City Council - Regular Meeting

Great. I will call to order this City of Bervida Council meeting of Monday, May the 11th, 2026. Can I get a roll call, please?

Council Member Cooper. Here. Council Member Burke. Here. Mayor Wilkinson. Present. Council Member Carapiet. Here. For the record, Council Member Mark will be joining us momentarily. He's right there.

Perfect timing. Okay, with that, we're going to be moving to item two, which is a closed session. Perfect timing.

Yeah.

Are we live? Okay, great. Beth, do I need another roll call? No, okay, great. So reporting out from the closed session on the conference with Labour negotiator and public employee performance evaluation, there is nothing to report. So we are now going to move on to item number three, which is reports and presentations. Firstly, starting with city council reports, does any council member have an update?

So I want to report that Jane and I attended the wildfire preparedness forum on Saturday, May 2nd in San Rafael. And there they presented a new Marin County community wildfire protection plan. And the acronym is CWPP. And this evaluation outlines the seven areas that need an action plan. And they actually had one for the town of Tiburon, which included Belvedere. And I've reached out to the Tiburon Fire Department to ask how they're going to interact with Belvedere on this report. And I think in the future, it would be good to have them come and give us an explanation and an update on their action plan. We also had a get ready. I guess I should ask Jane, did you want to add anything to that? No, we also had a Get Ready 94920 meeting or I'm sorry, Get Ready 94920 has a class on May 20th at the library from one to three, if anyone's interested in attending. And we had a Be Ready Belvedere meeting where we're still focusing on our event prior to the Belvedere Film Festival on October 6th. And we'll be having more details to follow in the coming months. Thank you, Jane.

More emergency preparedness. I attended the April Belvedere-Tiburon Emergency Preparation Council. Yes, I think that's it. and learned that Chief Wu, our actor and resident, and Laurie Nilsen are creating mini videos focused on emergency preparedness. The first video will show how to put a go bag together. And as the videos are finished, we'll link them to our Be Ready Belvedere website section. And I think they're supposed to be just around 30 seconds long, and there will be a series of them. different people from the community will get involved and and participate in making the video so i think it'll be a great addition to our be ready belvedere area people can click right on it and get a quick 30 second little message on how to do things so and um the in-depth training happening at the library on may 20th will be announced in the breeze this coming week that's all i have

Nobody else? Okay, I will open this for public comment. Mayor Wilkinson, there are no hands raised. Okay, thank you. Okay, moving on to item 3B, which is our city manager's report.

Yes, thank you, Mayor Wilkinson. I do have a couple of updates this evening. First, I'll start with Mallard. Staff continues to meet regularly with the Mallard team to work through the remaining items identified in the city's incompleteness letter. In parallel with those discussions, the city attorney has been reviewing the subdivision improvement agreement affordable housing agreement and regulatory agreements. Based on their current schedule, the applicant is working towards and still hopes to bring the final map forward for council consideration for a June hearing, I should say. On the relocation component for the project, Rebecca's team is working with our consultants to prepare the relocation benefits analysis and an action plan that shows practically how the relocations will occur our objective is to have that work substantially complete in the next 30 days so the city can ensure the process is transparent for the tenants and of course that it's meeting the state's tenant protection laws In parallel, staff has also begun the onboarding for Eric Seabrook, who will serve as the city's project coordinator. One of the immediate priorities that's been discussed was improving organization and public accessibility of project materials, particularly through the website. including other supporting documents. That effort is currently underway. Rebecca is also coordinating a meet and greet community event with Mr. Seabrook. We're trying to work that in towards the end of May, and we'll put some meeting details in this week's breeze once we have those dates ironed out. Switching gears to the seawall, last month City Council approved the seawall strengthening project along Beach Road. They chose to award the construction contract to the lowest bidder, Gordon N. Ball, who's a general engineering contractor. The contractor has completed execution of the contract documents, including the submission of the required insurance and bonding, and the project is now moving into the pre-construction coordination phase. As part of that effort, the city contractor, the engineering team have been reviewing opportunities to refine portions of the design now that the actual construction unit pricing is known. And fortunately, it's looking like there may be some minor opportunities for small tweaks to the design to save money. So that's positive news. On utilities coordination for that same project, staff recently met with PG&E on site, Comcast, Sanitary District Number 5, Marin Water, Gordon Ball, the contractor, and the city's consultants to coordinate infrastructure work associated with the project. And I am happy to report that PG&E has scheduled its undergrounding utility modification, which was an important part of the project. They've asked for encroachment permits for the week of June 15th. Also, Marin Water has already begun preparatory work for the project as well. So overall, the coordination with the different phases of construction appears to be on track. Again, in terms of the permits, you may recall that all regulatory permits for the projects have been approved with the exception of the Army Corps of Engineers. Their process is taking longer than expected. Tony and the city's permanent consultant are watching this closely, and they're doing what they can to expedite that approval. Staff is also gearing up for public outreach. A focused neighborhood meeting for the directly impacted Beach Road residents is scheduled for May 19th. And the broader community workshop is tentatively planned for early June to provide project information and answer questions from the public. In addition, staff is working on expanding the project webpage to improve public access and project materials on an ongoing basis. And then finally, we will be diving into some more details on these points with the CWOL subcommittee. Tony reached out to the members today and scheduled another update meeting, which we're hoping to put in place in the next couple of weeks. That's all I have for now. I'm happy to take questions.

Any questions?

Thanks, Robert, for that. A quick one related to Mallard. You mentioned the relocation consultant that you've engaged. Do you have a sense or does Rebecca have a sense of how many tenants this might apply to?

Not very many from what I have heard, yeah.

One is confirmed deceased. I think the other one is also, I don't have that paperwork yet. And then there are two active people who have moved out of Mallard, but I just talked to both their sons today and they are interested in pursuing the relocation benefits. Okay. And so they're in contact with the consultant.

So does that have a similar timeline? Because they're no longer living there, but the fact that they were there at a certain point, they are, I think, I was looking for that word, eligible for those benefits.

Yes, yes. And I'm not an expert on housing relocation, but yes, they are eligible, I believe, to some of the benefits.

Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions? I guess I have one just to be clear. If for them to bring a full final map to us in June, when would everything be filed with need to be filed with the city? So updated subdivision, all the components of the checklist and all that, how much in advance would we expect that to happen before.

Unless Rebecca Robert have anything else to add. I expect we would have included the regular agenda packet public publication timeline. But if that's something that council wants to address with staff, I'm sure we'd be open to input.

Okay.

I do recall from Mallard Point for some previous projects, we tried to get the packet out early, perhaps a week in advance to give the public full opportunity to review the materials.

I was wondering about the public having availability to see all the components that are still outstanding. Because when you look at it, it appears like there's a lot. And so I would assume that to get it on from today, that everything would have to be into you for your making sure everything's done. within two or three weeks from now? I don't know. That's what I'm asking.

Yeah, I think it's, there might be a little bit of confusion out there because there's, you know, we're trying not to conflate the final map with the demo plans and the infrastructure plans, right? There's certainly a lot of documents that are still outstanding for that third incompleteness review letter for the building permits. The final map has very specific, requirements that we're pretty close to getting those documents.

Okay. In that case, if they are a finite checklist, so to speak, from what you're saying, is that list, regardless of whether it's all in there or not, is that something that we can see earlier? is that something that's already published? Is there a list somewhere that goes into the final map that would be helpful for us to even know what that is?

Yeah. So those would be the conditions of approval and the tenant of map resolution. However, there is a little conflation with the demo and the infrastructure building permit. So you just have to kind of read through it and I can connect this week and go through it if you want.

Okay. Thanks. Any other questions? No. Robert, I was just curious, and I know this is coming to a committee, but when you talked about potential savings on the Beach Road project, can you give us a ballpark of what you're talking about?

Yeah, I wish I could. It's really, you know, Tony and I, there's a couple of design elements that, you know, particularly related to those gangways, if you recall, in front of the waterfront properties. We may have some flexibility in how we design those seawall around those gangways to avoid some of that demolition work. Not demolition, I should say removal and replacement work of those gangways. So that's really what's concerning and the contract that we were considering putting forward with Hadley. I can't put a dollar amount on it yet, but that's something that Tony and I are working on.

Okay, thank you. Okay, let's open this for public comment. Anybody in the room? Nope. Anybody online, Beth? I see none. Okay, great. So we will close 3B and move on to item 3C, which is a presentation from Jean Della Zopa, CEO and Managing Director of North Valley Refuge Service. Jean, welcome back.

Right now, can you hear me? Awesome. So the purpose of me being here today is Milvi Refuge Service is adjusting its rates through a CPI based adjustment. So that comes out to 2.2%. And that CPI is based on CPI in all items with San Francisco, Oakland, Hayward. Now, through the last five years, in terms of rate increases, we're looking at 3.64% as a five-year average. So this rate increase is slightly below that. In terms of customer impact, for a 32-gallon residential, the new monthly rate would be a monthly increase of $1.62. And then for 20-gallon, it's $1.31. Part of why the increase is needed is... We have a collective bargaining agreement with all our drivers and their hourly rate is going from $44 an hour to $47 an hour. So that's a 6% increase. We're also seeing a lot of increase in costs with respect to health insurance and benefits. Just for this year alone, we're looking at a 7% increase there. In terms of pension, that also gets adjusted through CPI escalated contributions. Now with our disposal contracts, our garbage and compost disposal contract expires at the end of this year. So for 2027, we haven't started renegotiations with that yet, but I am expecting increases on the composting side. In terms of fuel, There's a lot of diesel volatility going on right now, given macro and global economic conditions, but I'm hoping that will get stabilized in the next quarter, hopefully best case scenario. We did get a favorable offset where our recycling dual stream processing rate did get adjusted from $93 to $66. So a lot of that is through the effectiveness of our source separated dual stream recycling program. So our contamination residual rate for that is still really low at around 10%. So I commend all of our customers for source separating the papers and bottles and cans. An operational update is this year we're celebrating 120 years of being in service. It's very humbling to be a part of a company with that many years of service. But I also kind of recognize we're changing and modernizing with the times. So part of our long-term strategy is going to be really... a lot of capital reinvestment with our fleet and we're still expanding upon our camera systems within the trucks we're using ai for better safe driving habits trying to get that data and figure out better ways to service our customers and we also put field tablets in the trucks so we're starting to get more uh modernized across our operations um so That's all I have for the presentation, but I'm open for any questions or feedback, and I'm happy to answer any.

