Right now,
[10:22] residents have a spreadsheet with check
[10:24] marks and no explanation. That's not
[10:27] enough when the decision is
[10:28] irreversible.
[10:30] Again, we're not asking the council to
[10:32] deny this permit outright at this time.
[10:35] We're asking that before it is issued,
[10:37] the city respond in writing to each of
[10:40] the six requests in our letter and that
[10:42] our letter be placed in the
[10:44] administrative record. Belvadier
[10:46] residents deserve to see the reasoning,
[10:49] not just the result.
[10:52] » Thank you.
[10:52] » Thank you.
[10:54] » Is there any other public comment?
[11:09] » Good evening. My name is Randy Binstock
[11:12] and I'm a Belvadier Lagoon resident and
[11:14] have been since 1984.
[11:17] I want to ask a simple question tonight.
[11:20] Why is there a rush to issue this
[11:22] demolition permit right now?
[11:25] The city's own June 8th staff report
[11:28] said the demolition permit, the
[11:30] infrastructure permit, and the bulkhead
[11:32] permit were not before the council.
[11:34] Staff said the applicant hadn't yet met
[11:37] all the required conditions. And yet,
[11:40] weeks later, we're told a compliance
[11:42] table shows everything is basically
[11:44] ready to go. Demolishing 22 homes is not
[11:48] something you can undo. Once those
[11:50] structures come down, there's no putting
[11:52] them back. If it turns out the
[11:54] sequencing wasn't authorized or the
[11:56] bulkhead work stalls or financing falls
[11:59] through. So, what is the harm in slowing
[12:01] down and making sure the conditions of
[12:03] approval are truly met? If the city is
[12:06] confident every condition is truly met,
[12:08] not just normally checked off, but
[12:11] backed by complete reviewed and publicly
[12:13] available materials, then a short delay
[12:15] costs nothing. But if the rush is
[12:17] because of pressure from the applicant's
[12:19] schedule, that is not good enough to
[12:22] it's not a good enough reason to accept
[12:24] the risk of a demol demolitioned
[12:27] unstable half-finished waterfront site.
[12:30] We're asking the council to direct staff
[12:32] to take the time needed to make these um
[12:35] determinations properly in public before
[12:38] any permit is released. Since it was the
[12:41] city council's decision to deny SQL
[12:44] involvement, the city took on the entire
[12:46] responsibility to make sure that the
[12:48] environmental conditions of approval are
[12:50] met and that the lagoon remains in the
[12:52] pristine condition it is today. Before
[12:56] any permit is released, please slow down
[12:59] and get it right. Thank you.
[13:02] » Thank you. Do we have any other public
[13:04] comment in the room?
[13:14] » Good evening,
[13:17] Mayor Wilkinson and city council. My
[13:19] name is Kathy Store and I'm a resident
[13:21] here in Belvadier. Um, I want to talk to
[13:24] you about what actually happens on the
[13:26] ground if this goes wrong. First, the
[13:30] Belvadier Lagoon, the bulkheads along
[13:33] this site are old and the Army Corps
[13:36] authorization for that work has already
[13:38] expired. The applicant's own materials
[13:42] say there's no construction or drainage
[13:45] worth including drainage work included
[13:48] in that permit in this permit. But
[13:51] demolition equipment operating right
[13:53] next to the aging unpermitted bulkheads
[13:56] is not nothing. If those bulkheads are
[13:59] dis are disturbed or destabilized during
[14:02] demolition, we could see erosion,
[14:05] sediment, and water quality impacts in
[14:08] the lagoon that this permit was never
[14:10] evaluated against. Second, think about
[14:14] what this site looks like if
[14:15] construction doesn't follow on schedule.
[14:18] This applicant has told the city there
[14:20] is no material change to its plans, but
[14:23] it's now proposing to knock down 22
[14:26] homes as a standalone first phase with
[14:29] the final mapping, financing,
[14:31] infrastructure, and bulkhead
[14:33] replacement, all still unresolved. If
[14:36] any of those pieces stall and big
[14:38] waterfront projects stall all the time,
[14:42] Belvadier is left with a fenced, vacant,
[14:45] demolished lot on the lagoon. Not for
[14:48] months, potentially for years. We are
[14:51] asking the council to require a real
[14:54] stabilization plan and a bond big enough
[14:57] to actually secure the site, not just
[14:59] cover debris debris removal, so that if
[15:02] this project stalls, Belvadier isn't
[15:04] left holding an eyesore and an
[15:06] environmental risk on the waterfront.
[15:09] Thank you.
[15:10] » Thank you. Do we have anybody else?
[15:21] Jill Barnett. And um I've been coming to
[15:25] these meetings and coming to these
[15:27] meetings because I want to keep trying
[15:30] to understand what the rules are for
[15:32] this project,
[15:34] what they require and whether they are
[15:37] being consistently followed. One
[15:40] condition says, let me read it. All
[15:43] demolition and site work including
[15:45] cleaning
[15:47] clearing of all debris and materials
[15:49] from the site shall be completed within
[15:52] 75 days of issuance of a demolition
[15:55] permit. So that's 75 days. All
[15:59] demolition and site work including
[16:01] clearing of all debris and materials
[16:03] from the site shall be completed within
[16:06] 75 days of issuance of a demolition
[16:09] permit. That's not just the building
[16:12] demolition. It says all demolition and
[16:16] clearing of debris and materials from
[16:18] the site. But the current demo permit
[16:21] application is only for the buildings,
[16:24] not for the bulkheads, not the roadway,
[16:26] not the utilities, not the docks. Those
[16:30] demolition permits are still to come or
[16:32] pending with unresolved technical
[16:34] issues. various approvals and expired
[16:37] agency authorization still being worked
[16:40] out. So, here's the question. How
[16:43] exactly does a 75day clock work uh work
[16:48] when major parts of all demolition and
[16:52] site work aren't even part of this demo
[16:55] permit? Is it the city applying the
[16:57] 75day deadline only to this particular
[17:00] demolition permit? And doesn't that
[17:03] contradict the condition as it's
[17:05] written?
[17:07] Then what if the rest of the demolition
[17:09] work can't realistically happen in 75
[17:12] days? What happens to the site after 75?
[17:15] If bulkhead permits, site improvements,
[17:17] final map approval are still pending.
[17:20] Will it be left vacant until the
[17:22] bulldozers move in again? Before the
[17:25] demolition permit is issued, we're
[17:27] asking the city to require the applicant
[17:30] to show in writing a realistic schedule
[17:33] that actually accounts for all for the
[17:36] full scope of demolition work the
[17:38] condition requires, not just the portion
[17:41] that's convenient to schedule first.
[17:44] That seems like a reasonable request to
[17:47] make sure the city is following its own
[17:49] rules. Thank you.
[17:52] » Thank you, Jill. Is there any more
[17:53] comment in the room? Seeing none, is
[17:56] there any comment online?
[17:57] » There are no hands raised.
[17:59] » Great. In that case, we'll move on to
[18:00] 3C, which is our police chief report.
[18:03] Jason, good evening.
[18:14] Just one second, please.
[18:19] Ready?
[18:26] Thank you. Good evening, Mayor
[18:28] Wilkinson, council members. Tonight, I
[18:30] am pleased to present the police
[18:32] department second quarter report for
[18:34] 2026.
[18:37] During this quarter, the department
[18:39] handled 819
[18:41] incidents, which included zero part one
[18:44] offense
[18:46] and four part two offenses. The
[18:49] remaining 815 incidents were classified
[18:52] as all other incidents.
[18:55] Also during this quarter, the department
[18:58] conducted 33 traffic stops, made one
[19:00] arrest, referred one case for
[19:02] prosecution, and assisted Tibrron Police
[19:05] Department on two occasions.
[19:08] During this quarter, we also updated 27
[19:10] flexible policies in alignment with best
[19:13] practices or legislative updates. And
[19:16] these updates are detailed in the staff
[19:19] report.
[19:20] And regarding our RIPA data, officers
[19:24] detained 35 individuals stemming from 33
[19:27] traffic violations, one suspicious
[19:29] activity, and one court order violation.
[19:33] The perceived racial compositions
[19:34] consist of 26 Caucasians, seven
[19:37] Hispanics, one Asian, and one black. Of
[19:40] these 35 contacts, 33 were officer
[19:44] initiated while two were related to
[19:47] calls for service. In all, BPD issued
[19:50] seven citations, gave 26 warnings, made
[19:53] one arrest, and one a no action taken.
[19:58] » During this quarter, PD personnel also
[20:01] attended inerson or online training that
[20:03] were either mandated or for knowledge
[20:05] and skill enhancements.
[20:07] And lastly, as part of our community
[20:09] policing, we always take great pride and
[20:11] joy in participating in community
[20:13] events. And al just want to update,
[20:16] unrelated to our quarterly report
[20:18] updates, uh the PD is currently working
[20:20] with HR on the open announcement to fill
[20:23] the three-year term police officer
[20:25] position along with reserve officers
[20:27] positions. And with that, I'm available
[20:29] for questions.
[20:30] » Thank you, Chief W. Does any council
[20:32] member have a question?
[20:35] » Thank you, Chief. I appreciate that
[20:36] update. On your previous slide, you
[20:39] mentioned uh assist Tibberon officers
[20:42] who are two for this quarter. Do you
[20:44] have the reciprocal reverse of that? How
[20:46] many times did Tibon assist us?
[20:48] » Um, no. I have not been tracking those.
[20:50] However, I could start tracking those.
[20:51] » I'd just be curious. It' be interesting
[20:52] to see, you know, on a reciprocal basis
[20:54] how that works. Thank you.
[20:56] » Okay.
[20:59] » Any other questions?
[21:01] Seeing none, um Jason just like to
[21:04] comment again that um the increased
[21:06] patrols around the community are very
[21:08] much appreciated by many people in the
[21:10] community. So, thank you very much for
[21:12] um for organizing that.
[21:13] » Thank you for your kind words.
[21:14] » Um okay, let's open to public comment in
[21:17] the room.
[21:18] Seeing none, do we have anything online?
[21:20] » There are no hands raised.
[21:21] » Okay, great. Okay, we'll now move to
[21:23] item 3D, which I think most people in
[21:25] this room are here for. So, sorry to
[21:27] keep you waiting this long. Um, this is
[21:29] for the swearing and ceremony for the
[21:31] promotion of police officer Katie Cullen
[21:33] to sergeant. So, I think this is for
[21:35] you, Jason.
[21:35] » Thank you very much. Honorable Mayor
[21:37] Wilkinson, council members, and
[21:40] distinguished guests. We are here
[21:42] tonight to celebrate a major milestone
[21:45] for our department and our city. We are
[21:48] not only swearing in a new police
[21:49] sergeant, but we are also swearing in
[21:52] the first ever female police sergeant in
[21:54] the history of the Belair Police
[21:55] Department.
[22:06] It is with great pleasure that I present
[22:08] Katie Colin to the city council and the
[22:11] community as Belvadier's newest
[22:13] sergeant. Before I continue, I'd like to
[22:16] acknowledge the presence of Katie's
[22:17] parents, Captain Tom Colin, and Mary,
[22:21] siblings, Theres, Kelly, and Brian,
[22:24] Tibrron, Fire Captain Mark Fitzgerald,
[22:27] and other very close friends from
[22:28] Belvadier PD, Sheriff's Office, Mil
[22:31] Valley PD, and Tibrron PD, including her
[22:35] boyfriend, Patrick Kerslake, who will do
[22:39] the honor of pinning Sergeant Cullen's
[22:41] new badge.
[22:43] Katie began her law enforcement career
[22:44] with the Marin County Sheriff's Office
[22:46] in 2016 where she served as a deputy and
[22:49] a hostage negotiator.
[22:52] Since 2019, Katie expressed her interest
[22:55] in being part of the Belvadier Police
[22:57] Department. She was eventually appointed
[23:00] as a Belvadier police officer in May of
[23:03] 2022.
[23:05] Since coming on, she has served as
[23:07] patrol officer, vehicle maintenance
[23:09] officer, certified crisis intervention
[23:12] officer, and field training officer,
[23:14] where she hoped to shape the next
[23:16] generation of officers for the
[23:17] department. In her new role, I have no
[23:20] doubt that Katie will represent the
[23:22] future of the department through her
[23:23] dedication to membership, mentorship,
[23:26] and training, commitment to community
[23:29] caretaking, and her desire for
[23:31] betterment of the community and the
[23:33] police department.
[23:36] One of the greatest honors for a police
[23:39] chief is the promotion of a highly
[23:41] qualified member within the department.
[23:44] And with that said, I would like to
[23:45] bring up Sergeant Colin and Patrick to
[23:47] take the oath of office.
[24:01] » Can I ask who our youngest audience
[24:03] member is here?
[24:22] do so.
[24:25] the will of the
[24:29] » Constitution of the United States
[24:32] » And the Constitution of the State of
[24:34] California
[24:37] » Against all enemies, foreign and
[24:39] domestic allies
[24:42] » That I will bear truth, faith, and
[24:44] allegiance
[24:49] » To the Constitution of the United States
[24:51] » The United States
[24:53] » And the Constitution of
[24:57] that I take this obligation freely
[25:01] » Without any mental reservation
[25:05] » Or purpose of evasion
[25:08] » And that I will well and faithfully
[25:10] discharge
[25:13] » The duties upon which I'm about to
[25:15] enter.
[25:50] Yes.
[26:03] Yeah.
[26:14] and staff is available for any
[26:15] questions.
[26:18] » Do we open this for Do we open this for
[26:20] public comment or not?
[26:23] » Yes. Okay, we'll see if there's any
[26:24] public comment in the room.
[26:27] » Seeing none. Is there any online?
[26:29] » I see none.
[26:30] » Okay, great. Congratulations, Katie. And
[26:32] I think you are all free to go and have
[26:34] your beer or whatever it is next.
[26:38] » Thank you.
[27:10] That's right.
[27:25] Okay, we will move on to item 3E which
[27:28] is an update on the beachro seaw wall
[27:30] stabilization project. Tony, I guess
[27:32] this this is from you. Okay, great. Go
[27:34] ahead.
[27:37] » Thank you, mayor, and good evening
[27:38] council members. As you are aware, the
[27:41] beach road stabilization project has
[27:43] been in the works for some time now and
[27:45] is planned to move forward in the next
[27:47] few weeks. Despite a late potential
[27:50] stumbling block, the oversight committee
[27:53] has met three times in person in
[27:55] February, March, and May, and staff
[27:58] provided an update by memorandum to the
[28:00] committee in June. City council approved
[28:03] the award of the construction project uh
[28:05] construction contract to Gordon N. ball
[28:08] construction in April and at that time
[28:11] the outstanding milestones for the
[28:12] project were temporary construction
[28:15] easements from the property owners of
[28:17] the three buildings over the water on
[28:19] Beach Road, environmental permits from
[28:22] the Army Corps of Engineers and BCDC
[28:25] and PG& schedule of work for completing
[28:27] their utility modifications in the
[28:29] roadway which are necessary before the
[28:31] sheet pile wall can be installed.
[28:34] In addition, staff were working with
[28:36] Hadley Construction to determine how
[28:38] best to address the three gangways and
[28:40] utilities at the buildings over the
[28:42] water which were required to be removed
[28:44] and replaced for the sheet pile
[28:46] installation.
[28:47] This aspect of the project has proved to
[28:49] be a complicated coordination of
[28:51] carpentry and different utility services
[28:54] both private and public and the cost
[28:56] estimates from Hadley continued to
[28:58] change as they grappled with the details
[29:00] and scope of the work. Because of this,
[29:03] the engineering team changed tack on how
[29:06] to approach this element of the project
[29:08] and landed on a solution which utilizes
[29:11] soil injection of permeation grout
[29:13] behind the seaw wall at each gangway
[29:15] entrance. This will allow the gangways
[29:18] and utilities to remain in place for the
[29:20] duration of construction resulting in
[29:22] far fewer utility disruptions for the
[29:24] residents.
[29:26] The actual costs of this method have
[29:28] been difficult to quantify as exact
[29:30] quantities of permeating grout to be
[29:32] used are unknown. However, the
[29:34] contractor's estimates put the costs in
[29:36] the same ballpark as the Hadley's
[29:38] estimates which are within budget.
[29:41] Although a small portion of the budgeted
[29:43] construction contingency may be
[29:44] required.
[29:47] Returning to the project at large, the
[29:49] easement agreements have been signed and
[29:51] the environmental permits are now in
[29:53] hand and staff has held a meeting with
[29:55] the most impacted residents in the homes
[29:57] over the water. A notification letter to
[30:00] residents informing them of the traffic
[30:01] and parking parking impacts was due to
[30:04] be mailed last week. However, a change
[30:07] in PG&'s schedule emailed to the city
[30:10] last Wednesday pause the project
[30:12] schedule.
[30:13] P Geni informed the city that their crew
[30:15] was delayed by 3 weeks and instead of
[30:18] starting work on the 13th of July today,
[30:21] they could only start on August the 3rd
[30:24] with an anticipation an anticipated
[30:26] completion date of August the 14th.
[30:30] This would have pushed the Gordon Ball
[30:32] uh the Gordon Nball schedule beyond the
[30:34] October 30th deadline.
[30:37] The city escalated its communications
[30:39] with PG&
[30:41] and today they informed staff that they
[30:43] will be starting sooner than the August
[30:45] 3rd date, possibly on July 20th and even
[30:48] possibly later this week.
