[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.

[10:54] » 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.

[1:54:13] » 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.

City Council Meeting: July 13, 2026

Agenda

Transcript