Any questions?

Thanks, Gene. Just real quick, you mentioned the CPI increases. Is that a new change in approach? And if so, is that going to stay consistent going forward?

That's a great question. So part of our contracts with the city of Belvedere, when we go through a base rate change, that's a maximum adjustment to the rates. The following two periods in the Belvedere contract, it basically allows us to do a CPI based increase, but it's capped at 3%. Now, part of our strategy is we have to be very cognitive of how rate increases work. And during CPI-based years, it forces us to be more cost-effective when it comes to analyzing operations, trying to gauge efficiencies. It's part of our strategy where when we do base rate change, the next couple of years have to be CPI-based adjustments because I'm trying to do everything I can to keep the rates as low as they possibly can, even dealing with inflation and other types of cost drivers. Yeah. You're welcome.

Any other questions? I have just one, which is in relation to the separation of food waste into green bins. What has been your experience of that since it's been implemented, meaning are people honoring that? Are you actually doing searches of the other bins to see if there's contamination and are you imposing any fines?

Yeah, that's a good question. So part of, I'll say our material stream, I'd say 90% of it is really yard waste. And then that 10% is food waste. We do have participation with food waste on the commercial side. That's through the food to energy program. So we essentially haul food. food waste, very clean, and we bring it over to REN Sanitary Service where it gets part of their food to energy program. They're basically using the food waste to generate electricity. In terms of SB 1383 with route reviews, if we do find an issue where a customer isn't, say that they're constantly contaminating the compost bin, We have processes in place where we're able to send them an email. We're able to track that data. If it's something consistently that's above what we'd expect, we have an outreach person with our CSR team to contact that person. Part of the route reviews, we are subcontracting it out and we work very closely with Zero Waste Marin to just make sure that Everyone is SP 1383 compliant. And then if they don't have that compliance, they have to have a waiver. And then we go through that waiver process. So it's, it's been, we're dealing with a lot more, I would say data sets in terms of who has, who has what kind of compost bin and why we understand every customer has, you know, unique needs for that. And we have to be able to deliver upon that service.

Okay, thank you very much. Okay, let's open for public comment. Beth, is there anybody online? I see none. Okay, great.

Oh, I apologize. We have Mr. Rothman.

Oh, hello. Can you bring him through? Good evening, Dr. Rothman. Can you hear me? We can hear you.

Thank you very much. This involves Tiburon, but rather than Belvedere, because we don't have a multifamily... residences like they do in Tiburon up on the hill there. Uh, but since you were discussing your practices and desirable practices with respect to recycling, I would like to know, and there's a tremendous number of those condos and whatever on the hills of Tiburon. Could you tell me to what extent in those buildings there is the separation of, uh, of the different components of the composting. You know what I'm saying? Like we have the three bins. We have the green and we have the metal and the plastic, et cetera.

Are they able to do that in those buildings?

Well, hello, Dr. Rothman, that's a good question. So part of the multifamily is I think the biggest constraint with having multiple compost bins, meaning let's say if it's a 30 unit building, there's 30 compost bins. We have to work with the space that's kind of limited, but at the same time, we offer the same three material streams of service. So garbage, mixed recycling, and compost. We haven't fully integrated our dual stream recycling program with multifamily. Those are on dedicated recycling commercial routes. It still goes to the same MRF facility, but in terms of like food waste bins, it has like food waste bins specifically has to be requested upon the property manager. But if it is something that's brought to our attention through Zero Waste Marin, when they do their site visits, we tend to take a closer look in detail. And I can, in terms of like, I guess, specific site numbers, we have 54 sites in Tiburon for apartments. And then with Belvedere, we have eight. So it still is a lot of units, obviously. But if there's opportunity where we can kind of improve upon that diversion in terms of, if you want to look at it like a volume metric basis, we're happy to look at that.

Well, I'm unclear about whether they have the bins for paper and food waste and metals and plastics. Do they or do they not in the multiple family buildings, do they have those facilities or do you just have single stream? And if you do have single stream, where does it go? because Marin Sanitary is set up to deal with dual stream.

Yes, it's a good question. So yes, they do have trash carts or a trash container and they have mixed commercial recycling bins. Those are all blue. And then they have compost bins. And we also, especially for multifamily, we have done events where we provided kitchen pails to just make it easier for composting within their apartment unit.

Okay, thank you so much for the presentation and thanks for your time.

Awesome. Thank you guys so much. Appreciate it.

Okay, so we will close 3C and we're going to move on to the consent calendar. The consent calendar consists of items that the city council considers to be routine or council has discussed previously and do not require further discussion. Unless any item is specifically removed by any member of the City Council, the consent calendar will be adopted by one motion. Council will take public comment on all items on the consent calendar when the calendar is called. Robert, I believe there's an update you want to give us in relation to 4E.

Yes, thank you, Mayor. Item 4E, which was TAM's Measure AA expenditure plan. You may recall this topic came up during council reports at a previous meeting. And during that discussion, council conveyed that they wanted to make it clear that the city doesn't support any, they would support this expenditure plan, but wouldn't support any future plans. redistribution of AA funds where they are pulled away from cities, particularly small agencies that rely on these funds for road improvements like Belvedere. But I did want to point out that I plan to include a letter that outlines this along with your approval of a resolution this evening. I don't think the resolution needs a chain necessarily, but I did want to make that point.

Thanks, Robert. Okay. Does any member of the council want to remove any items from the main consent calendar for A through 4G? No, in that case, can I get a motion on those items?

I can make a motion to approve the consent calendar items 4A through 4G. Do we want to say with the additional letter that Robert spoke? I don't think there's any specific amendments. We don't need to.

Okay, great. I do remember I forgot to ask for public comment on this. Can I please get public comment before we get a second? Mayor Wilkinson, there are no hands raised. Great. Can I get a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Motion passes. Okay, we're now going to move on to the individual consent calendar items. The individual consent calendar consists of items that the City Council considers to be routine or Council has discussed previously and do not require further discussion but are separately listed because a Council member or members have a conflict of interest which require them to recuse themselves from participation in the decision. So we will first go to 5A.

And I will recuse myself as I live within the 500 foot from the house on Community Road.

Thanks. And so does anybody have any questions or wish to pull this for discussion before a vote?

So I'd like to pull 5A.

Okay, well, we will go ahead with that. What would you like to discuss?

As I look at this revocable license, revocable license includes eight feet of city property. And that eight feet could support a four foot sidewalk for pedestrian safety that could in the future connect to a sidewalk along community road. The reason why I'm doing this is I'm thinking that we need to perhaps have a global look at this area of the city. Since Community Road is facing a doubling of housing in the Mallard Point section. And that will increase the traffic at least four times more than what's there currently. And currently folks mainly walk in the street. which will become much more hazardous with the development in the area. And I thought that we should have a discussion and consider a broader look at how we want the community park area and its use in safety since there's eight feet of city property that we're talking about on this. Um, I know that the property on the corner had a gotten an RL for plantings, but, um, having a sidewalk that currently now wouldn't connect, but hopefully in the future we might as a city council want to look at a sidewalk for additional, um, safety for, um, children, um, the general public, our seniors, um, who, um, walking in the road may not become the correct path for them. So I wanted to bring this up as a point of discussion and see if we wanted to have that discussion and to consider granting a revocable license for four feet, and then keeping the forefoot for the sidewalk. I also reached out today to our director of, public works to speak to him. And of course it was last minute in the discussion, nothing was determined, but it was acknowledged that, you know, that area of the city is going to be changing.

Okay, before getting other council members to comment, if it's okay, I would like to see whether either our public works director or our planning director would like to make any, provide any further information in relation to.

Yeah, I had the same question, council member Carapiette. And so I reached out to engineering and they indicated that it's such a short amount of space and that it would really essentially be kind of a sidewalk to the park. And I believe I just and Tony can come up and talk probably better than I can about this, but that given the cost of the project to the applicant that we couldn't require a sidewalk. We require sidewalks to other applicants and we never question based on the valuation of the work, but Tony can come speak to it if

I don't have the exact evaluation of the project. But speaking to Chris, so Chris Barry, associate engineer, looks at all RLs. And his thoughts on this one, as far as the sidewalk go, were that it was unrealistic to to connect to anything. There was nothing. And this is before Pat brought this up today, of course, that he made these observations. But the reason that a sidewalk wasn't required for the project was because the valuation of the project was quite low. He said it was less than $20,000. And maybe planning or building maybe have an exact number. So it wouldn't be reasonable to request a construction of a sidewalk at the same time. But it seems to me we're talking about two different things here. I think you're discussing the RL and the space that's being requested for the RL versus a requirement to build something. But maybe... Council Member Carapiette could clarify if you're talking about pulling the RL back four feet for a future sidewalk or requiring a sidewalk at this time.