[30:51] Staff met with Gordon and Ball today to
[30:53] share the PG update. They will be
[30:55] meeting with PG later this week to
[30:57] discuss whether an overlap in work
[30:59] schedules will be possible and they've
[31:02] expressed willingness to coordinate with
[31:03] PG&E to keep the beach road project on
[31:06] schedule.
[31:08] If there is no option but to delay their
[31:09] start to the August uh to until August
[31:13] 3rd, Gordon and Ball will have exactly
[31:15] 64 work days until October 30th to
[31:18] complete their work. one less than the
[31:20] scheduled 65, but a much more manageable
[31:23] schedule change than two full weeks.
[31:28] Finally, staff are aware that a project
[31:30] that lasts for 3 months will have
[31:31] impacts on residents, not just in the
[31:34] vicinity of the project, but across the
[31:35] city. Staff will continue to work with
[31:38] the oversight committee on project
[31:39] progress. Along with staff, the
[31:42] construction management team of FA
[31:43] Engineering will have Adrien Cormier on
[31:45] the ground to interface with residents
[31:47] on any questions or concerns they may
[31:49] have. A web page on the city website
[31:52] will go live this week and will provide
[31:54] information and updates. And an item
[31:56] will be included in the Bvidia Breeze
[31:57] this week and likely in the coming
[31:59] months to share information and updates
[32:01] on this critical infrastructure project.
[32:04] And with that, I will be happy to take
[32:06] any questions.
[32:09] Any
[32:11] questions for Tony?
[32:13] » Just real quick, uh you mentioned the uh
[32:16] the breeze as well as the traffic and
[32:18] impacts letter to the neighbors. Um
[32:20] don't don't lowball that would be would
[32:22] be my suggestion. Like you know, you
[32:24] know, really let people know what it is.
[32:26] I don't know if you want to, you know, a
[32:28] single topic blast, but but but
[32:30] certainly something I would I would get
[32:32] that information out there what people
[32:34] to expect as far as any traffic
[32:36] disruptions. There's always going to be
[32:37] parking disruptions and some traffic
[32:39] disruptions during during the times, but
[32:41] be clear and explicit about that so
[32:42] people know what what to expect.
[32:45] » Yeah, absolutely. And and um the letter
[32:50] the not notification letter that we're
[32:51] sending as well u includes a QR code
[32:54] that will let people um uh go straight
[32:57] to the web page on on the on the website
[32:59] which will have a lot more information
[33:01] available.
[33:02] » What's the radius of that though? Um
[33:05] well we we were discussing that this
[33:06] this week um
[33:09] uh because the reason because it's
[33:11] actually quite difficult to draw a line
[33:13] around uh where sort of uh impacted
[33:17] residents uh but not uh too impacted
[33:20] where that might be. So um at this point
[33:22] we're looking at a citywide um
[33:24] notification letter.
[33:25] » Okay.
[33:25] » Yeah.
[33:28] I I would support the citywide
[33:30] notification letter just because no
[33:32] matter where you live, you drive down
[33:34] Beach Road at some point and sometimes
[33:36] other people do use it more
[33:40] really no matter where you live. So, um
[33:42] at some point everybody hits beach road
[33:45] often during the week. So, it's probably
[33:48] a good idea at least for that initial
[33:50] one that everybody knows.
[33:53] » Yeah. Um yeah, definitely agree.
[33:56] » But that was great news. I was expecting
[33:59] lots of horrible news from you. So, you
[34:02] started out with this depressing news,
[34:04] but you turned it around. So, about the
[34:07] the walkways was great to hear. The PG&
[34:10] responded to the city's requests. This
[34:14] was great to hear. So, let's hope they
[34:16] do what they promise.
[34:19] » And Tony, thank you for that report. Um,
[34:22] I did have one question as I was
[34:23] listening to you
[34:25] when you talked about that, um, they
[34:28] would be able to have hopefully 64 days
[34:32] to finish the project. If you get into
[34:35] that position where things, days, and
[34:39] everything start really counting, would
[34:41] the city consider um looking at our
[34:45] normal construction hours and maybe
[34:47] allowing construction to start a little
[34:49] bit earlier or even consider I know the
[34:52] third rail of working on weekends if
[34:55] really got pushed into it um just so
[34:59] that we could meet the the deadline as
[35:01] sort of an absolute outside
[35:03] consideration.
[35:06] Yes, I think that is definitely
[35:07] something that that we would look at. Um
[35:10] and um hopefully we wouldn't have to um
[35:14] deal with it, but um that that would be
[35:16] one way to uh give them a little extra
[35:19] time.
[35:20] » Okay, great. Thank you.
[35:21] » And the 65 days was was the full scope
[35:23] of the work. Um that's not necessarily
[35:25] the inwater work. And so hopefully they
[35:27] can skew that to the earlier part of the
[35:29] project. I know they can't do it
[35:30] exclusively, but
[35:33] some flexibility there, that's for sure.
[35:35] » Yes. Yeah. And um actually a little less
[35:38] flexibility than I um had um expected.
[35:42] Um yeah, basically they've they've sort
[35:44] of organized a very efficient sequence
[35:46] of work. Um and the last item is to cut
[35:50] the sheet piles down to size uh along
[35:52] the seaw wall, which is
[35:55] » Yeah. in the beach. Um and that's after
[35:57] cuz there's a concrete a layer of
[35:59] concrete that needs to set and cure for
[36:01] seven days before that. And um so they
[36:03] have to wait for that before they can
[36:04] cut it. And yeah,
[36:06] » Just one final quick comment. The
[36:08] escalation that that that um Tony is
[36:10] referring to is is some work by our
[36:12] mayor. So thank you. Thank you on that.
[36:14] » You're welcome. Um I have a couple of
[36:17] questions. So the P during the PG& work
[36:20] will there be road closures during that
[36:22] time as well or this will only and the
[36:24] other utility work the road
[36:27] complications will only happen when the
[36:28] actual project begins.
[36:30] » There will there will be traffic control
[36:33] uh traffic controls in place for PG&'s
[36:35] work. They haven't um submitted any
[36:37] plans for road closures or or any um uh
[36:41] permit requests. Um, so we're
[36:44] anticipating that the road will remain
[36:46] open, but uh there will be traffic
[36:47] controls in place. And actually this
[36:49] evening on my way up here, I saw that
[36:51] they've put no parking signs um up along
[36:54] Beach Road. Um so they're um it looks
[36:57] like they are um hoping to start sooner
[37:00] rather than later.
[37:02] » Okay. Do we have you know how Tibbron
[37:04] has one of those boards that can give
[37:06] information? Do we have one of those
[37:08] where we can at least
[37:10] flag direction to where wherever to to
[37:14] get more information?
[37:15] » Um, we we don't have one of those, but
[37:18] we actually included it in in the RFP
[37:20] documents for the contractor to provide
[37:22] one. Um, and so um um we met with them
[37:28] today and that was one of the things
[37:29] that they brought up was that they have
[37:31] it and um they're ready to bring it out.
[37:32] So that'll probably be placed next week.
[37:35] Um, and those signs are quite um there's
[37:38] actually not much information you can
[37:40] get on them, but um it's a good point.
[37:43] We could refer people to the website for
[37:45] uh for for more details,
[37:47] » Right? And I agree with everybody else
[37:48] here. The more communication and the
[37:50] earlier we and comprehensively we can do
[37:53] it to everybody in the community, I
[37:55] think that's super important so that
[37:56] people aren't caught out.
[37:59] » Thank you. Yeah, definitely.
[38:01] » Okay. Um, if there are no more
[38:04] questions, we'll open it to public
[38:05] comment. Seeing none in the room, is
[38:08] there any online?
[38:10] » Okay, great. In that case, we will
[38:13] close item 3E and we're going to move on
[38:15] to the consent calendar. The consent
[38:19] calendar consists of items that the city
[38:20] council considers to be routine or
[38:22] council has discussed previously and do
[38:24] not require further discussion. Unless
[38:26] any item is specifically removed by any
[38:28] member of the city council, the consent
[38:30] calendar will be adopted by one motion.
[38:32] Council will take public comment on all
[38:34] items on the consent calendar when the
[38:36] calendar is called. So, can I first ask
[38:39] my colleagues whether anybody wishes to
[38:41] have any item uh removed from the
[38:43] consent calendar?
[38:48] I don't know if I need it removed, but I
[38:50] have one question about B, one question
[38:53] about C, and one question about D.
[38:57] » Okay. Anybody else?
[39:01] » B, C, and D. She said B, C, and D.
[39:06] » Did you say B?
[39:08] » B, C, and D.
[39:09] » Oh, E. Okay, that was my question.
[39:12] » Okay.
[39:13] » Okay. Okay. So rather than pull these um
[39:16] under I can just ask the questions
[39:17] directly
[39:18] » Or ask Jane to ask her questions
[39:19] directly.
[39:20] » Yes. Let's see how simple or complicated
[39:22] the questions are if you don't mind.
[39:23] Mayor.
[39:24] » Okay. And and if it can't be answered
[39:26] now, this question could be answered
[39:29] another time. It's just that it came up.
[39:32] Um I was asked um to explain what the
[39:36] 980 work week literally means. And so I
[39:39] don't know if you can explain that in a
[39:41] short
[39:43] » Compact way.
[39:44] » Yeah. So most staff work the 980 it's
[39:47] five
[39:49] five days one week with an eight hour
[39:51] day on Friday and then on the second
[39:55] week it's four 9-hour days. So it's a 36
[39:59] and a 44.
[40:01] » Okay.
[40:04] » They're always nine hours except for the
[40:05] one Friday.
[40:07] Okay. Four nine hour days. Okay.
[40:12] » Nour
[40:14] 9 hour days. The second week is four
[40:17] nines right
[40:18] » Hours.
[40:20] I didn't realize that. That's why it's
[40:22] 990. I never knew that.
[40:24] » Right.
[40:25] » 980.
[40:26] » Makes sense.
[40:26] » Now it helps. Okay. And then um did do
[40:32] you want Pat to ask her B question?
[40:34] » Which she's got D.
[40:35] » Oh D. Okay. Sorry for C.
[40:37] » Um, then in attachment A under salaries,
[40:40] just out of curiosity, where would our
[40:43] new sergeant be placed on that salary
[40:46] schedule? Do you know that? Where in the
[40:50] police salary?
[40:52] » Uh, yes.
[41:12] I believe she was placed at step C D C.
[41:18] » Yes.
[41:19] » In the hired before July 1st, 2026.
[41:22] » Correct.
[41:23] » Okay.
[41:25] Okay. Thanks. And then for D, my
[41:29] question is, have we really received $80
[41:33] in 50 years
[41:35] from that block grant?
[41:40] There's a block grant in there and it
[41:42] said we've received $80 in 50 years.
[41:47] And so my question is, are we required
[41:50] to be part of that block grant or should
[41:52] we just I think it costs us more to
[41:54] produce the paperwork on this.
[41:58] » So mayor.
[41:59] Yeah. So mayor, if I may offer
[42:01] recommendation. Um it sounds like I
[42:04] think we can proceed with items B and C
[42:08] and maybe pull D. So Commissioner,
[42:11] Council Member Carropia can also pose
[42:13] your question.
[42:16] was the same question. $80 if that was
[42:19] » Okay. So you want you will pull that
[42:20] item and discuss it. Okay. Fine. So in
[42:22] that case, can I get a motion from
[42:23] someone to approve items 4 A through 4 C
[42:28] and 4 E through 4 H.
[42:31] » So moved.
[42:33] » Second.
[42:34] » All in favor?
[42:35] » I.
[42:36] » Great. We'll move on to uh to 4 D. So
[42:40] Oh, I'm sorry. Not awake. Do we have any
[42:43] public comment on the consent calendar?
[42:46] » There are no hands raised.
[42:48] » Okay, thank you. Um, okay. So, moving to
[42:50] 4D. Um, who would like to answer that
[42:53] question?
[42:54] » Yes. So, I'd say it's a it's a great
[42:55] question that and they're referencing
[42:57] all of Miranda in that statement. It
[42:59] looks like So, I'm guessing that's
[43:01] perhaps a typo. We can look into it, but
[43:05] it's more than more than $80 certainly.
[43:08] Um, however, is a good question about
[43:10] how much does Belvadier receive from
[43:11] that? I think historically not much if
[43:13] any um just you know given the the
[43:15] mission of this organization. So uh it's
[43:19] possible with the housing element and
[43:20] new housing laws we may end up tapping
[43:22] into this or being eligible for this as
[43:24] we get more affordable and affordability
[43:26] of those types of units in Belvadier.
[43:28] But um I think it's you know the the
[43:31] takeaway is it's better to be part of
[43:32] the program than not um at least going
[43:34] into where going into this from where we
[43:36] are with with regard to housing.
[43:41] Most of the pre of the prerequisites are
[43:43] are 100% affordable. Like they they
[43:46] literally have a floor on on 100%
[43:47] affordability.
[43:48] » So maybe it was with Farley Place that
[43:50] we got some money.
[43:54] » Okay, with that let's open. Does that
[43:56] sufficiently answer your question? Um
[43:58] Beth, do we have any public comment on
[43:59] item 4 D?
[44:01] » Okay, so can I get a motion for 4D?
[44:04] » I make a motion to approve 4D on the
[44:06] consent calendar.
[44:07] » Second.
[44:08] » All in favor? I
[44:10] » Great motion passes.
[44:12] » We will now move on to our item five
[44:15] which is our public hearings and this is
[44:18] uh 5A an introduction and first reading
[44:20] of an ordinance amending the Belvadier
[44:23] municipal code to establish rules for
[44:24] commercial drone delivery in Belvidia.
[44:27] Um is Andrew is this you or is this
[44:31] Robert?
[44:32] » Yeah I'll go ahead and start off. Uh
[44:34] thank you mayor. So earlier this year,
[44:36] uh, staff began hearing from some
[44:38] private industry experts that commercial
[44:40] drone deliveries specifically are
[44:44] expected to become an increasingly
[44:46] common as retailers, restaurants, and
[44:48] delivery service providers expand
[44:51] operations throughout the San Francisco
[44:52] Bay area. Uh rather than responding
[44:55] after commercial drone delivery becomes
[44:57] established, the proposed ordinance
[44:59] takes a proactive approach by
[45:01] establishing a local regulatory
[45:03] framework that addresses the ground
[45:04] level impacts of these operations while
[45:07] also recognizing the Federal Aviation
[45:09] Administration's ex exclusive authority
[45:12] over aircraft operations and airspace.
[45:15] Consistent with that division of
[45:17] authority, the ordinance does not
[45:18] regulate drone overflight uh flight
[45:20] paths, altitude or aircraft operations.
[45:24] In broad terms, the ordinance does four
[45:25] things. Uh first, it regulates where
[45:28] commercial drone delivery facilities may
[45:31] be located. Second, it establishes rules
[45:34] for delivery related activity on both
[45:36] public and private property.
[45:38] Third, it includes standards to protect
[45:40] privacy, minimum nuisance uh minimize
[45:44] nuisance impacts, and preserve public
[45:46] safety. And finally, it provides the
[45:48] city with enforcement tools should
[45:50] violations occur. The ordinance is
[45:53] intended to ensure that commercial drone
[45:54] delivery can occur in a manner that's
[45:56] compatible with Belvier's residential
[45:58] character, public safety, and quality of
[46:01] life. Barring any changes this evening,
[46:03] staff is requesting that the city
[46:04] council will introduce the ordinance,
[46:06] wave a first reading, and direct staff
[46:08] to return uh for adoption at the next
[46:11] regular city council meeting. Andrew and
[46:14] myself are both available if you have
[46:15] questions.
[46:18] » Do any council members have questions?
[46:20] » Kevin,
[46:21] » I just had one. is uh in the amendment
[46:24] it was uh I think it was 20 more
[46:26] deliveries per month shall constitute
[46:28] repeated or systematic use of the
[46:30] property. I'm just wondering where the
[46:32] 20 came from.
[46:35] Um that was a number that was um
[46:38] selected uh in consultation with the
[46:40] mayor and certainly that is not a number
[46:43] that is set in stone. Uh that is
[46:44] something within the council's
[46:46] discretion if you want to move it up or
[46:47] down.
[46:48] » Thank you. Any
[46:51] other questions?
[46:53] » I have a ton. Okay.
[46:57] Sorry. Um so um
[47:04] let's see. Let's go to um
[47:13] I guess a lot of my questions refer to
[47:17] things like um authorized by the city.
[47:20] Um so
[47:25] it's not clear in this code
[47:28] what that vehicle is going to be. um and
[47:32] and how we're going to um have
[47:35] authorized by city. Is it um going to be
[47:37] done with a permit? Is it going to be
[47:39] done with a license? Um the same around
[47:43] written consent? What's the vehicle? Um
[47:48] what are the control measures? Um how do
[47:52] we know who has or who has not given
[47:54] written um consent? Um is it going to be
[47:57] something that's going to be done
[47:58] online? I mean, it says we're going to
[48:00] be doing this, but um,
[48:05] you know, there there there's nothing
[48:08] here that says you have to get a permit
[48:10] or it's a license. That'll be an online
[48:13] registration. I mean, who's going to
[48:15] control this online registration of
[48:18] who's
[48:21] signed up or not? Um, you know, nuisance
[48:24] impact on neighbors.