So, well, I guess I would be willing to go either way, keeping the four feet for the potential for a future sidewalk. I think this project, while has had a few phases, was more than a $20,000 project when you add everything together that they've done to the property. But if... we are not able to ask for them to do the sidewalk. I would feel keeping four feet from the curve over, which would give them four feet for plantings would allow us for future to look at a sidewalk. Because I think once Mallard Point comes in, this might become a critical issue. And once we give the property away on an RL, it's very hard to, Gain it back so it's it's sort of looking forward. On that particular area of the city as far as the development that's going on with future additional developments in other locations along Community road that turn into center fell. So that was my thought that eight feet is quite a bit. I mean, we might have something like that up on the island because of a slope that goes down that no one has any use for the property, but generally around the flat area of the city, I mean, I think the typical RL tends to be like four to five feet or less. So I just felt that the city council should think about it and consider future needs that the city might have going forward. And not agree to the RL where a sidewalk potentially could go because even though there's no sidewalk from the corner of Leeward, it's still an area when we have concerts in the park or other projects that there's a lot of people walking around and in the street and a sidewalk would connect it to another sidewalk would be beneficial.

Certainly I can chime in that where the city sees a future benefit of having access to that, to a piece of, or an area. It does make sense to me to to not allow people to have RLs for those areas because, you know, Lagoon Road is a good example. I think I'd mentioned that to you earlier today where you have, it's kind of a choppy with some areas with sidewalks and some with landscapes, kind of an inconsistent section of road there. Yeah, and once an RL has been provided for a certain area, it's hard to pull it back.

Kevin, I think you had a question.

Yeah, I did. Just so I'm clear, so what the RL would allow is for the driveway and for the walkway. No other building would, nothing else would be built in that space. So the eight feet, it's not, they're not proposing putting anything in the RL, eight feet, except the driveway and the walkway. Correct. And so I guess the question is, is do we- Well, they're putting plantings, aren't they? No, according to the plan, it looks like they're on the property line. Yeah.

Once we give the RL, then it's, you know, we got to revoke it.

Well, we're giving them a revocable license just for two uses. One is the walkway and the driveway. So we're not saying you now can do anything you want in the RL. Correct? But it covers the whole area.

It covers, yeah, it's shade. The whole exhibit is shaded. So essentially we would be...

It's the whole shaded area.

So it goes across the whole front. I get the shaded area, but so then the RL would allow them to do whatever they want in the RL? Yes. They could build anything they want.

Well, not build. No.

They could put plantings there if they chose to. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Yes, no without or.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- i'd have to come back through design review. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Right, and then we would relook at the revocable license and see that they didn't have a vocable license landscaping.

HAB-Terry Palmos- What the URL is is is giving them is the ability to have the driveway access in the sidewalk or the walkway access. HAB-Terry Palmos- yeah yeah.

Well, I don't mind the driveway and the walkway. It's just, you know, in, I mean, if you look at the pretty picture, if you look at the pretty picture here, I mean, you know, they have plantings, they don't have anything here. So for us to keep four feet here is not impacting them. They could still have their plantings or whatever they're going to do with their, with their fence. They have no new landscaping. They have existing landscaping. So allowing the walkway is fine. I don't have an objection to that. And I have no objection to the driveway. But I'm talking about four feet along the front of the street just to keep it... in the control of the city.

Then don't we need to give them the RL eight feet out for the driveway and eight feet out for the walkway because they'll be going over it.

Yes.

It's really a carve out for that one area. either say you exclude that from the RL or you just put in the RL, you can't, nothing else can be placed in the RL except the sidewalk and the driveway.

We're still questions, right? So just to clarify, an RL is more than just giving them access to that property. It's transferring liability and maintenance obligations to the homeowner. So the reason you do the whole stretch of the property is to be maintained both from a parent's perspective and a liability perspective away from the city, which we're not actively using.

Is the applicant online, or is it represented?

The architect is, yeah.

I guess that's the public comment, sorry.

I'm gonna see whether she, I think we're gonna see whether we can get the architect first so that we can- Hi, I'm actually for the next agenda item.

Before we get to even the applicant, but still on questions, Rebecca, couldn't, I understand once you issue a revocable license that it may be difficult to improve that property without revoking the license and rehearing it, but couldn't you, given the fact that this area and other areas may have a need for public sidewalks in the future, couldn't we put a condition that this revocable license is subject to public works adding a sidewalk, should they deem it necessary? I mean, couldn't that be a simple inclusion in the revocable license, which would, in a sense, solve this problem without necessarily adding it? Because I can't imagine we're going to get a thorough, if it became an imperative, a city imperative to put in a sidewalk here, I can't imagine we're gonna get the timing or the resident buy-in to do with themselves in association with renovations or significant renovations. So if we're gonna do it, we're gonna do it ourselves as a public works project. So I would think that we should add it as a line in the RL agreement where we have the right to do so, obviously working with their design professionals in and around their improvements to our city standard. I imagine that's possible. It's a question still. So I imagine that's possible.

Is it legally possible?

This revocable license, like all the revocable license that I've seen in my years here, say the license is fully revocable at the pleasure or discretion of the city council. So we can revoke these license for any reason.

Yeah, we've never done it.

But certainly if you want to specify that one of the reasons could be for, to your point, Council Member Karapet, for the construction of a public sidewalk, we can illustrate that. We can say specifically one such instance may be if the city wishes to install a public sidewalk.

but we would have to go through revocable. Could we just not do it so that the, if the sidewalk goes in?

Could we add a condition? I think Peter's, what Peter's getting at is can we just add another number to the revocable license with some language that said, should the city want to put in a sidewalk?

We would have the right to do so without altering the rest of the license. Yeah.

have to revoke it but rather it just goes away bye-bye i mean either i mean i guess that they both saw the problem yes right it's i suppose it's up to you whether you want to sort of revoke sort of that be a specific instance once the license will be revoked or you want to have some sort of middle ground as a possibility i guess i'm not quite clear where you want to land i'd rather just see if we decide to put in a sidewalk that's revoked i mean i don't think that the city should have to go through any more process than what we're going through right now

If we're putting in a sidewalk.

I mean, it does feel to me that this is a bigger policy issue. And while we're on the council, we might do this. But if there isn't a policy outline for the future, it's just chaos. And so we can deal with this today, but it does feel like we have to bring back a broader discussion around RLs.

Well, I think the RLs need a broader discussion all over.

Yes. Okay, so if we don't have any other questions, let's bring this back for public comment, just to see whether there's any public comment.

We have Mr. Rothman.

Great. Hi, Dr. Rothman.

Yes, thank you very much. I would caution you about putting a particular stipulation in this revocable license about, and if we want to put a sidewalk, then we can put one. Because that might suggest that in any other issue, any other site of a revocable license, where you don't have that written down specifically, that it really isn't so revocable. Because if you stipulate that one is revocable, then the question is, is one that doesn't say that you could do something in that, is that not so revocable? So I would suggest you just leave it. as it is. And I, frankly, with all the places that need sidewalks, Belvedere Avenue, et cetera, I would hope that in future we would have more sidewalks so that people with pushing baby carriages or elderly, whatever it is, don't find themselves having to jump out of the way of speeding pickup trucks. So I would not, I wouldn't put something special on this revocable license because I think it weakens your case, your legal case in other sites where you may want to do things, but you haven't put a stipulation about the future. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Andrew, can you comment on that in terms of the pros and cons of specifically spelling something out for this RL?

Frankly, I think it would be better to specify if we have a condition in mind or an instance in mind, we would work through license. I would think that's better for all parties involved.

But to Dr. Rothman's point, does it therefore weaken the case if we want to be doing that elsewhere or we haven't spelled it out?

I mean, RRLs have been very consistent in saying they're all revocable at the discretion of city council. And so I don't think we would change that position. And the fact that we added a condition or slightly different language of this one doesn't to me mean that the other ones are legally defective or weak or something along those lines.

Okay. All right. Let's bring this back for discussion. There's one follow-up question.

But Andrew, just following up that same point, would it be... perhaps to Mr. Rothman's point there, might it be as effective, if not more effective, in a sense to change our policy and put a line in the policy with regard to revocable licenses that one of the reasons that the license would be revoked would be for a pedestrian improvement project adjacent to, you know, through the revocable license, something like that, which would, in a sense, handle this case, but all cases as well.

Yeah, that would be another way to deal with it. And I think that would be a completely legitimate way to deal with it as well. But I'm just not sure if our policy, if we do move to a revised policy, will frankly be able to capture all those details and all those specific instances going forward. Maybe we can, maybe we can't. I don't know. I think we're just going to start the discussion tonight. But I don't know if that's just one of many instances which would revoke an RL or not. Thank you.

All right. Let's bring this back for discussion. Kevin?

Sure. I totally understand the issue that Pat raised, and I do at some point hope that we can deal with the sidewalk issue near the park. I feel like the RL is already constructed in such a way that it gives us the right to revoke it if and when it's necessary. And as staff said, there's no permission being given or granted to put anything in the RL except for the driveway and the sidewalk. So I think we're covered. We just revoke it when and if we need it.

Okay, Peter.

Yeah, I don't, and I'm not suggesting Pat's suggesting this, but it wasn't clear. I would not impose or require them to put a sidewalk here, even if we could, given the scale of the project. And I agree with Kevin that, I think we have the language in there, if not specific enough, if not so specific, but I would try to address our policy as our mayor talked about specifically for this, because I do think this is a broader need from a pedestrian passageway perspective that we should have it in our policy, that that is one of the reasons why we would rope something and this could be a good opportunity to do so should we get the further opportunity with other properties there as well.