[48:27] um you know what might be fine with me
[48:30] may not be fine with another and then
[48:32] that comes into how do we how do we
[48:34] define what the what a nuisance is. I
[48:38] mean do we use our noise ordinance but
[48:41] then how do we regulate the sound of a
[48:44] drone and what what that sound is
[48:46] depending on who the delivery vehicle
[48:49] is. Um
[48:53] um
[48:56] and then we're in the future going to
[48:58] establish a complaint and um
[49:00] investigation process. My questions were
[49:03] is when are we going to do that? Who's
[49:06] going to be responsible for that? Um
[49:10] and then does anybody else have
[49:12] questions because I could I then go into
[49:14] certain sections.
[49:16] » Why don't we because you've listed about
[49:18] 20 questions. Should we take them one
[49:19] one by one? Is that going to be easier?
[49:22] » So, um
[49:29] is it?
[49:31] Oh, so that's where we are. So, in the
[49:33] actual staff report in the purpose of
[49:35] the ordinance,
[49:37] um in number two, um it says required
[49:41] conditional per permit for commercial
[49:43] drone delivery facility and then it says
[49:46] elsewhere in the city. I I I'm not sure
[49:49] if elsewhere is the right word or if it
[49:51] should have been anywhere. I just
[49:52] questioning that. And then in number
[49:55] three,
[49:57] it talks about um prohibited commercial
[49:59] drone uh deliveries and it says
[50:02] authorized by the city.
[50:06] And so
[50:08] » Use permit.
[50:10] The question is is should it be um
[50:15] should we be you know more more direct
[50:17] in that? I was just wondering you know
[50:19] what what vehicle are we going to be
[50:21] using? Did you want to answer these as I
[50:23] go or do you want me to just rattle on?
[50:27] » Well, we'll we'll try to tackle a couple
[50:29] at a time and we'll see how Okay.
[50:31] » So this this but then now we get down to
[50:33] Okay. For
[50:36] » Um written consent before private
[50:38] property is used. So,
[50:42] is there going to be an online
[50:43] registration?
[50:45] Um, how do we control? How do we know
[50:47] who's approved, not approved? Um, would
[50:50] it be better to do an optin or I mean an
[50:53] opt out versus an opt-in because it
[50:55] might be lesser people? Um, you know, I
[50:58] mean, what how are we going to manage
[51:01] this? Um,
[51:04] » Yeah. So if I I could take a stab at
[51:07] that issue if you don't mind, council
[51:08] member.
[51:09] » Yeah. Yeah.
[51:09] » Yeah. So we didn't in as a first pass,
[51:12] we didn't build in a lot of specificity
[51:13] how that written authorization is to be
[51:15] provided. Uh certainly if the council
[51:17] wants to be more specific, we can
[51:19] certainly head in that direction. Um but
[51:21] I I think the idea here was to be
[51:22] flexible, especially since we are
[51:24] talking about regulating a new not
[51:27] necessarily sure if it's new technology,
[51:28] but at least a new potential business
[51:29] practice that we want to maintain some
[51:32] flexibility. Um certainly if if the
[51:34] council does preer prefer something more
[51:36] formal uh we certainly understand and we
[51:39] can build that in but it'd be helpful to
[51:41] know exactly what the council would like
[51:42] on that front but on the first pass I
[51:44] think we're trying to be flexible as a
[51:46] general manner
[51:47] » Because I think Pat there um the
[51:49] question is really valid but the deliver
[51:52] whoever's delivering the package has to
[51:55] get the authorization
[51:57] they are required if you're getting food
[52:00] delivery from whoever you have
[52:02] essentially consent to it being
[52:04] delivered on your property, but you're
[52:05] right. The city doesn't have any
[52:07] evidence that that has taken place. So,
[52:10] I guess your question is how do we
[52:12] » Well, that I I read it more that the
[52:14] city was going to be doing this versus
[52:16] the drone the drone people. Um anyway,
[52:20] so if that's the case and it just wasn't
[52:23] clear to me that we were talking about
[52:24] that the drone people would have to get
[52:26] this consent, but then how do we know
[52:29] who has consent and not? I mean, it
[52:31] becomes I, you know, I can see this,
[52:35] you know, my great neighbor next door to
[52:38] me on the right wouldn't care, but you
[52:40] know, my other neighbor on the left who
[52:42] wouldn't care either, but might care.
[52:45] Um, you know, I mean, and he calls and
[52:48] complains, then what where does it put
[52:51] the city? Are we creating a a situation
[52:54] that we have really no control over?
[52:56] » Yeah. So at least with respect to
[52:57] commercial drone delivery facilities, I
[53:00] mean that would be subject to a
[53:02] conditional use permit which would be
[53:03] granted at a you know planning
[53:04] commission hearing etc etc. So that is
[53:07] you know fairly formal in terms of
[53:10] process but in terms of for example you
[53:13] know use of certain public areas or if
[53:16] someone is receiving a package through
[53:19] the through the drone deliveries you
[53:21] know a low level of I guess
[53:22] authorization would be required and
[53:24] again it was intended to be flexible but
[53:27] again if the council feels like it needs
[53:28] to be more prescribed I think we're
[53:31] certainly open to suggestions and
[53:32] guidance.
[53:34] Yeah, I think I I think I mean I wasn't
[53:37] involved in creating it, but I've spent
[53:39] a lot of time with it. I I think as far
[53:42] as that issue goes, it does a good job
[53:43] of separating commercial drone activity
[53:47] through the use permit process, which
[53:49] can add, as Andrew talked about, far
[53:51] more specifics and far more detailed
[53:53] requirements
[53:54] um if and when there's a use permit
[53:56] applied for. And it's providing the
[53:59] flexibility for homeowners to receive uh
[54:02] deliveries and or you know become a
[54:05] delivery not a delivery center but but
[54:07] have have more groundbased services um
[54:08] up to a to a limit to be determined. I
[54:11] mean 20 here but can be subject to um
[54:13] change uh with the onus on the delivery
[54:17] agent to get authorization as it says in
[54:19] the in the ordinance not in the staff
[54:21] report in the ordinance might only be a
[54:23] checkbox you know to to agree to
[54:25] something as as you place that order.
[54:27] So, it's intended to limit structure,
[54:29] keep it on private property, keep it
[54:31] away from public spaces and so forth,
[54:32] then limit it from commercial activity,
[54:34] but give the requirement that you have
[54:37] to have some written approval by the
[54:39] person who is receiving it, property
[54:40] owner, not just from from the property
[54:42] owner. And uh uh I I applaud it actually
[54:46] for for
[54:49] creating a framework but not making it
[54:52] over restrictively going going forward
[54:53] but but knocking out the big risk which
[54:55] is the commercial drone aspect of it in
[54:58] public spaces and even on on on private
[55:00] residences. I only say that because I
[55:02] think that knocked off a couple of your
[55:04] questions.
[55:04] » Okay.
[55:05] » Um
[55:08] » So um Okay. So then I go into Did
[55:12] anybody else want? No,
[55:16] » I
[55:16] » I have a lot of comments, but we'll
[55:18] wait. I mean, let's let's do the
[55:19] questions first and then we can bring it
[55:21] back.
[55:21] » I realize that the staff report is
[55:24] bringing up things that are in the
[55:26] municipal code. Not they're not writing
[55:30] in the staff report what exactly the
[55:33] code is more
[55:34] » The process. Well, I know the code is
[55:35] more valid, but it's it's not also
[55:37] addressed in the code either
[55:39] specifically.
[55:40] » Yeah. I mean, I had a lot of questions
[55:42] along the same.
[55:43] » So, I can go into the code
[55:46] and
[55:49] let's see.
[56:01] Oh, yeah. I question the 20 deliveries.
[56:04] Um
[56:06] so in 8.34.040B 040B.
[56:12] Um,
[56:14] and that has to do with the commercial
[56:17] delivery
[56:19] and um, it says it will not impair
[56:22] residential privacy blah blah blah blah
[56:25] blah emergency access, which I don't
[56:27] have problems with. Um, but this is in
[56:33] reference just to the boardwalk. Um I
[56:36] just question when we say um residential
[56:39] privacy, quiet and enjoyment, are we
[56:42] knocking out the possibility of the
[56:44] boardwalk
[56:45] using any Belvadier property
[56:50] as a commercial use because they're
[56:53] right up against the back of Cove Road.
[56:57] » I mean my view I think that comes to the
[56:59] planning commission for a discussion.
[57:00] Correct. Is that right, Andrew?
[57:02] » Yeah, that's correct. The planning
[57:04] commission would consider, I guess, the
[57:05] proposed facility in context. And so I
[57:08] can imagine some could be designed with
[57:11] appropriate respect for pedest
[57:12] pedestrian access. Some may go too far,
[57:13] but that would be in the planning
[57:14] commission's discretion.
[57:18] » Okay. And then
[57:21] » I actually
[57:22] » I had a question about 040 also. Do you
[57:26] want me to add it in?
[57:26] » Yeah. Yeah.
[57:27] » Or do you want me to come back? Go
[57:28] ahead. Start over.
[57:30] » Okay. Um, so I was curious about C in
[57:34] that section will not create repeated or
[57:38] concentrated delivery activity
[57:40] inconsistent with Belvadier's
[57:42] residential character.
[57:46] I don't know what that means. I mean,
[57:48] what what are we getting at with that? I
[57:50] » I think it's just sort of the amount of
[57:52] use that is being proposed. Um, there is
[57:55] no hard number in there. Certainly if
[57:57] the council did want to provide a hard
[57:59] number so the planning commission that
[58:00] was
[58:00] » I think we had a hard number somewhere
[58:02] else right
[58:02] » Yeah for the 20 that was but that was
[58:04] for residential
[58:05] » Exactly that's for residential
[58:07] » I read this Jane was um or the analogy I
[58:10] had for me was this would be like an
[58:12] Amazon warehouse of for a drone like
[58:14] what if somebody decided to set up a
[58:16] with a commercial use permit
[58:18] » Uh where lots of drones came for all of
[58:21] the Tibberon Peninsula so they were just
[58:24] every second there was a drone coming
[58:25] this was their central hub and then they
[58:26] would send it out or something. I mean,
[58:28] again, that would be just an excessive
[58:30] use of a specific location that would be
[58:33] out of character, I think, for our
[58:35] community,
[58:36] » Right? And this is a criteria that was
[58:37] intended to be flexible again, so the
[58:39] planning commission could on it
[58:40] » The proposed use.
[58:42] » But certainly, if you did want to
[58:43] provide a hard number, you could as a
[58:45] bright line.
[58:46] » I think
[58:46] » I can think there's pluses and minuses
[58:48] to either approach.
[58:49] I I think one of the problems for me is
[58:53] that
[58:55] we have a lot of municipal code that's
[58:59] flexible and then it get turns against
[59:02] the intent because it's too flexible and
[59:04] nobody knows what it means. So I think
[59:07] my questions
[59:09] um are
[59:11] you know without it first of all this
[59:13] seemed overly long and repetitive to me
[59:19] but at the same time certain parts of it
[59:22] were not very specific and I worry that
[59:26] a company that's very sophisticated
[59:29] » Will come in and figure out a way to
[59:32] manipulate it because it's not very
[59:34] specific. So, um, that's my concern
[59:38] going through a lot of this.
[59:40] » Yeah. Again, this is just the first
[59:42] pass. I
[59:42] » I know, but I thought that we were being
[59:44] asked to not have this be a second pass.
[59:48] Is that correct tonight?
[59:49] » No. So, as an ordinance, this will come
[59:50] back for a second reading in any
[59:52] instance
[59:53] » Or second approval.
[59:54] » But, Jenn, I mean, I'll jump in a little
[59:57] bit because I had some uh involvement in
[1:00:00] this. I think part of the push for this
[1:00:01] is that um we want something on the
[1:00:05] books before this comes to life um and
[1:00:09] to get ahead of it as much as we can and
[1:00:11] really the risk is around these drone
[1:00:13] delivery facilities and and what can we
[1:00:15] do um
[1:00:18] to provide some regulation and this will
[1:00:21] I'm sure evolve over time as the
[1:00:23] industry evolves but to have the biggest
[1:00:26] concern as everybody said is that we
[1:00:27] have this centralized depo where
[1:00:31] thousands of drones are flying over
[1:00:32] every day and if it is on the boardwalk
[1:00:34] and it's in Tibbron's territory, we
[1:00:35] can't control for that. And so that's
[1:00:37] why in some ways there should be at some
[1:00:39] point these discussions with Tibbron to
[1:00:41] see whether we can have some combined
[1:00:44] regulation around this. Um so it's
[1:00:48] really a first attempt to put something
[1:00:50] on the books to to to begin that
[1:00:53] discussion. But I don't know that being
[1:00:56] very prescriptive about this question of
[1:01:00] will not create repeated or concentrated
[1:01:02] delivery activity inconsistent with
[1:01:03] Belvadier's residential character. I
[1:01:05] don't think we can put a number on that.
[1:01:07] I mean that would be
[1:01:08] » I just wonder if it needs to be there at
[1:01:10] all. I guess it doesn't mean anything to
[1:01:12] me. It's not saying anything. It's just
[1:01:14] it's just a finding requirement for the
[1:01:16] for the per for for the for the for the
[1:01:18] use permit which gives the the the the
[1:01:20] planning commission um
[1:01:23] » Discretion if if it's not there they
[1:01:25] don't have discretion over character.
[1:01:26] » So I'm I guess I'm confused which I
[1:01:30] fully admit because I found this very
[1:01:32] confusing and I read it many times until
[1:01:35] I was going crazy. So
[1:01:40] this facility thing can only be
[1:01:42] constructed in a commercial zone, not in
[1:01:45] a residential zone.
[1:01:46] » Correct. Not allowed in residential
[1:01:48] areas.
[1:01:48] » So since it can only be in a commercial
[1:01:51] zone in Belvadier, our only commercial
[1:01:54] zone in Belvadier is the back parking
[1:01:56] lot of the boardwalk and maybe the
[1:01:58] nursery school.
[1:02:00] » Yes. Very small areas of Belvier.
[1:02:02] » So we've written this whole thing about
[1:02:05] that. those two small areas. Mhm.
[1:02:08] » And I think that's what's confusing
[1:02:10] about it because I don't know why we
[1:02:12] just don't say
[1:02:15] there's no, you know, these are where we
[1:02:17] have commercial zones and this is where
[1:02:21] it relates and then go into it rather
[1:02:24] than the confusion of feeling like it
[1:02:26] could be on private property or if
[1:02:30] someone uses it more than 19 times it
[1:02:32] becomes a facility but yet can't be a
[1:02:35] facility because it's a residential.
[1:02:38] So that's where my I'm just confused by
[1:02:42] it. We have such a little commercial
[1:02:45] area and I agree with Sally. I think
[1:02:47] it's mostly Tibbron that could have a
[1:02:50] facility there and then we really do
[1:02:53] need to work with them to figure out if
[1:02:55] they're going to set anything up because
[1:02:57] for us this is kind of this whole thing
[1:03:00] is only relating to a very tiny section
[1:03:04] of possibility. But if we don't have
[1:03:06] something on our books, Amazon just
[1:03:07] decides to buy the nursery school and we
[1:03:09] have nothing there and they set up their
[1:03:11] drone
[1:03:11] » Deliver nothing on the books. I'm saying
[1:03:13] this is so complicated for
[1:03:15] » But but I think it's
[1:03:17] » But I think it's trying to balance the
[1:03:19] need that some people are going to want
[1:03:21] to take an occasional dinner delivery
[1:03:23] from San Francisco and we shouldn't be a
[1:03:25] we shouldn't uh disallow that and some
[1:03:28] people want medical deliveries and those
[1:03:30] things should be allowed. It's a
[1:03:31] question of when does it become a
[1:03:32] nuisance to the community at large. So
[1:03:35] having some cap on the number of
[1:03:36] deliveries a month and who knows what I
[1:03:38] don't know what that appropriate cap is.
[1:03:40] It
[1:03:41] » I mean 19 per household seemed very high
[1:03:44] to me.
[1:03:44] » Well I think in five years that might
[1:03:46] not that might be pretty regular
[1:03:48] » And I mean I did watch all the videos.
[1:03:52] I I mean it at this point
[1:03:56] » That we're writing it, they're only
[1:03:57] delivering things that are between two
[1:03:59] and four pounds.
[1:04:01] » They can't deliver on hills and uh
[1:04:05] a lot of foliage and trees. They're
[1:04:07] hovering 25 feet high,
[1:04:09] » Right?
[1:04:10] » And then they lower it down to a flat
[1:04:12] area. And if you notice in the videos,
[1:04:16] everything is looks more like you're not
[1:04:20] in California or maybe you're in Nevada
[1:04:22] and everything's flat, right? And and so
[1:04:26] » But the technology will evolve as well.
[1:04:28] » I get that. But then our
[1:04:30] » Code would also need to evolve. I'm just
[1:04:32] saying right now the high we are coming
[1:04:36] at this so early in the process that
[1:04:40] that we don't know what's going on with
[1:04:41] Tiburn. I'm not against having
[1:04:43] something. I just think this uh has a
[1:04:47] lot of loopholes and I think it's
[1:04:49] confusing. I think we should have
[1:04:51] something I'm hoping that we could have
[1:04:54] something that's easier to read and
[1:04:58] easier to understand. And I don't know
[1:05:01] what that means. I mean,
[1:05:04] you know, I wrote like, could we use the
[1:05:06] word residential in some of these where
[1:05:09] it's hard to even know is it residential
[1:05:11] or non-residential
[1:05:13] and um you know, no person may use
[1:05:17] private property for delivery. Well, do
[1:05:19] you mean an occupant? Do you mean a
[1:05:22] company? What does that mean? No person
[1:05:24] may use private property,
[1:05:28] isn't it? A company that's delivering
[1:05:30] it. There's no person in the drone. So,
[1:05:34] » Right. But, and the idea there is that
[1:05:35] they need the property owner's consent
[1:05:37] before doing that. Okay.
[1:05:38] » Right. Before delivering the package, it
[1:05:40] needs to be the, you know, owner asking
[1:05:42] for it.
[1:05:43] » Right.
[1:05:43] » Right. And the other thing, if you don't
[1:05:45] put anything down on paper, if these
[1:05:47] deliveries start happening and people
[1:05:48] don't have space on their own property,
[1:05:51] because a lot of people don't, they
[1:05:52] might start getting deliveries in the
[1:05:53] middle of the road if we don't
[1:05:56] regulate.
[1:05:57] » I think all the public stuff should
[1:05:58] absolutely be there.
[1:06:00] » And I think specificity about the only
[1:06:03] appropriate place for a facility is in
[1:06:06] the commercial nonresidential.
[1:06:09] » Doesn't it say that?
[1:06:10] » Yeah. Can I
[1:06:11] » Does it in a lot of many places? and
[1:06:14] very confusing.
[1:06:16] » I think we should continue taking
[1:06:17] comments and do what the process is
[1:06:18] intended is to take those comments and
[1:06:21] then go through a rev.
[1:06:22] » I I three more comments.
[1:06:24] » Yeah. Yeah. I mean, but I think that's
[1:06:25] this is actually why we have two
[1:06:28] readings.
[1:06:28] » Yeah. Pat, do you want to continue with
[1:06:30] your questions?
[1:06:31] » Sure.
[1:06:32] » So, this one these are much easier I
[1:06:35] think. So, 2034.050 50 C.
[1:06:40] It says um interfere with emergency
[1:06:43] vehicle access is a public nuisance and
[1:06:46] I'm and maybe immediately abate it.
[1:06:49] Don't you think that should have a
[1:06:50] stronger word than maybe like shall be
[1:06:53] or should or must or something? I mean
[1:06:57] maybe immediately abate it. That what
[1:06:59] that doesn't seem for an emergency
[1:07:02] vehicle a very strong word.
[1:07:04] » Yeah, we can certainly make that change.
[1:07:06] » Okay. See, it's getting better.
[1:07:08] » There you go.
[1:07:08] » Then on 834.80,
[1:07:13] just a typo. Um I think you're um
[1:07:17] talking about um California. Oh, maybe
[1:07:20] it is California. I thought it was our
[1:07:22] code. Never mind. That might be right.
[1:07:24] California has longer code numbers. Then
[1:07:26] in the next sentence it says um you know
[1:07:30] it's saying that the commercial um drone
[1:07:34] may not intentionally connect collect
[1:07:37] use rema retain sell or disclose images
[1:07:40] video audio or sensor data. What says
[1:07:44] sensor data?
[1:07:48] I think sensor data could be anything.
[1:07:51] Uses positioning sensors to find out
[1:07:53] where it is in the world and it could
[1:07:55] somehow, you know, scan a property or a
[1:07:57] house. Yeah, something like that.
[1:07:58] » All right, those were my questions.
[1:08:02] » Jane, do you have more questions or
[1:08:04] should we go to public comment?
[1:08:06] » I've got one quick question real quick.
[1:08:07] Um, I'm trying to find it, Rebecca, and
[1:08:09] I'm not able. Um, in our in our in our
[1:08:11] commercial zones, um, is there any
[1:08:14] misunderstanding that someone could
[1:08:17] identify drone deliveries?
[1:08:20] A drone delivery facility would be an
[1:08:22] allowable use.
[1:08:24] I don't think so.
[1:08:29] » No, it's not.
[1:08:30] » So, I mean, I don't think so either, but
[1:08:33] let me see if I can just find the MUN
[1:08:34] code really quickly.
[1:08:36] » So, that brings up another question.
[1:08:38] Sorry, can I ask one follow? Would it be
[1:08:41] like a warehouse type use or I guess I'm
[1:08:43] not
[1:08:44] » I I don't know that
[1:08:45] » Familiar with what a drone facility I
[1:08:49] know the origins of this is the is the
[1:08:51] is the fact that I've got a bug fly on
[1:08:53] me that uh
[1:08:56] I think the real risks here are the um
[1:08:59] the important things the prohibition on
[1:09:00] residential space and so forth but we
[1:09:02] don't have any um uh prohibitions or or
[1:09:06] or requirement for use permit within a
[1:09:08] commercial area. So my guess is someone
[1:09:11] would have to really thread that needle
[1:09:13] to currently to have that use in a
[1:09:15] commercial area that fits with what's
[1:09:17] allowed in that zone.
[1:09:19] So I'm just I'm just trying to gauge our
[1:09:21] risk about right now in in the
[1:09:22] commercial areas. Residentials is is an
[1:09:25] existing risk. I understand we want to
[1:09:27] clear that up.
[1:09:28] » But is it is it better to defi if
[1:09:30] there's any greyness? Is it better?
[1:09:32] » I agree. I'm just I'm just trying to
[1:09:33] trying to get a sense for for us all as
[1:09:34] far as the urgency to do something,
[1:09:36] » Right?
[1:09:37] » Yeah. Yes. when it comes back, I'll look
[1:09:39] I'll look into commercial.
[1:09:41] » Yeah. Just just just just to in the next
[1:09:43] report of it, you know, and and weigh
[1:09:46] in, you know, you know, from a from a
[1:09:47] land use perspective, how vulnerable are
[1:09:50] we in our commercial areas to a a a
[1:09:54] commercial um delivery facility, drone
[1:09:56] commercial facility in our in our
[1:09:58] existing allowable uses?
[1:10:02] » And do we really have commercial zone?
[1:10:04] Don't we have mixed use zone? It's mixed
[1:10:06] use and we do allow uh
[1:10:09] » Equipment rental, leasing, package
[1:10:11] delivery,
[1:10:13] office security. I don't know how. It
[1:10:16] seems like it could sort of manipulate
[1:10:18] itself into that. Yeah, one of those
[1:10:20] uses.
[1:10:22] » So, but do we need to change where we
[1:10:24] say our commercial zone? Because we
[1:10:26] don't really have a commercial zone
[1:10:28] anymore. We have a mixeduse zone.
[1:10:30] » We should say mixed use.
[1:10:32] » We should say mixed use.
[1:10:34] Um, should we go for to public comment
[1:10:37] before we bring this back for further
[1:10:38] discussion?
[1:10:41] » Beth, is there anybody online?
[1:10:43] » There are no hands raised.
[1:10:44] » Okay. All right. So, who wants to go
[1:10:47] first in terms of next steps or
[1:10:50] discussion?
[1:10:52] » Well, it it's it sounds like uh there's
[1:10:55] a fair amount of comments on this. Uh,
[1:10:59] and it's probably not it's probably more
[1:11:02] sufficient than a second reading would
[1:11:03] would tolerate, I would imagine. Uh,
[1:11:06] would it just make sense to have staff
[1:11:07] consolidate the comments? Because we can
[1:11:09] all go through it here, but it might be
[1:11:10] better offline. I don't know. Uh,
[1:11:12] consolidate the comments, come back with
[1:11:14] a with a revised ordinance.
[1:11:18] » I think that's right. Um do we want to
[1:11:21] have a discussion around the number of
[1:11:22] deliveries in
[1:11:25] residential that it was it's just a
[1:11:28] stick your finger in the air. So is
[1:11:30] there any viewpoint there
[1:11:34] » And we've ex given exceptions for
[1:11:36] medical deliveries
[1:11:37] » Maybe start lower and you can always go
[1:11:39] up I mean you can always adjust it.
[1:11:40] » Medical um delivery doesn't count. No
[1:11:42] there exceptions exactly there are
[1:11:44] exceptions to that so we don't have to
[1:11:45] talk about that. So, I did a little um
[1:11:48] research with
[1:11:51] the Google one, Wing, and um actually
[1:11:54] they have a very nice YouTube on Wing
[1:11:56] that you can watch for several minutes.
[1:11:58] It's very interesting. Anyway, there's a
[1:12:00] limit of how much they can deliver and
[1:12:03] even Amazon Air, which is available in
[1:12:06] some cities, however none in California,
[1:12:08] um their limit is um I think five
[1:12:12] pounds. So, um I don't think we're
[1:12:16] talking, you know, like you get a big
[1:12:18] package from Amazon and Wing is only
[1:12:22] right now with Door Dash and Walmart.
[1:12:26] » So, um
[1:12:29] I'm not sure how many people use Door
[1:12:30] Dash and I'm not sure how many people
[1:12:32] use Walmart.
[1:12:32] » My kid daily if I'd let her.
[1:12:36] Um but I think I see the biggest stress
[1:12:38] is like food deliveries from San
[1:12:40] Francisco restaurants which
[1:12:43] » Yeah wanting to do that. We don't have
[1:12:46] any time um restrictions around this. I
[1:12:49] mean we have some thing there's a gnat
[1:12:51] flying around.
[1:12:52] » Yeah.
[1:12:52] » Whoever talks um we don't have any um
[1:12:56] time restraints. I mean, I've looked at
[1:12:58] some other cities that have had drones
[1:13:00] like LA and Rancho Mirage and a couple
[1:13:04] other cities. Um, and some of them say
[1:13:07] it can only operate during um till um
[1:13:10] sunset. They don't allow it when it's
[1:13:13] dark. So, I don't know if that's
[1:13:15] something that should be cons
[1:13:17] considered. Um, you know, or maybe not
[1:13:22] sunset, but say not after, you know, I
[1:13:24] mean, who wants to be in bed at 11:00
[1:13:26] for those of us who go to bed early and
[1:13:28] want to hear a drone delivery of a pizza
[1:13:30] next door? I mean, that would be a
[1:13:32] nuisance to me.
[1:13:34] » Yeah.
[1:13:36] And if we're talking about our two small
[1:13:41] um
[1:13:43] potentially commercial areas for
[1:13:46] facility, do we want to put anything in
[1:13:49] there about um a distance from houses?
[1:13:53] Could we add something like that that it
[1:13:56] we we couldn't have a facility even in a
[1:13:59] commercial area unless it's more than
[1:14:02] 200 feet from a residential
[1:14:04] a resident? I don't know if that's
[1:14:07] » But that wipes out the whole boardwalk.
[1:14:09] I mean, why do why even bother why even
[1:14:12] bother having this if we're going to be
[1:14:14] within 200 feet? I mean, the whole back
[1:14:16] of the our mixed use zone is within 200
[1:14:20] feet of houses in every direction. and
[1:14:22] anything that's zoned MU. So we would
[1:14:25] just rule out any commercial use at all
[1:14:28] if we did that.
[1:14:29] » Andrew, Andrew, we had that. Could
[1:14:32] Tibber just ignore anyway if our
[1:14:34] regulation said you can't come within
[1:14:36] 200 ft, but it's our rules, not theirs.
[1:14:39] Could they ignore that?
[1:14:40] » It's just for a facility.
[1:14:41] » Yeah, for a facility. Meaning
[1:14:43] » Not for dropping off.
[1:14:45] » So if we had saying you can't have a
[1:14:47] commercial drone facility within 200
[1:14:49] feet, so essentially all of the road
[1:14:51] behind
[1:14:52] that could be problematic. If if Tibbron
[1:14:54] chooses to adopt
[1:14:56] » To allow that within the boardwalk,
[1:14:58] would our rules apply?
[1:15:00] » So, they would
[1:15:02] » I think they'd have to the operator
[1:15:03] would have to comply. Well, Tibbron can
[1:15:06] establish his own rules obviously for
[1:15:08] its jurisdiction.
[1:15:09] » Right.
[1:15:09] » Right. We can't regulate activities in
[1:15:12] TRON.
[1:15:13] » Right.
[1:15:13] » So, if it's wholly with throwing out
[1:15:16] 200, I don't even know how far 200 is.
[1:15:18] Yeah, but that's I mean I I think I
[1:15:21] think council member Carat's probably
[1:15:22] right though. If it's 200 feet, it's
[1:15:23] basically saying just don't we're not
[1:15:25] allowing it,
[1:15:26] » Right?
[1:15:26] » And if that's the case, maybe we should
[1:15:27] just say it.
[1:15:28] » But
[1:15:30] » But I
[1:15:32] I mean over time behaviors and and
[1:15:34] expectations will change in terms of the
[1:15:36] community as well and what they want as
[1:15:38] this as this evolves. And so I think
[1:15:41] » Ruling things out completely
[1:15:44] » You can do it. Yeah. isn't necessarily
[1:15:46] the the the right op in in the
[1:15:48] commercial mixeduse zone isn't
[1:15:50] necessarily the right thing either.
[1:15:52] » Right. But certainly to one of your
[1:15:54] earlier comments, mayor, I mean given
[1:15:56] that the boardwalk is a likely location
[1:15:58] for some of these at least commercial
[1:15:59] drone activities.
[1:16:01] » I mean it does seem that cooperation and
[1:16:03] coordination with Tibbron would be
[1:16:05] ultimately be required
[1:16:06] » Required.
[1:16:08] » So wherever we this ordinance, I imagine
[1:16:10] it might be helpful to have a
[1:16:11] conversation with them.
[1:16:13] I mean, I I I think this is a very good
[1:16:16] conversation and I do think that the
[1:16:19] this is going to happen and it's going
[1:16:20] to happen quickly. I think what we need
[1:16:22] to optimize for is the use cases that
[1:16:24] are going to most impact the community.
[1:16:26] I I agree with Jane. think if we have
[1:16:28] such limited opportunities for um
[1:16:31] commercial use um cases in our mixeduse
[1:16:34] zones. I mean if it's just those two I
[1:16:37] mean really for me what I found very um
[1:16:40] satisfying about the ordinance is that
[1:16:42] it's trying to protect from all of these
[1:16:45] drones dropping into Belvadier using
[1:16:48] public space to deliver to homes. So
[1:16:51] envision sitting in your home and the
[1:16:54] drones are landing in the middle of, you
[1:16:56] know, Edgewater or Golden Gate Avenue um
[1:17:00] to deliver something to a resident. And
[1:17:03] so I think what this does is it it
[1:17:06] starts to protect those public spaces
[1:17:08] from use for residential benefit. And I
[1:17:12] think that's the most important thing
[1:17:13] right now because I think that's going
[1:17:15] to have the most immediate impact on our
[1:17:17] residents. I do think we have to have
[1:17:18] something for mixed use as well, but I
[1:17:20] feel like that's not an edge case, but
[1:17:22] it's certainly um a smaller use case
[1:17:25] than I think what could happen if people
[1:17:27] just decide they can land drones
[1:17:29] anywhere for residential deliveries
[1:17:32] because especially in Belvadier where
[1:17:34] not many people have not everyone has a
[1:17:36] level yard, not everyone has a driveway,
[1:17:37] not I mean so I think people will just
[1:17:41] naturally turn to public spaces in order
[1:17:43] to get these drones to deliver items.
[1:17:46] But so what are you proposing for the
[1:17:47] mixeduse zone?
[1:17:49] » For mixed use zones of for those two
[1:17:51] small places, I I think we should
[1:17:53] there's a lot of good thinking in the
[1:17:55] ordinance for that. Um and so I think we
[1:17:57] should definitely you know require a
[1:18:00] conditional use permit and we should go
[1:18:01] through planning and there's a process
[1:18:03] for it. But I I think for me the thing
[1:18:06] that is most urgent is to ensure that we
[1:18:09] are clear that public spaces are not
[1:18:11] available for drone delivery or landing.
[1:18:14] Um because I think residential use is
[1:18:16] going to be the primary use case in
[1:18:18] Belvadier at least initially.
[1:18:19] » Yeah. But but Jane your main point is to
[1:18:22] just s make it simpler make it easy make
[1:18:25] it easier to understand
[1:18:26] » Exact things that are most important to
[1:18:28] us right now.
[1:18:30] » Okay.
[1:18:30] » Like the public area I don't know maybe
[1:18:33] number of
[1:18:35] household
[1:18:37] I don't know I I think the idea of drone
[1:18:42] delivery is
[1:18:44] fantastic because of um traffic, you
[1:18:48] know. I mean, I think in a way it sounds
[1:18:50] amazing because it would cut down on
[1:18:52] cars going up and down our streets and
[1:18:55] Tibbron Boulevard. Um so I'm not anti-
[1:18:58] drone delivery at all. I'm just trying
[1:19:01] to un this just reads very confusing and
[1:19:06] a lot of repetition and a lot of areas
[1:19:09] where it says um you know like um
[1:19:16] if a company I had a question of if a
[1:19:20] company it has repeated violations for
[1:19:23] either nuisance or noise or delivering
[1:19:26] in the wrong location is there a way to
[1:19:28] suspend that delivery? company from
[1:19:31] coming to Belvadier. I mean, you know,
[1:19:33] it's sort of like we write about a lot
[1:19:34] of nuisances, but what what options do
[1:19:37] we have? What what would be a legal
[1:19:39] remedy for us? And I think that was kind
[1:19:42] of missing. Um, so I mean people have to
[1:19:46] sign off, but what about the company
[1:19:48] signing in a way, you know? I don't
[1:19:50] know,
[1:19:51] » Right? I mean, there there are some I
[1:19:53] mean, we try to build or build build
[1:19:55] upon sort of existing remedies and
[1:19:57] procedures that we already have in the
[1:19:58] code.