So, go back to Pat, are you, on the basis that we will bring back a broader RL discussion soon to address this on a global basis, are you comfortable moving the RL as it's currently described?

Well, I just think we're missing an opportunity to take this as a... and put something in saying that this is a very specific property. And I don't know how many other properties would fit into this kind of requirement because the sidewalk is four feet. I mean, we have eight feet there. That's why I thought, well, we could get a sidewalk and they still get four feet for whatever plantings or development they might wanna do there. not that it would be a structure or anything. And I just think that starting now for the specific property to say, if we choose to put a sidewalk in in the future, that we reserve the right for the first four feet of the revocable license for that purpose, I think is a good step. I think going forward, I think it's a bigger discussion and it's a global discussion and it needs to be vetted out better than the conversation here, but I think this is an opportune opportunity for this specific project, for this specific property, that it makes it very clear for a condition to go in specifically for this property. So that I continue to be my stance on this that I think that it's unusual enough of a property that we should carve out something for a potential for a sidewalk.

Okay, and I think I am whilst sympathetic to the argument I think i'm more aligned with addressing this through revision to the overall policy, rather than an individual carve out here so. I think with that I would ask somebody to make a motion.

So let me, can I just ask one question? I'm sorry, one question of our legal counsel. So if we change our global stance in the future on RLs that carves out something for future sidewalks that we could revoke on future sidewalks, how does that affect RLs that have already been signed without that carve out?

Yeah, that's an excellent question. So I think to the extent that we are looking or going to make any policy changes, one of the key decision points for council is whether those changes will be perspective only, or we are going to apply them across the board.

So we can make changes across the board. And even though it's not in their RL, that it would change their RL.

That's a policy question for council to consider. And then obviously we'd think about how to take care of that implementation.

But legally it can be done is my question.

Legally, all these revocable licenses can be revoked at any time at the discretion of city council. So if push can't show, we can require additional terms.

All we'd be doing is, in a sense, defining or adding additional language to clarify an additional need why the city council might choose to revoke a license.

That would be one way to execute the policy. And then again, I would suggest that when we get to that point, we be explicit about whether we're doing it going forward or again across the board.

But when we come to that point in time, you're not going to then say, well, we don't recommend you do this retroactively. You're standing here today saying we have the ability to do that and there's not going to be a different legal interpretation when we bring that forward.

Yes, that's the question. You're not going to change your mind. We're putting you on the hot seat here.

I will state that the language of the city regarding these revocable licenses has been very consistent on this point. To the extent any individual property owners push back on that, I think I will just respond the city's position has been very consistent.

And defensible.

Of course.

Okay. All right. Can I get a motion?

I move to approve the revocable license for existing and propose private improvements in the public right of way along community road for property at three community road. Second.

All those in favor? Aye. All those against?

Aye. I'm sorry, I went backwards. I'm going to pass the RO. I'm not saying aye to the no.

Okay. So you're all in favor. All in favor. Okay. Sorry. Thank you. Okay. We are now moving on to item 5B, which is a motion to approve revocable license for existing private improvements in the public right of way along Belvedere Way and Belvedere Way Lane for the property at 3 Belvedere Way. I am going to be recused from this item because I live within 500 feet of the property and Kevin will be leading this item.

I am also recused from this for the same reason. Thank you.

Sally. So there is no staff report on this given it's a consent item on the agenda. I'm going to now turn it over to my colleagues. Does anyone want to pull this item?

I'd like to pull item 5B.

Thank you. And I will turn it back again to my colleagues and ask what questions or comments you might have.

Yes. So my question is, is that the RL that's before us includes a section along the lane. And that was not part of RL that the planning commission looked at. So why are we being asked for an RL along the lane now?

That portion of the RL came as a result of the planning commission discussion. There was some discussion about let's, I don't know what it's called. So I'm going to call it the West shore lane portion of the city right of way. And then we'll call it Belvedere way, the other RL exhibit that they're asking for. So at the planning commission hearing, there was discussion about that retaining wall, that hillside who has responsibility for it. et cetera. And as a result of the planning commission hearing, it was decided that the property owners should take on the responsibility of all that landscaping because they're not changing anything down there on that portion of their of the property. And so that's why it is before the council now. There was also a condition added to the planning commission resolution as a result of a discussion with the parks open space lane I think they're here chart. I think Charlie was at that planning commission hearing and the property owner and so they agreed on a condition to monitor the retaining wall during construction and prior to building permit final, they would reassess the structural integrity of that wall and then work with the city if something were to happen. I have that. So does that answer your question? It's a long way to.

Yes, so.

Can I ask one clarifying comment, Pat? Is the retaining wall you're referring to the wooden, the short wooden retaining wall? Yeah. OK, thanks. I have a picture.

You do? I need to bring it over.

There was a picture in the packet. We have a picture too.

I just want to make sure it was the same. Yeah. I don't know if it's at the same angle. Sure, bring it.

So the staff report talks about the original application for the RL, which was just along Belvedere Way. And so we have two exhibits, one and two, well, two exhibit A's on two separate sheets of paper. So is the first exhibit, which is along Belvedere Way where the driveway is in front of the property, is that the exhibit that the Planning Commission looked at?

Yes. Yes.

OK. And then the second exhibit is something that applicant brought in as a result of staff's recommendation. They should maintain the plantings along the lane.

Yes.

And then on the second exhibit, it's A little hard to see, but I mean, are they taking all of the land up to that concrete tallish 18 inch, two foot concrete curb? I don't know what to call it. And then there's a pipe and then another little rolled curb. So they're just taking from the dirt back.

They're taking the landscaping only. no concrete, no wall, no curb. It's landscaping only.

So because I went to, well, maybe this might be for the applicant, but I went to visit the site and it appears where the wood retention wall is, was actually put in because dirt was built up there. And that wood retention wall is holding back the dirt that someone, not the current applicant, but someone in the past, added dirt and changed the actual natural slope of the land?

I would say that, so there's a drainage ditch right beneath it. So I don't know if the slope was changed above the wall, but certainly it's very possible that it was added to capture debris and stop it from going into the drain. It doesn't appear to have been built as a it's not holding the slope up or anything.

So if that wood wall went away, nothing would happen except debris into the drain?

Yes, yeah. There would be debris falling into the drain, but the slope itself would probably not be affected. There would continue to be debris from time to time, but yeah, it doesn't appear to be a structural retaining wall.

No, it's not structural.

Do you have any other comments or questions?

No, not that I can see you.

Jane.

Thank you. So I guess what I'd like to clarify is that there with your suggestion, asking for that RL only for the plants so they can, is it, to keep privacy? They want the plants to stay alive. They want to be able to trim them. Is it because they're located in public property, they wouldn't be able to do that legally? Or is that sort of what it is?

Yeah, I mean, I think it's a well-established grove of plantings that are stabilizing that hillside and they're doing all these improvements above it. And they had just planned on not amending those, that portion of it, of the property.

Right. I mean, I was just trying to understand why, what the reason for the RL is. If they're not planning on touching it, why would they even ask for it?

I think we asked them to maintain it, to take on the liability and responsibility and maintaining that plant, those plantings.

Okay. So you asked them to maintain those. Yeah. Okay. So if... if they didn't take on those plants and the city needed to do repairs, we could conceivably go into that dirt and plant area and pull some of those out, or we could change them or we could cut them or we could do whatever we want on them. And so this way it allows them to keep on top of those plants without us necessarily making changes there. I just recall from the meeting that the owner was very concerned that the plants would be there for privacy so that the public walkway, people wouldn't just be looking in at them and their pool, et cetera. So I see it as a benefit to them to be able to keep the plants alive and thick in that area. Okay, and then I was looking at the plans and I don't have any comments about their plans. I just had one question, which was, I noticed that there's a pool that's gonna go in quite close to that dirt area. And in your experience of constructing a pool and creating surrounding vegetation, which they show on their plans, Would a truck or people need to be below the pool? I mean, do you work around a whole pool that's in a location like that, create a retaining wall for it? I couldn't tell from the plans. I don't know how they're creating that pool. It just seems like they would have to do some, they're demolishing the whole thing. So I'm assuming they'd be creating a retaining wall. I'm just concerned that, I would assume trucks would have to go in near that dirt area. That's all.

But I don't know. I haven't seen a construction management plan. We're not going to issue a building permit that's not structurally sound to hold up that pool on a hillside. Okay, great.

So I think those are my only questions.

I have a new question. Sorry. So my new question is, is that... Who will be responsible for that retention wall if it fails and it needs to have some kind of replacement in its current location or a future location? If we give them the revocable license, because the retention wall is in the dirt right in front of the plants. It's not on the other side of the concrete curb, I'm calling it.

Well, I mean, have you read the condition of approval from the Planning Commission approval? So it says if the retaining walls altered or compromised during construction, the applicant shall work with the city on an agreement to remedy the movement of the retaining wall prior to building permit final. So I think it was at the planning commission hearing that property owner didn't wanna commit to building a whole new wall because he had no idea how much that was gonna cost. And so the agreement was like, well, yeah, we'll monitor it and see what happens and then we'll revisit it. This is all prior to their building permit final. However, the architect is online. I don't wanna speak for them. The retaining wall is not in the revocable license that they're asking for. So it would be our responsibility.

So I'm not talking about, I'm talking post-construction. Let's get past the construction, but let's say they finish their construction now and in two years for some reason that wall fails and the dirt's moving and it has to have some kind of a retention something.