[1:20:00] Now whether those whether those fines or
[1:20:02] penalties would be a sufficient
[1:20:03] deterrent, that's kind of another
[1:20:05] question. I mean I think we've seen in
[1:20:06] other arenas technology companies maybe
[1:20:08] not maybe sort of acting first and
[1:20:10] dealing with the consequences later.
[1:20:12] » So it's hard to say what would change
[1:20:15] that commercial behavior. I mean I'll be
[1:20:16] honest about that. But to go back to the
[1:20:19] to the earlier I guess it feels like
[1:20:22] people would like to move in the
[1:20:23] direction of simplifying the ordinance
[1:20:24] at least.
[1:20:25] » I may be the only one. I don't know. I I
[1:20:28] think a few have spoken to that. So I
[1:20:30] » Well, simpler is always better.
[1:20:31] » Yeah.
[1:20:32] » Yeah. I mean, would would it be
[1:20:33] something so drastic as taking out the
[1:20:35] provisions about, you know, commercial
[1:20:37] drone facilities and commercial areas or
[1:20:40] mixed use areas?
[1:20:41] » No, that's an important aspect. I mean,
[1:20:44] I was I mean since people said it was a
[1:20:45] sort of I think I think
[1:20:48] » I think Kevin laid it out very well. the
[1:20:49] the the priorities just
[1:20:53] you know a generation ago when pizza
[1:20:56] delivery was a big deal um you know it
[1:20:58] always went to if you live in a a rural
[1:21:00] area it would come to like a local park
[1:21:02] then you'd have to meet them there that
[1:21:04] might be the first step here and so this
[1:21:05] needs to protect against that needs to
[1:21:07] pro protect against dropping in
[1:21:08] Edgewater and Golden Gate as Kevin
[1:21:09] talked about so so I think the
[1:21:12] residential prohibition on residential
[1:21:13] issue and and defining how and where how
[1:21:16] and where and when it can be and when
[1:21:18] and as as Pat Pat talked about can be
[1:21:20] used is important. Um, and then segue to
[1:21:23] the commercial aspect of it where it's
[1:21:24] limited to that. Um, I I I'd be as
[1:21:28] flexible as possible there as you have
[1:21:29] already with with with the with the
[1:21:31] findings necessary and the types of
[1:21:33] things that you're you're you're
[1:21:34] suggesting the planning commission would
[1:21:36] consider because we don't know what it'd
[1:21:37] be. I mean, the the blank company could
[1:21:40] redevelop that property with a with a
[1:21:42] three-story building and and they have a
[1:21:43] facility on the roof that accepts all
[1:21:45] these things, which is probably a great
[1:21:46] solution for the area because it's above
[1:21:48] people's
[1:21:48] » People's zone and you wouldn't care
[1:21:50] about 200 feet at that point.
[1:21:51] » Um, and maybe we want all the tax
[1:21:53] revenue. Maybe we want that that that
[1:21:54] that adjacency. It might not be a bad
[1:21:57] idea. Um, so I don't know that we want
[1:21:59] to necessarily limit it, but we just
[1:22:01] want to be flexible and let the let the
[1:22:03] use permit on the commercial side um be
[1:22:05] be fully discretional discretion I can't
[1:22:08] I don't know what the word is
[1:22:10] » Discretion
[1:22:10] » At the discretion of the planning
[1:22:12] commission I'm sorry uh
[1:22:15] but I think if we can simplify it having
[1:22:17] some experience with with code it's hard
[1:22:19] to simplify though because you you you
[1:22:21] do get circular references all the time
[1:22:23] you know going back on it
[1:22:24] » Right so so it sounds like at this point
[1:22:25] we're not staff is not eliminating
[1:22:27] sections per se, but certainly looking
[1:22:30] towards where we can streamline the
[1:22:31] ordinance a bit. Is that
[1:22:33] » Maybe the flow should should should
[1:22:35] approach the priorities that that laid
[1:22:37] out.
[1:22:37] » I was just going to say I mean there's
[1:22:38] the purpose, the definition, then
[1:22:40] there's residential use rules.
[1:22:42] » Okay.
[1:22:43] » Commercial use rules and then general.
[1:22:46] » Okay.
[1:22:46] » Um
[1:22:46] » That's helpful. Thank you.
[1:22:47] » And then I think that might be more
[1:22:49] straightforward.
[1:22:50] » Okay.
[1:22:54] » Okay. Uh, you have enough direction
[1:22:57] there, Andrew
[1:22:58] » And Robert.
[1:22:59] » Yes.
[1:22:59] » Okay, perfect.
[1:23:02] » And thank you for this because I I I I I
[1:23:04] see how it makes sense to get it on the
[1:23:06] books and I know it's maybe we'll be a
[1:23:09] model for other communities on this.
[1:23:12] » Certainly, the mayor has been helping us
[1:23:14] lead on this issue.
[1:23:16] » Might be a big ass mistake, but let's
[1:23:18] see.
[1:23:20] Um, okay. We are moving on to other
[1:23:24] scheduled items. Uh number six 6 uh 6A
[1:23:27] is an update in discussion of the fire
[1:23:29] annexation with the Tibbron fire
[1:23:31] protection district. And the genesis of
[1:23:33] this was really that Robert had
[1:23:36] essentially said to the council members
[1:23:37] that we would we're still in process but
[1:23:39] that we'd come with a update for the
[1:23:41] council and the community in terms of
[1:23:42] where that negotiation currently stands.
[1:23:45] So Robert, this is all yours.
[1:23:48] » Thank you. Helga and I did discuss it
[1:23:50] and she's going to be introducing this
[1:23:51] one.
[1:23:52] » Sorry, Helga.
[1:23:55] » Thank you, Mayor Wilkinson and city
[1:23:57] council. Before you tonight is the
[1:23:59] update on the city's review of long-term
[1:24:01] options for providing fire and emergency
[1:24:04] medical services, including an
[1:24:07] evaluation of potential annexation to
[1:24:09] the Tibberon Fire Protection District.
[1:24:12] As a council is aware, the city has
[1:24:14] contracted with the Tibbron Fire
[1:24:16] Protection District since 1980. While
[1:24:19] the partnership has consistently
[1:24:21] provided highquality fire and EMS
[1:24:23] services, the current expenditure-based
[1:24:26] contract has become increasingly
[1:24:28] difficult to sustain financially. Fire
[1:24:31] parcel tax revenues have not kept pace
[1:24:34] with contract costs. And in fiscal year
[1:24:36] 2627, the tax is projected to fund only
[1:24:40] about 47% of the city's 2.67 million
[1:24:44] dollar contract cost with the remaining
[1:24:47] balance paid by the general fund. Over
[1:24:50] the past few years, the city has
[1:24:52] evaluated several long-term financial
[1:24:54] options to improve the sustainability
[1:24:57] and predictability for fire name EMS
[1:25:00] services. In 2023, the city explored
[1:25:04] voter feasibility polling for a
[1:25:06] supplemental fire tax, which showed
[1:25:08] support well below the twothirds
[1:25:10] threshold required for a special tax. In
[1:25:13] July of 2024, the city began exploratory
[1:25:16] discussion with the fire district
[1:25:18] regarding possible annexation, including
[1:25:21] a joint task force with Tibbron Fire
[1:25:24] District and Marin Lavco. Citygate
[1:25:27] associates were hired to provide
[1:25:29] financial modeling to evaluate a fair
[1:25:31] allocation that would be sustainable for
[1:25:34] both agencies. In addition, the city
[1:25:37] obtained separate legal and financial
[1:25:39] analysis
[1:25:40] on several issues outside the scope of
[1:25:43] citygate. Most importantly, whether we
[1:25:46] could legally transfer our fire parcel
[1:25:49] tax to the fire district or retain it
[1:25:51] under an annexation agreement. The city
[1:25:54] was advised by Marin Lavco that
[1:25:57] annexation could increase the risk of
[1:25:59] the fire tax being repealed over time as
[1:26:02] the purpose of the annexation become
[1:26:05] become became less familiar to voters.
[1:26:09] The city also considered replacing the
[1:26:11] fire tax with a new emergency services
[1:26:14] tax. However, passing a new special tax
[1:26:17] with no sunset and twothirds voter
[1:26:20] approval would be very difficult and was
[1:26:23] ruled out. In March of 2026, the joint
[1:26:27] task force reconvened to discuss the
[1:26:29] findings and due to the risk of the fire
[1:26:31] tax repeal ultimately determined
[1:26:34] annexation was not practical at this
[1:26:36] time. Based on those findings, staff and
[1:26:40] the fire district believe the best path
[1:26:42] forward is to negotiate an updated
[1:26:44] service contract, which was last revised
[1:26:47] in 2000. The joint task force will
[1:26:50] explore transitioning from an
[1:26:52] expenditure-based model to a
[1:26:53] revenue-based model with clear
[1:26:55] definitions of the properties covered.
[1:26:58] The goal will be to develop a more
[1:27:00] predictable and sustainable funding
[1:27:02] model while maintaining the high level
[1:27:04] of fire and emergency medical services.
[1:27:07] Once negotiations are complete, the
[1:27:10] proposed agreement will be reviewed by
[1:27:12] the finance committee before returning
[1:27:14] to the city council for recommendation.
[1:27:17] And with that, staff will take any
[1:27:19] questions.
[1:27:21] » Does anybody have questions? First off,
[1:27:23] Jane,
[1:27:25] » Can you remind me how Tibrron covers
[1:27:27] their how do they pay the uh Tibbron
[1:27:30] Fire District?
[1:27:32] » Um, it's through their property tax.
[1:27:34] They do have a small um fire tax as
[1:27:38] well. So
[1:27:39] » So it's not a parcel tax.
[1:27:41] » I mean a par they have a small parcel
[1:27:43] tax but they they can start and stop
[1:27:46] their parcel tax.
[1:27:48] » James to remind you that the district
[1:27:50] doesn't overlap completely with with
[1:27:51] Tibberon, right?
[1:27:52] » And the district um is paid for as a
[1:27:54] direct appropriation of their taxes. So,
[1:27:56] so um uh the 1% that goes to that that's
[1:28:00] a tax a fixed percentage goes to the
[1:28:03] district if you're in that district and
[1:28:04] a lesser amount goes to the city the the
[1:28:07] town of Tibberon. In our case, we don't
[1:28:09] pay we don't have anybody going to the
[1:28:11] district. It comes to us and we have a
[1:28:13] special tax on top of it combined which
[1:28:15] which we pay.
[1:28:16] » And the reason that exists is because
[1:28:18] the fire district existed when Prop 13
[1:28:21] happened but we had an independent
[1:28:24] voluntary fire department. So if we had
[1:28:26] already been
[1:28:27] » Uh
[1:28:28] » Okay
[1:28:28] » There would have been an allocation
[1:28:29] directly from our taxes but there wasn't
[1:28:31] and that's why we have a contract for
[1:28:32] service.
[1:28:33] » Okay that that's the piece I was
[1:28:36] forgetting
[1:28:37] » And then yeah so about the contract is
[1:28:40] that something that'll come back to the
[1:28:43] council to discuss or how how does that
[1:28:45] move forward?
[1:28:47] So, we will the task force will work on
[1:28:52] a proposed contract and then it we'll go
[1:28:54] to the finance committee and then it'll
[1:28:57] come to council.
[1:28:58] » Okay.
[1:29:01] » Any other questions?
[1:29:04] Okay. Let's open it for public comment.
[1:29:05] Beth, is there any public comment?
[1:29:07] » There are no hands raised.
[1:29:09] » Great. So, does anybody We don't need
[1:29:11] any. There's no motion here. Uh any
[1:29:13] other comments or no that was very easy.
[1:29:17] Uh okay in that case we will close the
[1:29:20] item and we will move on to item 6B
[1:29:24] which is a discussion and possible
[1:29:25] action on an RL for in the public right
[1:29:29] of way for the property at 180 Beach
[1:29:31] Road. Rebecca I think this is you.
[1:29:47] Can you hear me? Yes. Good evening,
[1:29:48] Mayor Wilkinson and council members. Uh
[1:29:51] for your consideration tonight, this is
[1:29:53] a revocable license application for an
[1:29:55] existing curb and new pavers at 180
[1:29:58] Beach Road.
[1:30:01] On June 11th, 2025, the city granted
[1:30:04] design review exception for a small
[1:30:06] addition deck extension, hill elevator,
[1:30:08] and window and door changes. As a
[1:30:11] project progressed, the applicant
[1:30:13] proposed new parking on private property
[1:30:16] with a small portion of the paving
[1:30:19] uh due to the design and angle of the
[1:30:21] parking space in the city right of way.
[1:30:23] So, you can sort of
[1:30:26] I don't know where my cursor is. I lost
[1:30:27] my cursor, but it's down at the bottom
[1:30:29] there, the shaded area. Um, here the
[1:30:32] draft revocable license shows the
[1:30:34] existing curb and proposed pavers shaded
[1:30:37] within the Beach Road rightway. Um,
[1:30:40] additionally, it was uh determined that
[1:30:43] the
[1:30:45] corner of the carport also encroaches
[1:30:48] into the right of way. Um, and so should
[1:30:52] this revocable license be approved
[1:30:54] tonight, we will update the exhibit and
[1:30:57] shade that corner. That carport's been
[1:30:59] there forever. Um, it just was realized
[1:31:03] as we were putting the presentation
[1:31:05] together today. Um, and so that that
[1:31:08] will also be shaded as well. There's
[1:31:11] also that low uh the neighbors landscape
[1:31:13] wall. Um, I don't think it should be
[1:31:16] incumbent on this property owner to take
[1:31:18] on responsibility and liability of their
[1:31:20] neighbor's wall. So, we will address
[1:31:22] that with the adjacent neighbor.
[1:31:26] Um, so tonight, staff recommends that
[1:31:28] the findings for the revocable license
[1:31:30] can be made um as a project benefits the
[1:31:34] public.
[1:31:36] » Okay. Any questions from council
[1:31:39] members?
[1:31:43] » Go for it. Hi.
[1:31:46] Um, just to confirm, so the shaded area
[1:31:49] um that sort of protrudes into Beach
[1:31:53] Road uh is on city property and is
[1:31:57] contemplated to have pavers.
[1:31:59] » Correct.
[1:32:00] » Okay. Just comparing.
[1:32:04] » And is there also a curb on that shaded
[1:32:08] area?
[1:32:09] » Yes. So, they would construct a curb
[1:32:12] partway along there.
[1:32:16] » Um,
[1:32:18] » There's a curb. Yeah, there there there
[1:32:19] was an existing curb and so they're
[1:32:21] going to replace the curb,
[1:32:22] » But there's no curb right now. It's all
[1:32:24] gone.
[1:32:25] » There isn't one right now because of
[1:32:26] their construction staging. Previously,
[1:32:29] there I think.
[1:32:32] » Yeah. Well, that's their low wall. No,
[1:32:34] » That's the curve. Oh,
[1:32:35] » That is the curve. Yeah. So that'll be
[1:32:37] there'll also be a curve
[1:32:39] » Or short.
[1:32:40] » Yeah.
[1:32:41] » Can you can you pull up the next slide
[1:32:43] again?
[1:32:43] » Yeah.
[1:32:44] » That seems like a really difficult
[1:32:46] parking space to navigate into
[1:32:49] » Because you've got you've got the
[1:32:52] carport there.
[1:32:53] » Well, they have a driveway that's half
[1:32:55] of that carport is driveway.
[1:32:57] » Yeah. And so I think they'll level it.
[1:33:00] It's we it's if you go up there now it's
[1:33:01] like it because of their staging. But I
[1:33:05] suppose what they're going to do is
[1:33:06] level the driveway is pretty steep, but
[1:33:08] they'll bring that grade down.
[1:33:10] » Can you go back to the original picture?
[1:33:13] » Yeah.
[1:33:14] » So that whole parking area, Sally, is
[1:33:16] where that stone wall is and all those
[1:33:18] bushes.
[1:33:19] » Yeah.
[1:33:20] » All that's been pushed back
[1:33:23] back. So they where their car is right
[1:33:25] there, they could just go right in front
[1:33:28] of that park car and enter. The parking
[1:33:31] space is behind that stone wall.
[1:33:34] » Right. That makes sense.
[1:33:34] » The legal that's their property back
[1:33:36] there. So it's actually pretty easy to
[1:33:39] enter it. And also if the curb were not
[1:33:41] there, which I don't do not support the
[1:33:44] curb. If the curb were not there, they
[1:33:47] could even come in coming down the hill
[1:33:50] and just turn right into their parking
[1:33:52] spot in the other direction.
[1:33:53] » And if you went and visited the site,
[1:33:55] you would see they've already
[1:33:56] constructed the retaining wall behind it
[1:33:58] and it's all open, so you can see how
[1:34:02] it's pretty easy, right?