Yeah, I can speak in general about what... how it would be addressed. Um, if, uh, if the cause of the, of the, uh, failure was something that the property owner had had done, um, then I think the city would approach them and, and, um, talk about, uh, replacing the wall and, um, having some kind of agreement on how that would be done. If the wall was, you know, if it failed because the wood had rotted and there was nothing in particular that the owner did that had any effect, then it would be the city's responsibility alone.

So, Rebecca, I understand that the public benefit is that they're maintaining the vegetation there. but other, which is basically for their privacy. What is the other public benefit that we're going to be getting?

Well, I mean, at least from the city standpoint, where they're taking on the liability and responsibility of maintaining all of that landscaping. So it's hold, which is holding the hill, you know, it's all holding that the hillside in. And so, It won't, if the hillside won't fall into the lane. If they're not.

If you look at the language though, Andrew, I don't think maintenance is specifically called out in the RL, our standard RL. I think it's more about indemnification versus maintaining. I mean...

Are you talking about the language of the RL, Kevin?

Well, yeah, I mean, because I think the question is that, and I just want to clarify, so that short retaining wall, that's in the RL?

No.

It's on the owner's property?

No, it's in the right-of-way. They are not asking for an RL for that retaining wall. They're asking for a license for what's behind it, yeah.

Okay, so my legal question is the same. Is there any language that actually requires, so in the case of this, there's landscaping that's currently on city land. And I don't think there's anything in the RL specifically that says they need to maintain it.

I think that's a fair point. Vice Mayor. So I think one thing if you want to make that explicit is in section three or paragraph three, we we normally address, you know, if they are erecting or installing a building fence wall or other structure, they have a duty to maintain that in all in good condition repair. I think to your point, excellent point. Maybe we should include installation of landscaping to ensure that they also need to maintain landscaping as well in that area.

Was the current landscaping.

The existing landscaping. Yeah.

Because I think that's the benefit, or I believe, I mean, that's the benefit is that they would be taking responsibility for maintaining that landscaping. Right.

And so I guess given the nature of the RL request in this instance, we can include a reference to landscaping in that section three.

Right, but the wall itself is not, there's nothing, since it's not part of the RL, the retaining wall would be somewhat related to, or it's related to the condition from the planning commission, but that's not clear as to, is there really a direct responsibility on the part of the applicant that they should have to do anything if the wall fails? It's like we will discuss and maybe agree on something, or maybe we won't.

Yeah, correct. I guess, if we go with that thinking and looking at the photo that was in our packet, and if they're taking over all the dirt, literally just in front of the little retention wall there, what is causing that retention wall to fail is the dirt behind it. So it seems to me that no matter what we're saying here, unless, as Tony said, the wood just starts disintegrating, if there's any movement at all, it's going to be due to that dirt behind it. So therefore, it seems to me that from day one, they're going to be responsible for that wall, whether they want to be or not, because it's the dirt that's pushing it and causing it to move. So I just, I guess I'm confused why this is not a retaining wall. It's really just a retention wall or something like that, where, like you said, it's just holding the dirt back. I think, yes, to repair it or help it to be more structurally standing up and really holding all that dirt back, whether it was brought in more than it should have been or whatever happened in the past. I guess I don't understand and I don't have any clue how much money it would be, but it isn't really an entire retaining wall where you're putting in all kinds of. huge structures, 10 feet down and, you know, whatever. So it just seems to me that we're kind of cutting off our nose to spite our face with this, because no matter what, this is going to wind up being attributed to them. And then we're going to have to go back and have an argument with them. And it seems to me, this is the time to just ask the architect, knowing that it's just a retention wall and not a true retaining wall with steel, et cetera, if that's something that they might consider while they're doing all the construction anyway.

Hi, thank you. Can you hear me?

Hi.

Yes. Great. I think I would like to defer to the agreement that was made with the commission that's written in the, in the resolution that if there was an issue with the retaining wall that we would address it at that time instead of committing the owner right now to it i think since the owner was present at that time and that was the agreement i would like to hold to that

so i think that you should understand that the planning commission just makes a recommendation to city council and its city council here is deciding on the actual revocable license and um it's i i'm not sure but it may come to the point that if you want the revocable license it may include the retention So if it's something that you need to consult with your clients on, perhaps we need to continue this so you could consult with your clients.

So let me jump in here. So I think we have two options in front of us. Thank you, Pat. Is we either consider this as it's currently drafted that the wall, the retained wall is excluded from the RL, or we send it back and we say that the RL either is inclusive of the wall, it's all or nothing. Um, right now it feels, I think a bit piecemeal is what I'm hearing from everyone on the council. So, um, I mean, we can open up for a public comment in a second, but I think right now, unless you can tell us differently, there doesn't seem to be a reason to be considering this as just a portion of the RL versus like, why wouldn't we just include the whole thing? So if you want the RL, you can have it, but it includes the wall. So, why don't we open up to public comment?

Hi, I'm Charlie. I'm the chair of the Parks Open Spaces Lanes Committee. As part of being chair, we're notified or meant to be notified when there's projects impacting lanes. This project is touching a vital artery, which is called Belvedere Way. This is the only lane connecting West Shore Road to the rest of the upper end of the island. We were not notified when this first came up. I found out about it day of the planning commission. I sent in a letter. That's what we're hoping to pull up. I took a few photos. And then after the meeting, I was basically told that we would be contacted about the next steps. We were not. So again, I was surprised to learn that this was up. I was sort of waiting for that email to come through about when we're going to be talking about it next. We can get that picture. This is, again, a critical artery. And the photo I have really shows how it's bulging out. I appreciate that we're working to sort of collaborate on this. And I love that we're thinking creatively. Monitoring the retaining wall, I think if I had been talked about that, I would just have some questions about how we're gonna do that. If we say that it's, maybe the other one too, Sammy, or the second photo, if we're saying it's bulging out right now, like 12 inches, If we look again and it's bulging out by like 13 inches, is that sufficient for them to have to repair it? My other question is if the wall was perfectly erect and it ended up in the current state that it's in now, would that be deemed sufficient for repairs? I think speaking to the public benefit, the vegetation as it stands right now, I think that vegetation is non-native plants. I don't know that it's particularly beneficial to the public per se, more so than... making sure that that lane doesn't collapse and that dirt and debris and wood doesn't go off. Again, that lane is wide enough for a car to go down. I think I remember in the report they were actually asking for the ability to drive vehicles up that lane. So this is really important. I look at this photo here and I think this is a good opportunity for a rethinking of this this issue. This looks like an issue. It doesn't seem safe. I'm glad we're looking at it, but you know, these trees have roots too. These roots are going to be pushing against this. And I would love to work with whomever in the city wants to about the thoughts of the, of the parks, open spaces and lanes committee. But this was the first I heard of it. So I wanted to just chime in and give an update from my perspective for why I think it's really important to make sure that we look into this and also I'm just not sure how we're going to measure impact on that. Like how far bulging is it right now? Is it 13? Is it 14 inches? And how do we make sure that that monitoring really happens? And I'm concerned about that.

Thank you, Charlie. Marika.

Hi, I'm Marika Bergson. I am on the parks, open space and lanes committee, but I'm here speaking as an individual because since I am not chair and we were not notified of this, we don't have sort of a consensus. So I can't speak on behalf of the committee, but I wanted to speak up as an individual with regard to that. I would agree with all that has been said here by the council, as well as by Charlie, and that we are really happy that this is coming up and being considered. He mentioned that it is the access, you know, sort of upward to the island from West shore. It's also the only West side access from the island off the island down to the water. So I think we need to acknowledge it as a really important evacuation route, as well as a super commonly used lane. As we could see from the photos that Charlie had submitted to the city back in October, the amount of damage is much more extensive than I think shown really by the photo that was in the packet today. And that is whether it's caused by soil being pushed down, or I think if you look at all of the photos, it actually is a lot by not only roots, but actually also even just the trunks. I mean, one of the photos showed that there's some sort of conifer that's sort of leaning against it. So my concern is that if you grant an RL saying that we approve the existing landscaping, when what you have is landscaping and a slope situation that has clearly already adversely impacted the city's wall there, then you're basically saying we're good with what we have. And now we're having to try to measure when it's bad. And I don't think that's appropriate. to be letting them sort of acknowledging it and accepting it as it is, when in fact, part of those plants were clearly planted, not by this applicant, but that's what they purchased. And if they're looking for a revocable license, because they want the benefit of maintaining their privacy, then I believe that the public deserves the benefit of having that area repaired, because that public benefit is what we will get in exchange for giving them a public benefit of preserving privacy. The public benefit to the rest of the public is to ensure that the wall that is holding that and not just that it's not damaged during construction, but that it stays for the long term. It doesn't matter really who caused it to get to where it is now. The question is, a privilege is being requested and we should be looking at the public benefit as well as to the public use. To me, this is very similar to somebody who plants a tree. in their front yard and that tree damages the city sidewalk or other city property and the city comes to them and says you have a few seconds left the city comes to them and and says you have to address this and so i think that is the way we should be looking at this not as an rl accepting the way it is now thank you great thanks one second other public comment there are no hands raised thank you so i'll bring it back to council

Any additional thoughts for deliberation?

I think we pretty well covered it. I agree with our public comments that the revocable license should be granted when there is a public benefit as determined by the city council. And we do generally try to discourage just the benefit of private use. I get that the plants are also beneficial to the public because they hopefully hold up that hillside and they make a nice border for that road. but I think in the past we have also had, I'm sorry that our parks open space and lane meets unfortunately infrequently. And so when these things come up, it's difficult to postpone it and wait for that group because the owner wants to move forward and is on a timeframe. I think we get that, but certainly from October to now, it would have been nice to follow up on that and I've had some kind of meeting with chair Harrington on this. I don't see, I think that right now, yes, it would be difficult to determine unless we were very careful how we measure what it looks like now, what it might look like during construction. I don't, I think we've tried in the past whenever there's a lane next to the property. And I would say that, been very fortunate with our community and they always seem to want to help the city and help make the lane better. I don't think we've had too many people stand up and who are next to a lane and say, I'm doing full construction, but I'm not going to, even though you're asking, I'm not going to help out that lane at all. I think we've been, like I said, fortunate that most of our community is very generous that way. So I, I don't see this as being a huge expense, but again, it's not, I don't know. So I can't comment on that. It is next to Elaine. It's, um, especially important to the entire community. And, um, I think I would agree with our vice mayor that without a commitment to repair that wall, that's obviously failing that I could not support the RL.

So I also feel that I agree with Council Member Cooper. It's very hard to separate out an RL, granting an RL, when there's a component there that actually I know it's not a structural wall, but retains the dirt and the plants from failure. And I think it goes, the retention wall, whatever we want to call it, goes with the plantings. It's just part of the... area that it's in. I mean, if the retention wall was in front of the concrete curb, I'm calling it, I wouldn't have questioned it, but it's actually behind the curb, right in front of the plants. And obviously it's a component of that whole area and all the plantings. And so I would not be able to approve the RL without the so-called retention wall being repaired or replaced, whatever is necessary by the applicant.

Thank you. I agree and don't need to add anything further. Do I hear a motion?

So should we ask for a continuance or just deny it or modify it?

Yeah.

How do you want to handle it? I think a continuance would be the most favorable, but we can ask the applicant.

We should ask the applicant if they're interested in that, otherwise we'll deny it.

Yes, we'd definitely like a continuance. Does that just essentially extend to the next meeting? Could you elaborate on what that means?

I think you'd have to say the process.

It depends on, yeah, if you, on the conversations around, based on what happened this evening and if you can revise the plans and we can get everything in time for the next agenda packet.

Got it. That sounds good.

Yeah, and as soon as that timing is met, it will come back to the council.

And I think that if it, all the... conditions are met, surely this could go on a consent calendar once we see everything is proper.

Thank you. And does it extend for both exhibits along Belvedere Way and Belvedere Way Lane or do those get separated out?

Well, the resolution is, or the revocable license is written as one document currently. So you could come back with just one portion of it if there isn't agreement on the portion we discussed tonight.

Got it. Thank you for clarifying.

Sure. No, sorry, Charlie. Public comment is closed. Duly noted. Thank you. All right, I think we are done with that item. Let's move on. We can call our other commissioners back, our other council members back into the room.

Feels like that, doesn't it?

I'm now turning it back to you, Sally. Thank you so much.

Okay, we are moving on to item number six, which is public hearing 6A, receive an annual report on the status of vacancies and staff retention to fulfill Assembly Bill 2561, Helga.

Thank you, Mayor Wilkinson. This hearing is being conducted in accordance with Assembly Bill 2561, which was signed into law by Governor Newsom on September 22, 2024, and took effect January 1, 2025. The legislation added section 3502.3 to the California government code requiring public agencies to present the status of their vacancies in a public hearing before their governing body at least once per fiscal year. The presentation must be made prior to the adoption of the final budget. This is an annual public hearing item to present the vacancies and allow the city's one bargaining unit the opportunity to make a presentation. The city has one bargaining unit, the Belvedere Police Officers Association, which includes six budgeted positions and no vacancies for fiscal year 26-27. Also under this legislation, the city must identify any modifications to policies, procedures and recruitment practices that affect its initiatives to minimize vacancies. The city partners with much more than consultant to strengthen our recruitment efforts, and we have not identified any necessary changes to our current policies, procedures or recruitment activities at this time. And staff are available for questions.

Does anybody have questions? No, let's open for public comment. There's no motion on this. We just have to receive it, correct?

Sure. Excuse me, Mayor. If I could just make one comment for the record. Just to slightly add to Helga's statements, the BPOA was provided with an opportunity to provide a presentation tonight, and they did not take us up on the offer.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, that was nice and brief. We'll move on to... Seven other schedule items, 7A, which is a preliminary review and discussion of the annual operating budget and capital improvement program for fiscal year 26-27. And Helga, this is again yours.

Thank you again, Mayor Wilkinson and council members. Before you today is the preliminary operating and capital budget for fiscal year 26-27. To begin with some revenue highlights, the general fund revenues are projected to increase by 10.2% or approximately 979,000. Property tax revenues remain the primary driver with overall growth of 5.62% over the current year budget or about 439,000 based on the county's estimates. Other property tax revenues are expected to remain flat while fire tax revenue is projected to increase by approximately 3% pending final state data, which comes out in early May. Development related fee revenues have increased due to the new user fee schedule that went into effect July 1, 2025, and continued development activity, particularly large-scale projects, and increased encroachment and road closures. Despite a slight decline in permit volume, fees are projected to recover approximately 89% of the city's cost of service. The city council also approved a CPI based adjustment for the user fees schedule, which will be effective July 1st, 2026. fee performance in the first year has largely met the 92% cost recovery target. Therefore, no additional incremental revenue is assumed in the outer years. Consistent with best practices, no revenue increases were assumed in the first year of the implementation and staff will continue to monitor cost recovery trends over time as they may fluctuate with broader economic conditions. One time increase in building permit plan review and road impact fee revenue is anticipated in fiscal year 2728 from the Mallard Point project based on the current timeline. Timing remains uncertain and staff will refine revenue projections as the project advances. No grant funding is included in the proposed budget at this time, though staff will continue to pursue opportunities through partner agencies. Overall, revenue projections remain strong, but are intentionally conservative to support long-term fiscal stability amid the economic uncertainty. And now on the expenditure side from the general fund for fiscal year 2526 was the last year of a three-year contracts with the city's represented and nonrepresented groups. The city is currently engaged in labor negotiations and anticipates reaching an agreement in the coming weeks. The fiscal year 2627 budget incorporates the results of a compensation study and a 2.5% cost of living adjustment. A 3% salary increase has been assumed across the outer years. The fiscal year 2627 budget includes 235,000 for a temporary police officer position over a three-year period to support operations during the police department evaluation. The budget includes $150,000 for implementing the housing element goals, programs, and policies, along with funding for general legal costs and ongoing litigation. It also allocates $50,000 for the city's 2030 Climate Action Plan implementation. Expenditures related to the Mallard Point project include $150,000 for a special project manager, $10,000 for a relocation specialist, and $45,000 for city engineer services. These costs will be reimbursed in accordance with the agreement with the developer. Tipper on fire is estimating a seven and a half percent increase in our contract costs again this coming fiscal year due to increase in district expenditures related to station 10 costs. From the capital fund, the budget includes 70,000 to replace an aging public works utility truck, 7,000 for a police handheld radar unit, and 13,500 for replacement of several staff computers, a server, and backup power systems. From the capital improvement fund, the budget includes the beach road stabilization project scheduled from June through October, 2026 with a total cost of 4.97 million. Of this 4.68 million will be funded from the critical infrastructure reserve with 345 from other sources to close the gap. An estimated 2.48 million will roll over from fiscal year 25-26. And this construction contract was approved by council on April 13. The five-year CIP includes ongoing annual funding of 80,000 for lane improvements and 15,000 for vegetation management and fire fuel reduction. Key projects next year include the Harry B. Allen stair repair, community park restroom renovations, redrilling of the community park well, and police department improvements. The budget also includes $60,000 to complete the infrastructure assessments, which will inform the fiscal year 27-28 capital budget. Several projects are expected to be partially funded through partner agencies and private donations. A large part of the city's expenditures are staffing costs. Personnel costs are projected to increase in fiscal year 26-27 over estimated actuals primarily due to staffing additions and compensation adjustments. Regular salaries are increasing by 21%, approximately 535,000, driven by higher staffing levels with 21 staff headcount in the proposed budget versus 18.4 actual headcount in 25-26. which is an increase of about 14% over estimated actuals. Implementation of the compensation study is estimated at a 4% increase, or 124,000, and a 2.5% COLA, or about 75,000. The compensation study amounts reflect potential adjustments, which are part of the ongoing labor negotiation process. Lower fiscal year 25, 26 staffing and expenditures reflect vacancies in police, administration and public works during the current fiscal year. These positions have all been filled with the latest position being filled at the end of April for the administrative technician. Health insurance costs are projected to rise by 22%, reflecting a 9% increase in premiums, as well as the addition of family rate coverage for the new police position. The city's unfunded accrued liability contribution is increasing by 45%, approximately 104,000. Under over the fiscal year 26 actuals consistent with fluctuations driven by CalPERS investment performance, actuary assumptions and retiree experience. Other personnel costs are also increasing primarily due to the addition of the one and a half positions in the police department impacting costs such as holiday pay, shift differential and education incentive pay. This next slide highlights the city's required pension-related payments to CalPERS, including contributions toward the unfunded accrued liability and payments associated with the pension obligation lease-leaseback debt. The fiscal year 26-27 UAL payment is based on the most recent CalPERS actuarial valuation as of June 30th, 2024, which reflected an investment return of 9.3%. However, prior years continue to impact current and future contribution requirements, including a negative 6.1% return for the period June 30, 2022, and a 5.8% return for the period ending June 30, 2023, both of which fell below the CalPERS assumed rate of 6.8%. As a result, UAL contributions are projected to remain elevated over the five-year forecast period. Again, UAL costs may fluctuate annually based on investment performance, changes in actuary assumptions, and retiree experience. The pension related debt obligation will have a final payment of 123,000 in fiscal year 3132. We're also planning a review of the city's pension funding strategy for this coming December, including whether some section 115 assets should be transferred to CalPERS. And this slide shows the anticipated transfers from the general fund that are part of the budget. Fire is 1.42 million, the pension 115 trust fund, the 300,000 pension related debt, 237,000. The budget includes 100,000 transfer to the insurance and legal reserve fund to cover ongoing uninsured legal expenses with a reduction in transfer amount reflecting an anticipated decrease in legal costs and bringing the fund to its minimum required balance. The capital improvement fund, 184,000 and a 705 transfer to the critical infrastructure reserve was budgeted in 2526 to support the beach road stabilization project. The fund will also be renamed the long-term capital planning fund and receive a $1.1 million transfer to support future capital needs identified through the upcoming infrastructure assessments. And finally, the equipment replacement fund transfer of $89,500. And this brings us to a summary of the proposed budget. The proposed budget anticipates total operating revenues of 11.86 million and total operating expenditures of 11.16 million resulting in an operating surplus of just over 700,000. Capital revenues are estimated at 545,000 while capital expenditures are projected to be 3.31 million. leading to a capital fund deficit of 2.77 million, primarily due to the 2.23 million in expenditures for the Beach Road Stabilization Project next year. In summary, revenues are projected at 12.41 million and expenditures at 14.48 million, resulting in a 2.07 million deficit. This is primarily due to one-time costs for the beach road stabilization project largely funded by the critical infrastructure reserve. Following this one-time expense, the budget is expected to return to more typical operating levels. And this slide shows projected fund balance as of June 30th, 2027. The general fund begins fiscal year 26, 27 at 7.21 million above the reserve target. And after plan transfers for fire capital pensions and reserve is projected to end the year at 5.63 million. The critical infrastructure reserve reflects a 2.49 million transfer out and a 705 transfer in, resulting in a remaining balance of 1.1 million. As mentioned previously, the fund will be renamed the Long-Term Capital Planning Fund to support future capital needs through the infrastructure assessments. The budget as submitted anticipates returning to a more normal state, allowing the city to replenish the newly renamed long term capital planning fund to over 1.85 million by the end of the forecast period. And this brings us to the general fund reserve. The reserve policy is to maintain a reserve equal to 50% of the projected general fund expense plus fire transfer plus pension debt service. This budget incorporates the policy with the reserve goal at 50% of fiscal year 27-28 projected general fund expense plus fire transfer plus debt service, which is 5.21 million. The projected general fund balance at the end of next fiscal year is 5.63 million. The projected general fund balance is over the policy goal by 417,000 or 54%. And this slide shows the history of the general funds actual ending balance the fiscal year 2526 estimated general fund balance of 7.21 million. And it shows the five year projections, the green line reflects the council's reserve policy goal, as you can see the budget reflects that it does meet the reserve policy goal for the next five years. And in conclusion, a few highlights of this budget are that the general fund reserve policy is met over the five year forecast period. We continue with annual contributions to our 115 trust fund. We contribute to the critical infrastructure reserve to fund the beach road stabilization construction with plans to replenish the fund in future years. And the budget reflects a fiscally conservative approach that prioritizes maintaining staffing levels and supporting the city's operational needs. So tonight we are asking you for your input and we'll take your suggestions into consideration while we continue to refine our budget projections and we'll bring the budget back to council for adoption on June 8th after we conduct the public hearing. And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Helga, thank you very much for the detailed presentation. Let me open this to the city council first for questions for Helga. Of course, go ahead.