[1:34:04] » Yeah.
[1:34:05] » Okay. Um, any other questions for staff
[1:34:09] on this?
[1:34:11] Seeing none, we will open this for
[1:34:13] public comment.
[1:34:18] » Sorry. Uh, Alec Wilson has his hand
[1:34:20] raised.
[1:34:21] » The architect.
[1:34:22] » Any questions for the architect?
[1:34:23] Otherwise,
[1:34:25] » I don't think we have any questions. So,
[1:34:31] » No. Um, in that case, let's bring this
[1:34:34] back for um
[1:34:36] » For discussion. I think that Kevin wants
[1:34:38] to go first.
[1:34:40] No, I don't need to. Um,
[1:34:42] » Yeah,
[1:34:43] » I I think it's a a great way of um, you
[1:34:47] know, leaving some of the parking issues
[1:34:49] in in the city, and I think this seems
[1:34:51] like it's a a win for both the um,
[1:34:55] applicant and the city. The only um
[1:34:57] issue I have is with the papers that are
[1:35:00] in the public um, that bleed over into
[1:35:05] public land or city land. Um, I think
[1:35:08] we've made that accommodation before in
[1:35:10] the past and in hindsight I think it was
[1:35:13] a mistake. It's uh it creates confusion
[1:35:15] when you're driving down the road. It's
[1:35:17] like is that part of the road or is that
[1:35:19] part of somebody's home? Um, and so I
[1:35:22] would strongly advocate for just ending
[1:35:23] the pavers at the property line. Um, so
[1:35:28] uh we're not allowing people to change
[1:35:31] the physical makeup of city land to
[1:35:34] suggest that it's private land.
[1:35:39] you want to go.
[1:35:41] » Is there a chance that without that it
[1:35:43] could be seen as a public parking space?
[1:35:46] » Well, the
[1:35:47] » Well, no, because Can I Can I jump in
[1:35:50] real quick? Okay. First of all, um the
[1:35:52] um there is a parking space there,
[1:35:54] correct? Which the surp doesn't doesn't
[1:35:56] address.
[1:35:58] » There's a parking space.
[1:35:59] » Wouldn't that be removed? There's a
[1:36:00] parking space immediately outside this
[1:36:02] this role license area and part of it
[1:36:04] » Public
[1:36:05] » Public space which is going away
[1:36:07] » Isn't that being removed um and and and
[1:36:10] to the the
[1:36:14] drawing is misleading to what's actually
[1:36:15] there because because I mean it's
[1:36:17] accurate but it's misleading in the
[1:36:18] sense that the the the fence line if you
[1:36:21] go complete completely um horizontal
[1:36:24] left of the of the of the of the gate is
[1:36:26] is that old curb and what they're
[1:36:29] proposing for the new curb going there.
[1:36:31] So it doesn't stick out into the road.
[1:36:33] There's no road be in that gray area.
[1:36:35] » So So it looks like it sticks on the
[1:36:37] road, but it really doesn't. Um it's
[1:36:39] that right there has always been I'm not
[1:36:41] saying it's their property, but it's
[1:36:42] always been defined as their property.
[1:36:43] If you go back to your first slide,
[1:36:46] um with with a picture of it, that's
[1:36:48] what that line is.
[1:36:51] You know, the where the old curb is,
[1:36:54] that's what the the gray area demarks.
[1:36:57] It's the same what it was.
[1:36:58] » Yeah. And so it there's no confusion
[1:37:01] that the road is there because the road
[1:37:03] is is outbound of this. In fact, there's
[1:37:04] a parking space there. Um I I would
[1:37:08] actually I do have a big problem with
[1:37:10] this because because they're they're
[1:37:12] privatizing a public parking space here.
[1:37:15] There was a parking space that was out
[1:37:17] there that wasn't theirs. They're now
[1:37:19] taking their their property and our
[1:37:21] property and making a private parking
[1:37:22] space. And I was just they want to do
[1:37:25] that. They should limit their access and
[1:37:26] keep the outside parking space. meaning
[1:37:28] they should they should keep the curb
[1:37:29] there, keep the parking space, and have
[1:37:31] a more restrictive access to their
[1:37:33] parking space. I mean, I don't know why
[1:37:35] we're allowing them to have a really
[1:37:37] flexible private parking space with with
[1:37:39] with access to and from it while while
[1:37:42] while removing a a public parking space
[1:37:45] in the street. So I guess we should
[1:37:48] there should have been more context here
[1:37:49] because one of the main recommendations
[1:37:51] of the traffic and circulation committee
[1:37:53] way back when was that this congestion
[1:37:56] point is a nightmare for everybody. So
[1:37:59] taking away the parking space is a good
[1:38:00] thing is a hugely beneficial thing and
[1:38:02] so we so Rebecca actually approached the
[1:38:04] homeowners to see if they were willing
[1:38:06] to put a parking space on their property
[1:38:08] so that that parking space could be
[1:38:10] eliminated. It was the key
[1:38:11] recommendation of the traffic and
[1:38:12] circulation committee. So it is so it
[1:38:14] isn't privatizing anything. They agreed
[1:38:17] to to do that because we
[1:38:19] » Well, they are it is their parking
[1:38:20] space. I mean no one will will park
[1:38:21] there now.
[1:38:22] » Right.
[1:38:23] » Right. But I guess they were they were
[1:38:25] the ones that were primarily using the
[1:38:27] public parking space. Correct Rebecca or
[1:38:30] not?
[1:38:31] » Oh yeah. Are people coming to their
[1:38:32] house to help out? So,
[1:38:34] » So, so this will eliminate that public
[1:38:37] space and create a more open area where
[1:38:40] there we all know there's a pinch point
[1:38:42] on Beach Road and there was recent
[1:38:45] police ambulance activity that you know
[1:38:47] it got up there but it it was a tight
[1:38:49] squeeze.
[1:38:50] » Okay. So, so for the record, we we want
[1:38:52] that space gone. Yes.
[1:38:53] » And it's not it's not a detriment to the
[1:38:55] public park. It's a benefit. Okay. I
[1:38:57] wasn't aware of that. I'm sorry.
[1:38:58] » I should have been more clear.
[1:38:59] » Yeah.
[1:39:03] Um, if I can jump in. Um, I I visited
[1:39:08] and I saw exactly where the property
[1:39:11] line was in relationship to everything
[1:39:13] that's shown here. And I think that um
[1:39:17] our our code says a per a parking space
[1:39:21] is 8t by um 18 I think 8t wide by 18t
[1:39:27] long. and they seem to have more than
[1:39:29] more than enough space on their property
[1:39:33] 100%.
[1:39:35] I am would not support uh changing our
[1:39:39] the street and adding pavers there. I
[1:39:42] think it should look like street which
[1:39:44] is what matches the driveway and
[1:39:46] everything else. And it does widen that
[1:39:49] terrible choke point there. One of the
[1:39:51] choke points. And as far as the curb, I
[1:39:54] think the curb chokes it again. So, if
[1:39:57] they want a curb, I think they could put
[1:40:00] a curb on their property line. They can
[1:40:03] put a curb there, not come into uh the
[1:40:06] city-owned property.
[1:40:08] And um
[1:40:12] and I think they did us a favor by
[1:40:14] removing that curb so we didn't have to
[1:40:17] ask them to remove it. So, thank you for
[1:40:19] doing that. And I agree that the painted
[1:40:22] parking space should be eliminated
[1:40:25] there. And in fact, if I had a choice, I
[1:40:29] would ask the neighbors next door if we
[1:40:31] could eliminate the one in front of
[1:40:33] them, that house, because those two
[1:40:36] parking spaces really are horrific for
[1:40:39] that corner into Bay View and truck.
[1:40:43] Every truck gets stuck there. I walk it
[1:40:45] at least once a day and it's a nightmare
[1:40:48] anytime but terrible in the morning and
[1:40:50] evening. So getting rid of both those
[1:40:53] would be ideal. I don't I don't know if
[1:40:55] we're able to do that but I don't I
[1:40:58] think they can do everything on their
[1:41:00] own property and that's what I would
[1:41:02] vote for.
[1:41:03] » Rebecca, can I ask a question though
[1:41:04] because because right now until they've
[1:41:06] applied for this RL
[1:41:08] even though there isn't an existing RL
[1:41:10] they have that land right now. Correct.
[1:41:12] Exactly. It the the it won't change. The
[1:41:15] circumstances won't change. The road
[1:41:17] won't get narrower.
[1:41:18] » Right. So, they could just turn around
[1:41:20] and say, "Actually, if we take this
[1:41:21] away, we don't want the
[1:41:22] » RL."
[1:41:26] » They've already built it.
[1:41:28] » We don't. But it's already in their
[1:41:30] existing plans until we ask them to
[1:41:32] submit for this change. They effectively
[1:41:35] already had that land. Correct. Or not.
[1:41:38] » No.
[1:41:39] » Uh I don't know.
[1:41:41] Let me look into that.
[1:41:42] » Okay.
[1:41:46] » No, I mean they can't it's not property.
[1:41:49] They can't build it. Um and and they
[1:41:51] actually can't if they hadn't demolished
[1:41:53] it, they could have left it alone and
[1:41:55] and and not sought a new robo license.
[1:41:57] They've demolished it. So they can't
[1:42:00] rebuild it now necessarily because they
[1:42:02] don't have a license to rebuild it.
[1:42:05] » So that's true, Rebecca. Even if there
[1:42:07] wasn't going to be a parking space,
[1:42:08] they'd have to apply for an RL right now
[1:42:10] because they've removed
[1:42:12] » They've
[1:42:15] » They can fit their car in on their own
[1:42:17] property. They can fit a curb on their
[1:42:19] own.
[1:42:20] » I understand that, but I'm just trying
[1:42:21] to establish um the process here.
[1:42:44] Alec, do you mind unmuting yourself
[1:42:48] or you should be able to speak?
[1:42:52] » Yes.
[1:42:54] » Can you
[1:42:56] » Hello.
[1:42:58] » Alec Wilson, architect for 270 Beach
[1:43:00] Road.
[1:43:01] » 180.
[1:43:02] » Sorry.
[1:43:03] » Look at that. That was a good
[1:43:05] 180. Let's have it.
[1:43:09] » Uh, when your original design review
[1:43:11] project went through, Alec, did you guys
[1:43:14] have any um was this that front
[1:43:17] retaining wall or front low curb and
[1:43:19] plants
[1:43:21] part of your original design review?
[1:43:24] » No, our original design review was to
[1:43:26] leave all of that intact,
[1:43:28] » But then through the construction
[1:43:29] staging, you demolished it.
[1:43:32] » Correct. There was a construction
[1:43:34] staging permit and they applied for that
[1:43:36] work to to create an off- streetet
[1:43:39] parking space for staging uh of the of
[1:43:42] the construction process which has been
[1:43:44] very useful indeed. That is an extremely
[1:43:46] tight, extremely dangerous corner.
[1:43:49] » Y
[1:43:51] » And the intention was to build it back
[1:43:53] as is.
[1:43:55] » Yeah. The original intention was to
[1:43:56] build it back as is. And in
[1:43:58] conversations with with you and my
[1:44:00] clients, the the the prospect of getting
[1:44:03] a safer place to park outside of the
[1:44:07] traffic on that corner was how we came
[1:44:09] up with the scheme in front of you,
[1:44:10] which is indeed a parking space
[1:44:12] completely on private property. If you
[1:44:14] drive in and back up a little bit, then
[1:44:17] the car is parked on their property and
[1:44:19] not in the revocable license area.
[1:44:22] » And do you need that um curb
[1:44:25] in front? the curb was there. If that
[1:44:28] parking space were to remain, it gives
[1:44:31] definition to that parking space, not
[1:44:33] having that parking space bleed off into
[1:44:36] um our client space. So, it it's about
[1:44:39] defining those that space and also
[1:44:42] defines the front entrance. Like that's
[1:44:44] the front gate and the front gate as you
[1:44:45] walk down there has a short curb wall on
[1:44:47] both sides. It's kind of classic for old
[1:44:49] Belvadier Island to have those little
[1:44:51] curbs on either side of the gate as you
[1:44:53] walk in.
[1:44:56] » Okay. Thank you.
[1:44:59] » I mean, I think he clarified that the
[1:45:01] curb could go on their property. I see a
[1:45:04] curb like a fence. It's a permanent and
[1:45:07] we don't
[1:45:08] » If that just as a clarification, if that
[1:45:09] curb was to swing onto the property, I
[1:45:11] would not be able to get the car into
[1:45:13] that space.
[1:45:14] » Alec, could you could you swing that
[1:45:16] curb? I agree with you that the the Hi.
[1:45:18] Hi, Alec. This is Peter. Sorry. The um I
[1:45:21] think the curb on on either side of the
[1:45:23] fence is continuity and that works well.
[1:45:25] Could you swing that curb around on the
[1:45:28] side and stop it at the new retaining
[1:45:30] wall
[1:45:31] that's going in?
[1:45:33] » If you look at our drawing there, we've
[1:45:34] got 4 foot five approximately of of curb
[1:45:37] on the left side of the ent of the
[1:45:38] pedestrian entry as you come in. And and
[1:45:41] you know, if it went 4 foot five or six
[1:45:43] feet instead of the the 14T, I just want
[1:45:46] to establish that there's like
[1:45:47] » Pedestrian entry is separate and
[1:45:49] distinct from the from the vehicle
[1:45:52] entrance. That's the most important
[1:45:54] aesthetic part
[1:45:55] » That that that seems more in keeping
[1:45:57] with what we're we're trying to trying
[1:45:59] to do there is to turn that curb, you
[1:46:01] know, as much on the on on the the
[1:46:03] applicant's property as possible and tie
[1:46:06] it into or or or buttend it to the um
[1:46:08] the new retaining wall that that that
[1:46:10] surrounds the new parking space and
[1:46:12] having the the the revocal area be more,
[1:46:16] you know, public facing, public
[1:46:19] appearing and widening of the road that
[1:46:21] that was there. In practice, it's still
[1:46:23] going to be, you know, accessible for
[1:46:26] that parking space. And it actually
[1:46:27] makes that easier because you can go out
[1:46:28] forward or backwards at that point.
[1:46:30] » Yeah. I mean, I think the biggest thing
[1:46:31] as far as widening that road for the
[1:46:33] people driving by is the limitation of
[1:46:35] that parking space. Once that parking
[1:46:37] space is gone, if that parking space is
[1:46:39] gone, then then that's much wider road
[1:46:42] at that point. Uh, one one of the things
[1:46:44] I was dealing with here is that the the
[1:46:46] existing asphalt road of Beach Road
[1:46:50] there has some kind of retaining wall
[1:46:52] supporting the edge of the road.
[1:46:54] » And the reason we're using pavers
[1:46:55] instead of concrete or asphalt is so
[1:46:57] that the existing structure remains
[1:47:00] intact and then the pavers are floating
[1:47:03] on fill held by a new retaining wall
[1:47:05] rather than trying to connect all of the
[1:47:07] structures. And so that was the
[1:47:09] fundamental reason I have pavers is to
[1:47:10] have a flexible connection between the
[1:47:13] two, structurally flexible connection
[1:47:15] between the two rather than um uh tying
[1:47:19] it all together and and having a load of
[1:47:21] beach road beyond that parking space.
[1:47:25] » You also have um and you also have a
[1:47:26] grade change there, don't you? That is
[1:47:28] something.
[1:47:29] » Yeah. So as as you were asking earlier,
[1:47:31] so we're going to be coming in on a
[1:47:33] little bit warp. There's a warped
[1:47:34] driveway leading down to the existing
[1:47:35] carport which will remain. So you can
[1:47:37] still get into the existing carport. And
[1:47:39] then that warp will lead to a largely
[1:47:41] flatter area of that parking space. But
[1:47:43] it will be set up so that the entrance
[1:47:45] is really primarily from the driveway
[1:47:49] rather than from the nose up where and
[1:47:51] that's the other reason I had that curve
[1:47:52] was to help me differentiate the
[1:47:54] » The the slopes. So that that 10-ft curve
[1:47:57] on the right side there helps me
[1:47:58] differentiate the slopes from one side
[1:48:00] to the other where um you know it's it's
[1:48:03] it's pretty steep over there.
[1:48:05] » Yeah. I also think that I mean to to to
[1:48:07] our our our goal here is to limit that
[1:48:10] the 10-ft section of the curb there in
[1:48:13] the in the RL area. Uh having it there
[1:48:17] just gives the possibility someone could
[1:48:18] park there and not having it there
[1:48:21] maintains the widening that that we're
[1:48:23] looking for.
[1:48:26] » Yeah. I mean I think that I think that's
[1:48:28] 100% true. The widening though will be
[1:48:30] » Better than without the parking.
[1:48:32] » But someone could still stop there. But
[1:48:34] someone could still park there even
[1:48:35] though there's no, you know, because
[1:48:38] it's still it's still 14 feet. Some, you
[1:48:40] know, someone could easily park there.
[1:48:41] » Yes.
[1:48:46] » Yeah. So, limiting the 10 foot length to
[1:48:48] I don't know if it it stuck out a little
[1:48:49] bit past that other wall would help with
[1:48:51] the transition, but uh it doesn't have
[1:48:53] to be 10 ft for certain.