Well, Helga, that was masterful. Thank you very much. Thank you. I know it was a lot of work for you. It was a lot of work for me to read it too. So well done. Basically, I guess the first question I'm going to ask is, should the public be worried about the 2 million plus deficit that you highlighted?

No, because the majority of that is covered by the transfers from the critical infrastructure reserve fund to cover the deficit.

So the reserve fund is not included in your math, and so that comes in and essentially takes care of that deficit. It does, yes. Okay, great. I just wanted to clarify that. Okay. So on page four, I was just curious, and I may be off on this, so that's why I'm going to ask. is I noticed that in chart three, it said over-the-counter revenue trends. So why would 26, 27, why would you anticipate that to be what looks to me to be lower than what was even in 24, 25? which was before we had the new fee structure. Is this have something to do with the fee structure or not?

So, So in the proposed budget, it does reflect the new fee schedule. However, we only have like a half a year's worth of data on the new fee schedule revenue. So I didn't want to overestimate the revenues in this first year. And once we have better historical data on the revenues under the new fee schedule, then we can have a little bit more realistic number.

Okay. Okay. It just seemed like it was a little bit low because it was even under two years ago. Yeah. Anyway, if that, that was a question I had. So let me see. Um, I did notice there was $7,000 expenditure for coyote and rat mitigation. But I don't know, I really don't know anything about the rat mitigation. So is that something we're going to discuss at some point? Or how how does that happen?

Yeah, that's something that the mayor and I are looking into currently, and we'll have a proposal that will bring the city council in the future. We're not quite sure where that's going to land yet. We're still gathering our facts, but we did want to make sure that something was in the budget in case it goes the direction we think it might.

Okay. And then, and I may be wrong, but do you recall what our Coyote contract is with Marin Humane?

I want to say it's 2500 a quarter.

Yeah. Okay. So that's more than 7000. So this doesn't count. This is separate from our contract with Marin humane. This 7000 is a separate isn't that under the

I believe that's separate. Yeah, the animal control is under non-departmental.

Oh, okay.

It's a separate line item.

Okay, great. I wasn't sure. I thought maybe we were saving money. That would have been nice. Let's see. I know you brought up pensions and the change in in those figures. And I was looking in the list of unfunded expenditures on page 13. And would would pension issues be considered an unfunded expenditure? Are they again, a separate

That's separate because, you know, we have our required contribution that CalPERS says that we have to pay each year. And then the unfunded accrued liability is something that is determined on an annual basis from CalPERS through their valuation. And that's in our Section 115 fund is there to offset that. Okay. Thank you.

Okay, that's all I have.

Kevin. Sure. Thank you, Helga. It's a great presentation, very thorough as always. Just three questions for you. On page five, it's somewhat related to Jane's question, is the revenue that you're projecting for licenses and permits for this coming fiscal 785,000? And my question was, is so the 265 for mallards included in that 765, right?

No.

So that's separate.

It's separate because the mallard is in fiscal year 27-28.

Oh, so it's the year forward. Okay. Thank you. That actually helps quite a bit. So my question was the same as Jane's. It's just it seemed low compared to especially last year. But again, it's just mainly because of the conservative approach.

Yes.

So if we were to trend in the same level, how much higher would that be, do you think?

I don't really know at this time, but once- 25%, I mean, it could be 25 to 30% more than- Yes.

Yeah, okay. We could come close to maybe what we did last year.

We would, theoretically.

Theoretically. It's just good to know.

Can I just jump in there? Because isn't it also the case that we've seen just a lot of unusually large projects, and so we're normalizing for that as well in terms of your forecasting?

Yes, that's true.

Okay, thank you.

True.

Well, if you walk around town, you're still seeing a lot of unusually large projects. So I'm not sure it's a bad idea.

It's a conservative number, for sure.

It is, yes.

OK, great.

I just didn't want to overestimate.

Yeah, no, I appreciate that. I think that's actually kept us in good standing, that type of approach. On page eight and nine, just in terms of capital expenditures or operating expenditures, I'm sorry. What are your thoughts in terms of contingency planning, especially as it relates to Beach Road? Like what's baked in here? 11%?

Oh, yes.

Yeah, yeah, it's 11%. I'm getting the nod from Tony.

And you're feeling good about that? Yeah. I'll take that answer. I'll take that and run. Okay, last question. It'll read better in the minutes than the audio. On page 13, last question, is just the unfunded expenditures, any sense of what this could be from a ballpark standpoint? Like what our potential exposure is here?

That's for Tony, I think.

Yeah, I wouldn't guess. I think Robert or Tony could answer that.

I'll take it from anyone. Just a ballpark. You left it. You'll have to give me a minute to just take a look at each of these. Why don't you think for a moment, and we can go on to other council members. Great. Thank you.

Peter, any questions?

Just a quick clarification. You were talking about the reserve for the 26-27 fiscal year, and you talked about the 5-6 over the 5-2 calculation with a $400,000 sum odd. The 5-6, it was a slide a few years ago. That's the year-ending projections, right? I think you had it as July of 26. I don't know whether I read that wrong, but it should be the year-ending. It should be the year-ending, yes. Just two things I mentioned in the Finance Committee meeting. I do think, and I know Kevin brought this up, I do think we should strive going forward, and it may even need to be done somewhat retroactively, layer on a separate P&L for Mallard, because I think there's tentacles in a lot of different places. You've got costs for the consultant, you've got costs for legal work, you've got costs for a number of things that we assume we're gonna be paid for, and we actually have already collected fees. with no real benefit to go into some of the fees that we've already identified. So they are in there from an actual perspective going backwards, and they will be in this year, assuming that there are some projects for this year. So I would hope and think that at some point we build a standalone fee structure, a standalone expense structure, including potentially staff costs and so forth, so that it all feeds into the overall budget, but you can look at it in its isolation. I know we talked about it before. Second thing is, I do also think that 25, 26 permit fees were augmented by the permit renewals, as we talked about. I guess. Which... aren't really accounted for going forward either. So I think that might need to be layered out or broken out as a separate line item in the future because it doesn't take more than three or four or five permit renewals to be a decent number in relation to $700,000 total line item.