[1:49:00] I would I I would propose, you know, to
[1:49:02] solve most of her problems that that
[1:49:03] little wall that comes out adjacent to
[1:49:05] the the the entry gate um there turns
[1:49:09] and, you know, does the 4 and 1/2 ft and
[1:49:11] makes its way. However, um the architect
[1:49:14] can integrate it into the the the
[1:49:16] retaining wall, but not have it go into
[1:49:17] the vocal license more than a a small
[1:49:19] little wedge,
[1:49:21] if at all. I mean, keep it on the
[1:49:23] property, that would be better still. I
[1:49:24] I think you could fit it all on the
[1:49:26] property.
[1:49:30] » Yeah. I I don't see a reason for the RL
[1:49:33] unless you have to bring us a different
[1:49:36] one just for that corner. But for this
[1:49:38] » Well, there still needs there still
[1:49:40] needs to be an RL for them to do any
[1:49:41] work to to to replace the existing
[1:49:44] paving in some form or another because
[1:49:46] it's dirt right now.
[1:49:47] » But it's not our property in there. No,
[1:49:49] it is the the gray area. Ours is ours
[1:49:53] and that right now is dirt.
[1:49:54] » Oh, okay.
[1:49:55] » And so we need to authorize in some way
[1:49:56] to repair it.
[1:49:57] » Right. So So what's your proposal? Do
[1:50:00] you
[1:50:02] » I see um uh Alex concern about the um
[1:50:08] jointing and the uh materials between
[1:50:11] the existing old paving and what they're
[1:50:13] doing new and the different retaining
[1:50:14] structures. So I think that's aside from
[1:50:16] the aesthetic aspect of it, they're
[1:50:18] trying to give some flexibility so it
[1:50:20] has a greater long greater life time um
[1:50:23] based on the on the improvement. So
[1:50:28] my sense is I don't know how they're
[1:50:30] going to resolve that grading, but I
[1:50:31] don't think if that were paved, it would
[1:50:33] be part of the road because it's a dip
[1:50:35] into their into into what is perceived
[1:50:37] to be their property. So I don't know
[1:50:38] that you're getting the the benefit of
[1:50:39] that width there anyway, and there may
[1:50:40] be a grade change to do so. So, I think
[1:50:42] the the the the paving is probably okay,
[1:50:44] but I'll be I'll be I'd be okay with
[1:50:46] making that paving as well to match the
[1:50:48] road. But I do think that um we should,
[1:50:52] as Jane was pointing out, turn that that
[1:50:54] small um curb retaining wall that that
[1:50:58] exists walking up the pathway um as as
[1:51:01] close to if not entirely on their
[1:51:03] property as possible. Um so that it it
[1:51:06] retains the grace of that entrance way,
[1:51:08] but not blocking off. um the parking
[1:51:12] space because I think there is
[1:51:13] flexibility to get in and out of it
[1:51:15] without the curb there. And also we
[1:51:18] we're have always been striving to to
[1:51:20] not build um restrictive uh structures
[1:51:23] on our our city right away.
[1:51:28] » Alex, does that seem um
[1:51:33] uh acceptable to you?
[1:51:35] » Yeah, I'll have to verify that with our
[1:51:37] our clients, but I understand what
[1:51:39] you're saying. Um I I do think the the
[1:51:42] parking space going away or not going
[1:51:45] away is an important aspect of all of
[1:51:47] this.
[1:51:48] » Um and but but I understand what you're
[1:51:51] saying, which is is less construction in
[1:51:53] the uh in the street right away.
[1:51:56] » Okay. Great. And unfortunately, Alex, we
[1:51:58] have had, as Council Member Burke
[1:52:01] mentioned, instances uh one in
[1:52:04] particular where uh decorative paving
[1:52:07] was used instead of road and then
[1:52:09] someone put up signs and said no parking
[1:52:12] allowed even though it's really city
[1:52:14] property. and um you know so we haven't
[1:52:17] had a great experience with allowing
[1:52:21] um what is normally considered roadway
[1:52:25] or cement or whatever like your driveway
[1:52:28] the same as the driveway um entry
[1:52:32] uh having it be a decorative
[1:52:35] um and then all of a sudden you know
[1:52:39] people not pulling into it when there's
[1:52:41] two cars coming up against each other
[1:52:44] which is the point of the removing the
[1:52:47] public parking space there
[1:52:50] um is so that they could actually pull
[1:52:53] off a teeny bit more than what's what
[1:52:55] we're seeing uh existing right in the
[1:52:58] original photos. So, um I think that's
[1:53:03] part of our issue there.
[1:53:06] » Yeah. No, I've I've driven up and down
[1:53:09] that road enough to understand exactly
[1:53:10] what you're saying. Um, yeah. So, I'll
[1:53:12] certainly review that with with our
[1:53:14] clients and we'll submit a revised uh
[1:53:17] revocable license um application uh to
[1:53:20] Rebecca to to show that if if my clients
[1:53:23] are comfortable with that. Uh,
[1:53:24] unfortunately, we're not able to join
[1:53:25] tonight, so I can't speak to them.
[1:53:28] » Peter, I had um one question just in
[1:53:30] terms of your suggestion is if you look
[1:53:32] at the streak sort of going down, how do
[1:53:34] you address or do we need to address
[1:53:37] just the visual symmetry of the street?
[1:53:39] Like is that a you know as I'm looking
[1:53:41] at it from the n the gate down it's like
[1:53:43] how does that work? So
[1:53:45] » Well
[1:53:46] » It doesn't look like a jagged
[1:53:48] » Well what they're proposing right now
[1:53:50] anyway I'm sorry we go back to last one
[1:53:54] » This visual is probably
[1:53:55] » Yeah that one that one here um what
[1:53:57] they're proposing is right where your
[1:53:58] cursor is
[1:53:59] » Yeah right here
[1:54:03] right here
[1:54:04] » On the other side of the fence. Yeah.
[1:54:05] » Right here. Right. Right. Right.
[1:54:07] » Is that
[1:54:09] » Can you go left again?
[1:54:11] » A little more left.
[1:54:12] » Yeah.
[1:54:12] » Yeah.
[1:54:13] » Pretty much.
[1:54:14] » Oops. No. Stop. Stop. Stop. Stop. Stop.
[1:54:17] Stop. Stop. Stop.
[1:54:18] » I know. I know. It's not working. Right
[1:54:19] there.
[1:54:20] » Nope. You're on the other side.
[1:54:22] » Okay. Stop there. Stop. That's good.
[1:54:26] » Go back a little more left. One more.
[1:54:27] Click left.
[1:54:29] » Otherwise,
[1:54:29] » It's going to go too far.
[1:54:31] » It won't let me.
[1:54:32] » Okay. Stop right there. Oh,
[1:54:33] » That's good.
[1:54:34] » Okay. That's fine. That's fine.
[1:54:36] » Um,
[1:54:38] don't move. Don't move. The um this
[1:54:41] plan, the the the the gray line is
[1:54:44] intending to match this existing curb
[1:54:46] exactly
[1:54:47] » Right.
[1:54:48] » Except that right where your cursor is
[1:54:50] or thereabouts, that wall would end.
[1:54:52] That little that little stone curb would
[1:54:54] end and all those bushes would be where
[1:54:56] the car parks,
[1:54:57] » Right?
[1:54:58] um and the property but but but that's
[1:55:02] there's a triangle here because the the
[1:55:05] the the property goes from the fence
[1:55:08] where the where the front door is
[1:55:10] » And it angles in at a more acute angle
[1:55:12] than the street is at.
[1:55:13] » Yeah.
[1:55:14] » So so this it's that triangle space I've
[1:55:16] shown in this in this property which
[1:55:18] which would be that. Um, so what the
[1:55:21] what what I'm proposing is that from the
[1:55:23] white fence where the where the front
[1:55:25] door is to about four and a half feet,
[1:55:27] which is what Alec was talking about,
[1:55:30] right about there would turn in and
[1:55:32] match the back retaining wall or butt
[1:55:34] but but to it, however they resolve that
[1:55:36] architecturally, which is now in place
[1:55:38] with with pressuret treated wood, but
[1:55:40] I'm sure it talks about it being a wall
[1:55:42] eventually. um which which which marks
[1:55:45] the inward part of that parking space.
[1:55:47] So that this this curb wouldn't exist
[1:55:49] anymore. Alec was proposing
[1:55:51] differentiating the same line with
[1:55:53] materials, you know, asphalt on the
[1:55:55] right hand side and the pavers on the
[1:55:57] left hand side, which would still retain
[1:55:59] the same look and feel as this road, but
[1:56:01] with wider um opportunity because the
[1:56:04] parking space wouldn't be there and you
[1:56:05] could dip into their into their property
[1:56:08] if you need to, much like the pavement
[1:56:09] down below.
[1:56:11] Got it.
[1:56:14] Thank you.
[1:56:17] » Okay. So, I guess we're just they will
[1:56:19] come back next month with a revised RL
[1:56:22] application. Is that correct?
[1:56:25] » Let's talk.
[1:56:26] » Yeah. So, perhaps one option the council
[1:56:28] can consider is and I understand the
[1:56:29] architect needs to still check with the
[1:56:31] property owner.
[1:56:31] » Exactly.
[1:56:32] » But assuming the owner does sign off,
[1:56:35] I I think we can simply implement
[1:56:37] council's direction.
[1:56:38] » Oh, so you don't need to bring it back.
[1:56:40] Obviously, the owner does not agree,
[1:56:41] then we'll certainly need to come back.
[1:56:43] » Do you need us to vote on it? I assume
[1:56:44] you do.
[1:56:45] » Yes.
[1:56:45] » Okay. Does that seem acceptable to
[1:56:47] everybody?
[1:56:49] » Would you like my opinion?
[1:56:52] » Yes. Well, I didn't think so. Anyway, um
[1:56:55] I have to agree with um Council Member
[1:56:58] Cooper and Burke. I don't think that the
[1:57:02] uh shaded area should be in um anything
[1:57:06] other than uh the asphalt road. And if
[1:57:10] they want to do a differentiation where
[1:57:14] they're uh they will have the pavers on
[1:57:16] there so people will actually know
[1:57:18] that's a private parking space. Um, I
[1:57:21] think the point of the road is is to uh
[1:57:24] widen it
[1:57:26] and to allow cars to be able to move
[1:57:28] over so two cars can pass at that pinch
[1:57:31] point.
[1:57:32] And um I'm fine with what council member
[1:57:36] Mark um suggested that they do a little
[1:57:41] curb just to define the uh front gate,
[1:57:44] but I agree with uh council member
[1:57:46] Cooper that they should be able to do
[1:57:48] that entirely on their property and
[1:57:51] connect it into that uh retaining wall.
[1:57:54] And I think a visit up to the site would
[1:57:57] have been very clear um that all of this
[1:58:00] is all open and able to be navigated. Um
[1:58:05] and they do have some barriers because
[1:58:07] of the construction. Um but I agree that
[1:58:10] I wouldn't be able to approve this RL.
[1:58:13] Um and I would kind of like to see how
[1:58:17] they're going to um I think we need to
[1:58:20] decide if we're going to allow the
[1:58:25] turn of the curb to be in solely on
[1:58:28] their property or if we're going to
[1:58:30] allow it into the RL how much we're
[1:58:32] going to allow otherwise I think it
[1:58:34] needs to come back to this council for
[1:58:36] review
[1:58:41] and I don't know if we've actually
[1:58:43] satisfied are are we in sync on
[1:58:48] where the dark shaded area which is the
[1:58:52] um portion of the street in the RL. Are
[1:58:55] are we aligned on what that is supposed
[1:58:58] to be, what the material is?
[1:59:02] » I mean, why couldn't they come back next
[1:59:03] month with an exhibit and put it on the
[1:59:05] consent calendar if it's all okay?
[1:59:07] » Yeah, certainly. The council would
[1:59:08] prefer to see the update exhibit again
[1:59:10] just to confirm that everyone's on the
[1:59:11] same page. That's certainly also fine.
[1:59:13] » I'm just trying to give the council
[1:59:14] options.
[1:59:15] » It sounds like we need to reach
[1:59:16] agreement on the materials though. right
[1:59:18] now
[1:59:19] » I'm fine with it being paving um match
[1:59:23] the road and I'm I have no problem with
[1:59:24] that if that's if that's easily possible
[1:59:26] and I think the architect and and the
[1:59:28] applicant will look at see if it is
[1:59:29] possible the I think I think one one
[1:59:31] additional thing is um just from a tech
[1:59:34] techn technicality perspective uh I
[1:59:37] would imagine they're going to have to
[1:59:38] repave the portion of um their driveway
[1:59:42] in front of their their covered garage
[1:59:45] that's in the city right
[1:59:47] that's not shown in this RL
[1:59:50] because that's pretty beat up too.
[1:59:53] And um that would go to both um Jane and
[1:59:57] Pat's perspective that if in fact
[1:59:58] they're going to maintain the the
[2:00:00] asphalt, they may want to dip into that
[2:00:02] area as well. So it it it goes all
[2:00:05] across and it really creates a widening
[2:00:06] of the road there
[2:00:09] because that should be it's not just
[2:00:10] this section because they're obviously
[2:00:11] doing some repair in front of their um
[2:00:14] driveway, in front of their carport as
[2:00:15] well. And that's they obviously they I
[2:00:18] think technically don't have the right
[2:00:19] to repair that either without a without
[2:00:22] a license.
[2:00:25] Right.
[2:00:28] I mean if if if they demo it and they
[2:00:30] and they ruin it and they they want to
[2:00:31] put new concrete there, they they they
[2:00:33] should have a license for that in our
[2:00:34] space.
[2:00:36] » Yes, they should have a license for the
[2:00:38] driveway.
[2:00:41] But I agree with Pat that it should
[2:00:42] definitely come back.
[2:00:45] » Just as a point, that could be September
[2:00:47] if we end up not having an August
[2:00:49] meeting.
[2:00:50] » They're not going to be done with their
[2:00:51] project.
[2:00:56] » Uh okay. So that's the direction you
[2:00:58] Rebecca you'll they you'll come back
[2:01:00] next month if we have a meeting or
[2:01:01] September uh and we'll decide whether it
[2:01:04] should go on consent or for discussion
[2:01:06] at the time.
[2:01:07] » Yes.
[2:01:07] » Okay. So we will close the item
[2:01:16] and we're moving to item uh 6C which is
[2:01:20] is a discussion and possible action on
[2:01:22] revocable license for the in public
[2:01:25] right of way for the property at 47
[2:01:27] Westshore Road. Is this Rebecca or
[2:01:30] Sammy? Go ahead
[2:01:31] » Sammy on this one.
[2:01:33] Thank you, Mayor Wilkinson and council
[2:01:35] members. Uh for your consideration this
[2:01:37] evening is a revocable license
[2:01:39] application for new landscaping within
[2:01:41] the public right away for the property
[2:01:43] at 47 West Shore Road.
[2:01:47] On April 21st of this year, the planning
[2:01:49] commission granted design review
[2:01:51] approval for a residential remodel, deck
[2:01:53] enlargement, and landscaping. The
[2:01:55] project proposed new landscaping and
[2:01:59] maintenance of an existing 35 foot wide
[2:02:02] concrete driveway and lawn area, all of
[2:02:05] which encroach approximately 7 ft into
[2:02:08] the Westshore Road rightway.
[2:02:14] Highlighted in yellow, the area with new
[2:02:16] landscaping in the right ofway includes
[2:02:18] two Japanese maple trees listed to grow
[2:02:20] up to 15 feet tall and two fan palms,
[2:02:23] lavender and succulents within a movable
[2:02:26] pre-fabricated metal planter. The
[2:02:28] planter box would be 2 feet tall and 2'
[2:02:31] 7 in deep and set approximately 7 ft
[2:02:34] from the sidewalk.
[2:02:38] Uh here the draft revocable license
[2:02:40] exhibit shows the existing and propo
[2:02:42] proposed improvements within the
[2:02:44] rightway shaded. The driveway and lawn
[2:02:47] highlighted in yellow would not be
[2:02:49] modified
[2:02:53] for council's consideration. The
[2:02:55] proposed planners have been revised
[2:02:58] since the planning commission approval
[2:02:59] in April. At the planning commission
[2:03:01] chair's request, the applicant revise
[2:03:04] the planners in the rightway to be
[2:03:05] movable rather than permanent and
[2:03:07] concrete.
[2:03:11] So staff recommends that the findings
[2:03:13] for the revocable license can be made as
[2:03:15] the project benefits the public. The
[2:03:17] existing driveway permits two off
[2:03:19] streetet parking spaces uh and then the
[2:03:22] planter enhances the aesthetic quality
[2:03:23] of the streetscape without placing a
[2:03:25] permanent structure in the right way.
[2:03:28] Thank you. And we're happy to answer any
[2:03:29] questions.
[2:03:31] » Do council members have questions for
[2:03:32] Sammy?
[2:03:33] » I have two quick questions for Sammy. Go
[2:03:35] ahead.
[2:03:36] » Um the grass area that's on the um right
[2:03:39] side of the driveway, it's going to
[2:03:41] remain a grassy area, but it's in pretty
[2:03:44] poor shape. Are they going to be
[2:03:46] replanting that or putting in new
[2:03:50] seeds to get something growing because
[2:03:52] it's pretty brown?
[2:03:53] » Right. This is the here is the landscape
[2:03:57] plan right now. It's just uh to be
[2:03:59] maintained as as a lawn area at this
[2:04:02] time.
[2:04:05] Okay. Because doesn't look very good. It
[2:04:07] would be nice if they replace that. Um
[2:04:10] the other thing is is I don't have a
[2:04:12] problem with any of this. It's great
[2:04:14] they change the planter. The only
[2:04:16] question I have was is when I looked at
[2:04:18] the European um fan palm that um it's
[2:04:23] considered not totally
[2:04:27] allowed by the fire district. However,
[2:04:30] it's not recommended
[2:04:32] um and that if it is planted that it has
[2:04:37] certain restrictions.
[2:04:39] And I just wonder um since it's not
[2:04:42] supposed to be within so many feet of a
[2:04:45] fence if that is the proper plant for
[2:04:48] that um if that has been looked at um
[2:04:53] as a proper plant for that um location.
[2:04:56] That was my only question. um because
[2:04:59] they had several recommendations of how
[2:05:02] they would have to maintain those uh
[2:05:04] European ponds, palm trees because of
[2:05:07] their fonds.
[2:05:10] » That that's a good great point. I don't
[2:05:12] know that the architect knew about that
[2:05:14] consideration as well. She's here with
[2:05:17] us tonight.
[2:05:18] » Well, I mean I just think that that
[2:05:19] should be looked at. I mean I don't have
[2:05:21] any problem with the RL at all. It's
[2:05:23] just my concern was is I don't think we
[2:05:26] want to they they should be aware of
[2:05:28] what the requirements are because we
[2:05:30] don't want to recommend something that
[2:05:33] is um
[2:05:36] a potential fire um issue.
[2:05:40] That's it.
[2:05:45] Any other questions? No. Uh let's open
[2:05:48] public comment
[2:05:51] » There. No hands raised. Great. So, I'll
[2:05:53] bring this back for discussion or a
[2:05:55] motion.
[2:05:57] Anybody want to go first? Jane,
[2:06:00] » I'm happy to make a motion unless
[2:06:02] somebody wants to discuss.
[2:06:04] » Oh,
[2:06:05] » Go ahead. You do it.
[2:06:06] » No, I'm good.
[2:06:07] » Oh, only uh just one quick comment. I I
[2:06:09] do think and this is now I guess uh
[2:06:12] seven on the agenda where I can propose
[2:06:14] this, but I mean I I think moving the
[2:06:17] planters to um movable versus permanent
[2:06:20] makes me more comfortable. I'm just
[2:06:22] trying to find um what is our consistent
[2:06:25] approach to RLS and what do we allow in
[2:06:28] terms of being built or permanent
[2:06:30] structures versus not. I mean, so I
[2:06:32] think this looks great um visually. Um
[2:06:34] but it is, you know, making city land
[2:06:38] appear to be private land and I I don't
[2:06:40] have an issue with this RL just based on
[2:06:41] what we've approved uh over the course
[2:06:43] of our history as a city. But I do think
[2:06:45] it just raises a question for us to
[2:06:47] figure out how do we better define
[2:06:49] what's acceptable and not acceptable in
[2:06:51] RL's so we can better govern both from a
[2:06:54] planning standpoint and a city council
[2:06:56] standpoint. And when I say better govern
[2:06:58] is just be much more consistent in our
[2:07:00] application. But again, because these
[2:07:02] are movable, I can get comfortable with
[2:07:03] it. If they were permanent, I would say,
[2:07:05] well, no, you can't put a structure in
[2:07:07] um city land.
[2:07:12] » Thank you for the comment, Jane. Okay.
[2:07:15] Uh, I, uh, would like to make the motion
[2:07:18] that we approve the re revocable license
[2:07:21] for existing and proposed private
[2:07:23] improvements in the public rightway
[2:07:24] along Westshore Road for the property at
[2:07:27] 47 Westshore Road.
[2:07:30] » Second. All in favor? I.
[2:07:32] » I. Motion passes.
[2:07:43] Okay, we're moving on to item seven,
[2:07:46] which is our new item. Future agenda
[2:07:49] item agenda items. City council shall
[2:07:52] propose and consider items for future
[2:07:53] meetings. City council may refer items
[2:07:55] to staff for further development before
[2:07:57] they appear on a future agenda. Does any
[2:08:00] council member have a suggestion for a
[2:08:03] future
[2:08:05] Kevin? Go for it.
[2:08:06] » Oh, what would it be? um RL's
[2:08:13] I do think it's appropriate for us and I
[2:08:15] I think we can be um thoughtful about
[2:08:18] managing the timing of this but I think
[2:08:20] bringing RL's to the council would be a
[2:08:23] very uh helpful and productive um
[2:08:26] process. Uh, second, if I can nominate
[2:08:30] two, I would like to get the tree
[2:08:32] ordinance to the council this year.
[2:08:38] » Um,
[2:08:40] do do I have to to get a vote to to
[2:08:44] accept these things as future agenda
[2:08:46] items?
[2:08:53] » So, I've got some general comments.
[2:08:56] Okay,
[2:08:57] » Some general comments. I think it might
[2:08:58] be helpful if I read those out. Um I
[2:09:01] just how we look at this item and how we
[2:09:03] use it in the future. Any council member
[2:09:05] can suggest a future agenda item.
[2:09:08] However, requests requiring more than
[2:09:09] minimal staff time, research, and
[2:09:11] preparation of a future staff report
[2:09:14] should generally reflect the direction
[2:09:16] of the majority of council. So if that's
[2:09:18] the case, I think these I think it would
[2:09:20] be helpful. Um certainly if there's you
[2:09:23] know a difference in opinions to
[2:09:25] memorialize that. Um and then just from
[2:09:27] a Brown Act perspective too I think we
[2:09:30] should limit the discussion to
[2:09:31] identifying the topic and determining
[2:09:33] whether consideration is warranted
[2:09:35] rather than deliberating on the merits
[2:09:36] of the issue. Not that we've done that
[2:09:38] tonight but just a reminder.
[2:09:39] » Okay. So can I ask um just a follow-up
[2:09:41] question to the staff that would be
[2:09:43] handling these two items within all of
[2:09:45] the work that you currently have on your
[2:09:47] plates? Um, is this these two items
[2:09:51] something that you could be considering
[2:09:53] during the remainder of this calendar
[2:09:54] year?
[2:09:58] » Well, the the tree ordinance itself, I
[2:10:00] know we spent some already considerable
[2:10:02] amount of time prepping that and getting
[2:10:04] it ready. I think there's maybe with the
[2:10:06] exception of one section less work on
[2:10:08] that one. RLS is a big discussion,
[2:10:10] » Right?
[2:10:10] » Um, and I'll defer to Rebecca on where
[2:10:12] we want to fit that in. Maybe it's a
[2:10:14] question we can bring back to next
[2:10:16] meeting,
[2:10:16] » Right? Because meaning do you want to
[2:10:19] pump this to next year as a sort of key
[2:10:22] item that the city council agrees at the
[2:10:24] council retreat or you feel like you
[2:10:25] have the bandwidth this year to be
[2:10:28] working potentially with a council
[2:10:29] member or two council members on this on
[2:10:32] this question?
[2:10:33] » I think although the tree ordinance has
[2:10:35] been looked at in the past, it needs a
[2:10:37] lot of work because trees go through
[2:10:39] chapter 20, chapter
[2:10:42] 8 and chapter 19. Okay.
[2:10:46] » So, to answer your question briefly,
[2:10:48] within the next calendar year, yes, the
[2:10:52] trees, I think, should come back.
[2:10:54] » Okay.
[2:10:54] » Um, it's been a long time coming. Uh,
[2:10:57] and the RL's,
[2:10:59] I guess I would need more direction from
[2:11:02] a council member on exactly what you're
[2:11:04] looking for. We have a lot of history
[2:11:06] here, I think, of RL reports that have
[2:11:08] come to council. So,
[2:11:12] » I think with a little more direction.
[2:11:14] Yeah, I mean what I mean and with
[2:11:16] Robert's further context, I would
[2:11:18] absolutely put the RL I didn't realize
[2:11:20] about the tree ordinance. So maybe now I
[2:11:21] would put both of them in the category
[2:11:23] of requiring a bit of a heavy lift from
[2:11:25] staff. And so this isn't something I
[2:11:28] mean the RL if we're already in July, we
[2:11:31] may not meet in August. That leaves
[2:11:33] Yeah, I mean it's unlikely for this to
[2:11:35] come this year. Then I would probably
[2:11:38] put it as a key item to discuss on the
[2:11:41] at the retreat next year and we could
[2:11:43] decide you know when we could get it
[2:11:45] next year if it's a priority
[2:11:47] » And define scope because we would be
[2:11:49] able to discuss that in more depth at
[2:11:50] that point
[2:11:51] » But it is a it's a it's a meaty topic
[2:11:52] the RL in particular and I think it is
[2:11:54] going to require quite a bit of work
[2:11:56] » Okay so and I would suggest that the RL
[2:12:00] also we have to remember encompasses
[2:12:02] different aspects of the whole community
[2:12:05] and certainly we've asked parks open
[2:12:08] space and lane to collect information
[2:12:10] along this strip for all the RLS So I
[2:12:14] think all that would fold into it and
[2:12:16] they were planning on coming back in
[2:12:18] December I think
[2:12:19] » And so I think pushing it would work
[2:12:22] because then it would fit with what
[2:12:24] we've already asked parks open space and
[2:12:26] lane to do
[2:12:27] » Is so I think that's a great suggestion
[2:12:30] Kevin and so I think we you know already
[2:12:32] if in terms of the council retreat that
[2:12:34] those will be two items for discussion
[2:12:37] and Kevin will be mayor and he can lead
[2:12:39] all of that.
[2:12:44] Okay. Are there any other future agenda
[2:12:48] items that anybody would like to raise?
[2:12:50] » Everything on my list will be considered
[2:12:52] a heavy lift.
[2:12:54] » You can raise it and we can
[2:12:58] » Very you want to go down that road. Um
[2:13:02] » Beyond those two, are there other items
[2:13:03] that you just want to flag?
[2:13:06] » So, do you want to Okay. So, um it would
[2:13:09] be good to know on our housing element
[2:13:12] um what progress we're making on our HCD
[2:13:16] um requirements such as our policies and
[2:13:20] goals, but that also encompasses a lot
[2:13:23] of uh code changes
[2:13:26] um clean up and um in our in our code
[2:13:31] and additions. Um
[2:13:34] that's two. I can go to three. I think
[2:13:36] we need a new
[2:13:39] section in our municipal code that deals
[2:13:42] with um development
[2:13:47] and how developments like
[2:13:51] um future developments
[2:13:53] um um in our R2 and R3 zone um andor
[2:13:59] municipal or municipal code um mixed use
[2:14:05] um just because I think we
[2:14:10] a code that specifically deals with
[2:14:13] development that doesn't fit into our
[2:14:16] normal code and I think that's become
[2:14:19] evident in Malard Point that there's
[2:14:21] processes there that are different than
[2:14:23] what we normally do and I think we need
[2:14:25] to codify something um and that's a
[2:14:28] really super duper heavyduty lift but I
[2:14:31] think it's something that needs to be
[2:14:32] addressed sooner versus later So that as
[2:14:36] we get future development, which will be
[2:14:38] coming, that we do have something
[2:14:40] codified that addresses some of the
[2:14:42] things that we've learned from Malard
[2:14:44] Point that we should be putting into a
[2:14:47] development code so that it's easier for
[2:14:51] the community, it's easier for the
[2:14:53] developer, and it's easier for staff.
[2:14:56] So, um, I just think there needs to be
[2:14:59] an injection into the municipal code to
[2:15:02] to deal with that. And that that I admit
[2:15:04] it's a very heavy lift, but I think it's
[2:15:06] really important. It needs to be
[2:15:08] something we address sooner versus later
[2:15:10] because we are going to get developments
[2:15:13] again. And I think that um
[2:15:17] um we can definitely um use what we've
[2:15:21] learned over the last several years and
[2:15:23] put it in so that it's a smoother
[2:15:25] process for everybody involved.
[2:15:30] Are you talking about like
[2:15:36] I understand sort of the key takeaways
[2:15:38] or learning you know things we've
[2:15:40] learned from Malard but are you asking
[2:15:43] for like a revision of the R2 and R3 in
[2:15:46] terms of the zoning ordinance or are you
[2:15:48] saying like all multifamily developments
[2:15:51] » Are required to have a development
[2:15:52] agreement? Here's an example of a
[2:15:54] development agreement or can you give me
[2:15:57] an example of what you mean by
[2:15:59] » Sure. like um
[2:16:00] » Development section of the code.
[2:16:02] » So, normally our process is you're
[2:16:06] building tearing something down and
[2:16:08] building a new structure. You get one
[2:16:11] permit with everything in it. Now, with
[2:16:14] a development,
[2:16:15] you
[2:16:17] might want to have something in there
[2:16:19] that breaks up that process and is more
[2:16:22] clear on how it can proceed through not
[2:16:26] so much the um
[2:16:30] planning process. Well, it would help
[2:16:32] with the conditions of approval. So it
[2:16:34] would be kind of with the planning
[2:16:35] process but also how it's going to
[2:16:38] proceed through into entitlement so that
[2:16:41] it's it's it's a clearer process that
[2:16:44] you know there could be a demo permit
[2:16:48] given before you have your building
[2:16:52] permit because
[2:16:57] they need to demo it and then they need
[2:16:58] to do their uh improvement plan i.e.
[2:17:02] infrastructure and then they're going to
[2:17:04] do their their building plan. So, this
[2:17:06] first process is over here and then the
[2:17:08] next process is there. Um I think um
[2:17:13] having things in there such as um uh u
[2:17:20] bonds um that would uh need to be um
[2:17:26] required. Uh, I don't know if we need a
[2:17:29] user fee study for something like that
[2:17:31] to include that in a user fee update.
[2:17:34] Um, I just think that some of the things
[2:17:36] could be um a little clearer um and make
[2:17:41] the process easier for everyone to
[2:17:43] understand going forward because I mean
[2:17:45] there is going to be further development
[2:17:47] and our our code I think is primarily
[2:17:51] written for single family homes and
[2:17:54] duplexes there. it's not um taking into
[2:17:58] consideration
[2:18:00] larger projects that could come forward
[2:18:03] and um I mean there's um uh for instance
[2:18:07] there's some communities out there that
[2:18:10] have a strict process they have to
[2:18:12] follow on the uh improvement plans and
[2:18:15] that's all outlined um in in the
[2:18:18] municipal code of if you want to get
[2:18:20] your improvement plans you have to you
[2:18:22] know DPW says ABC and then so and Alo
[2:18:26] says you have to do EFG and then finally
[2:18:29] you get to the point where you can get
[2:18:30] your improvement plan. So I think we
[2:18:32] just need to look at how other cities
[2:18:35] handle these
[2:18:37] even though people don't consider it big
[2:18:39] development what we get in Belvadier to
[2:18:41] us it is big development and I just
[2:18:44] think that if there is a section that
[2:18:46] addresses some of these issues that it
[2:18:49] just would make it easier for everybody
[2:18:51] involved for yourself for the community
[2:18:54] for the developer um just to have
[2:18:57] everything kind of spelled out a little
[2:18:59] clearer because our code doesn't really
[2:19:01] go into major um redevelopment. Um it we
[2:19:05] haven't had it in 60 70 years and so we
[2:19:10] never addressed it because it was like
[2:19:12] who was going to build a duplex? Well,
[2:19:14] now we do have that. So I just think
[2:19:17] that we need to consider that kind of
[2:19:19] addition to our code
[2:19:22] so that it's a better process for
[2:19:24] everybody all the way around.
[2:19:28] » Okay. Um, everybody seems to be in
[2:19:31] agreement with that. Rebecca, I'm
[2:19:32] assuming again that that's a giant lift
[2:19:34] and this is something that will be
[2:19:35] pushed into 2027.
[2:19:37] » Okay.
[2:19:37] » Yeah.
[2:19:38] » Okay.
[2:19:40] » Right.
[2:19:41] » Uh, or eight.
[2:19:43] » Exactly. Or in 2029 or whatever it is.
[2:19:46] Okay. Unless are there any other
[2:19:48] suggestions? I guess we have to open
[2:19:49] this for public comment. Is that right,
[2:19:51] Beth?
[2:19:53] » That is it.
[2:19:53] » There is no public comment.
[2:19:55] » Okay. Unless there's further discussion,
[2:19:56] I think we can close item seven and move
[2:19:59] to item eight, which is our open forum.
[2:20:03] This is an opportunity for any member of
[2:20:04] the public to briefly address the city
[2:20:06] council on any matter that does not
[2:20:08] appear on this agenda, but that is
[2:20:09] within the city council's subject matter
[2:20:11] jurisdiction. Upon being recognized by
[2:20:13] the mayor, please limit your statement
[2:20:15] to no more than 3 minutes. Under the
[2:20:16] Brown Act, council members may not
[2:20:18] deliberate or t take action on this item
[2:20:21] on an item not on tonight's agenda.
[2:20:23] Matters that may warrant a more lengthy
[2:20:24] presentation or council consideration
[2:20:26] may be placed on the agenda for further
[2:20:29] discussion at a later meeting.
[2:20:32] » There are no hands raised.
[2:20:33] » Okay, with that we can adjourn. Good
[2:20:36] night.