Right. I am planning to work with planning and building on the Mallard to have a better schedule for that. And then I have worked with the building official for those building extension fees. I do have a list for those and I'm planning to break those out. It's about 28,000 that we've HAB-Masyn Moyer- collected in this current fiscal year so far today, and so I am going to break those out so that they will have a separate line item going forward, thank you.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- That.

Nice thing about being fourth in line is all my questions were answered. Thank you, Helga, I appreciate. A lot of my questions were answered in advance by multiple emails from Helga, which I greatly appreciate. And thank you for all your work. You're welcome.

I do not have questions. I attended the finance committee meeting and asked my questions then. So let's open this for public comment. Is there anybody in the audience who would like to make a public comment? Okay, let's go to online. are no hands raised. Great. Okay. So let's bring this back for discussion or a motion. Actually, we don't need a motion. This is just informational. Would anybody like to give any specific direction that isn't already included in this memo?

I'd like us to make more money and spend less money.

Okay, and let's actually go back to Tony in terms of the question that was asked about the potential very large number in terms of our capital expenditure needs.

Yeah.

Can you hear me? Yep, there we go. Yeah, it's really hard to say without looking into these more closely. And I just checked with Robert on one of them, as far as the undergrounding goes. And so going back, going up the list here, starting with undergrounding, about 5 million. Sustainability plan implementation, which would be sustainable fleet, LED lighting, and so on. My guess would be between half a million and 1 million. Critical infrastructure project, earthquake and utility protection for levees, I'd say between 5 and 10 million. And then roadway adjustments related to emergency evacuation planning. I have not seen any of those proposed changes. So it depends if we're talking about big retaining walls or if we're just talking smaller projects, but anything from 3 to 5 million, I'd say. So I'd say between 10 and 15 million in total.

This is part of your capital needs assessments that you're currently going through, or is

No, so those assessments are all for existing infrastructure. These are proposed new infrastructure items.

Okay, does that answer your question? Were you looking for the bigger number of the all-in?

No, no, I think that does. I think, I'm sure it's something you're already talking about at the Finance Committee. I mean, those are big numbers, obviously, and how we think of those in addition to the infrastructure project. I mean, the numbers get even bigger and, you know, obviously we have a very modest budget. So yeah, it's just, it's a lot of exposure if those things ever become critical.

Yeah. I mean, my understanding is that once we have a better idea of the numbers, we then need to think about how we might be planning for that financially over the next 30 years or whatever those, however long those assessments go out, but, but you're still planning to bring that back to us next fiscal year. You'll have completed all the assessments. Is that right? yes yeah all right thank you so unless there's any other comments or questions from council members we're going to close this item and move on to item 7b which is a review and discussion of revocable license policy and application to the beach road strip um who is rebecca is this your item yes okay go ahead

Thank you. Good evening, Mayor, council members. This item includes a discussion of how the city manages revocable licenses, also known as RLs, on the beach road parcels known as the Strip. The goal of this discussion is whether the current public benefit framework is sufficient or if a more structured approach is required. Under our current administrative policy manual, the Council grants RLs based on public safety and infrastructure protection, aesthetic improvements, validation of longstanding existing encroachments. As we discussed previously, they are discretionary in nature and can be revoked at any time by the Council. The staff reviewed the 21 residential parcels along the strip. It is a highly utilized area of the 21 parcels, 17 hold RLs. These types of encroachments include stairs, retaining walls, fences, decks, landscaping, and elevators. These improvements mostly exist solely to facilitate private access to the 17 piers and docks from those residential homes. While these benefit the homeowner, the public benefit is often indirect, which include things like the owner stabilizing a hill the city would otherwise have to manage and improved landscaping in some cases. Recent shoreline cleanup efforts mandated by regulatory agencies underscores the city's obligations and costs for maintenance of the strip. This development provides good reason to consider whether the current framework should more clearly align private use of public land with a measurable public benefit. A few general approaches for the council to consider are one, expanded maintenance. So this would include licensees maintaining their improvement plus the adjacent public strip, including vegetation management, debris removal, and general upkeep. Secondly, an annual fee structure is something to consider. This would include charging a recurring fee while the RL primarily benefits private interests. This fee would create a dedicated fund for shoreline maintenance and regulatory cleanup costs. A third approach would be to continue with the current approach but undergo a closer examination of the revocable licenses standard provisions and or addition of provisions specific to the strip. The city has used the current revocable license for several years and staff could examine other similar approaches taken by other jurisdictions in the area. The fourth approach would be to stop issuing RLs in the Strip where the primary aim of the improvements is to provide access to private peers and docs. The council could decide in its discretion that this provides little to no public benefit. The fifth approach could be to revoke all RLs for the Strip where the primary aim of the improvements is to provide access to private peers and docs. due to the potential lack of public benefit. A lease agreement arrangement could be considered as an alternative in that case. Tonight, we are seeking direction on whether to pursue further analysis and potential amendments to the Administrative Policy Manual 11.7 to address these issues identified. And I am available for questions should you have any.

Thank you, Rebecca. Who would like to start with questions if there are any? Jane, go ahead.

Thanks, Rebecca. I really enjoyed reading this report and I especially liked having a lot of choices. It was a really thorough analysis of seemingly so of what our options are. So one of the things that was mentioned was the dock lease payments Do have we been collecting those every five years? Okay. And so that goes up and you just collect it and a nod was fine.

But we do send out the notices for payment each year and then we increase them every five years.

Oh, each year. Okay. Thanks. Good to know. If we were to decide to create a lease situation, for that strip area, how would that affect or impact the open space and public access requirement of the open space? Do you see that the lease would have an impact on that?

Yeah, so I think one potential advantage of the lease approach is, frankly, that I would have a more defined term for how long the arrangement is in place. I don't see it as necessarily, although certainly if Robert, Rebecca, or others have thoughts, I'm not sure if it necessarily impacts the nature of the open space access requirements or principles that the city has followed. But I think the principal difference between a lease and a license is that, as you know, the licenses, or at least a revocable license I've seen since being sent to attorney, don't have any defined end date or term, whereas leases obviously do.

So you don't anticipate, you're saying you could write into the lease whatever you wanted to to cover? the public access.

Yeah, similarly, I think in approach in terms of, you know, what our ask could be, so to speak, I think in either instance, a lease or license would be pretty much the same, because at the end of the day, it is public property, right? Obviously, the public agency decide what it wants to do with its own public property.

Okay. Um, So again, unfortunately parks open space in lanes was not brought into this discussion. I think because the item came at a time when between their meetings, but certainly I think it would be great to keep them involved going forward with any discussions or anything that goes on. I think this is our group that oversees all those areas. And so I'm hopeful that we pay attention to that and not continue to kind of ignore it. So that's all the questions I have.

Just one is, so some have, everyone has an RL and some have leases, or does everyone have an RL and a lease?

I think some all have RLs. Some have leases. Most who have docs have leases as well.

So why both? Because you were just saying, Andrew, you could just solve this with one.

Well, yeah, the dock leases are for the overwater structures. Got it. The RLs are for improvements on the strip.

Got it.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thanks, Ms. Rebecca. Of the 19, and this is relating to our conversation just an hour ago at this point, two hours ago maybe, of the 19 leases that, RLs that exist, are they for the entire property beneath property line or property line on the strip or just for the improvements within that area?

I'd say the majority are for the improvements within the area.

Okay. So, so unlike what we do normally on community road in that case, or whatever the case might have been, we licensed them like the whole grayed out area of their, of the city right away adjacent to their property, property line to property line. We don't do that here. We do it just for the area that they're specifically looking to improve.

Correct.

Got it. Thank you.

I would, I would say that I think you'd have to go back and look at them. Some of them actually, the RLs are quite large. and they do take over. Um, if you go, if you look at cliff lane at the bottom there, well, that whole lane is between three or else three different homes. And the one at the bottom has an actually quite large all the way covering the beach as well as, um, part of the pier and the bottom of the lane versus another one that has the lane and the other one that has, so it's confusing.

Well, the lanes I've seen, the RL covers the whole lane, but in terms of the strip, I don't know.

Yeah, I'm just talking about these particular on the strip that we're addressing right now.

I think. Okay.

So Rebecca, great report. Very thorough. So the question is, is that as I look at some of the options that you gave us to have them take over maintenance obligation of as Peter described from lot to lot and to either have an annual fee or a lease, It seems with the maintenance, so the question is, and you may not have done that, and that might be something we need to do, is there one approach that has a greater benefit to the city as far as... like the maintenance would cover quite a bit. I don't know if we would ever be able to get a lease that would cover all the benefit of the maintenance of the entire parcel.

While Rebecca's looking, I would say if the objective is to try and get the maximum benefit, If we are to give an RL, then yeah, it would be, I would say a combination of both. It'd be a maintenance agreement for the entire slopes and also be either a fee and lieu fee or it'd be a lease for the square footage of the actual improvements, whether that be a elevator or a staircase or whatever.

And so then my next question, I guess, goes to our legal counsel. So the question is that we all know these licenses are revocable. Do you see legally one, and I'm sure you're aware of all the five options, but is there an option there that either legally is more advantageous or one that is definitely more, a disadvantage for the city to pursue? One that might be fraught with issues.

So let me try to answer this way. I would say legally, the one that would require the most homework, so to speak, the most preparation would be the fee. As noted in the staff report, and as you know, from other fee discussions in terms of user fees and regulatory fees and all those sort of stuff, that does require some sort of study, exactly how you get to the cost to the city in terms of staff time or otherwise, and then figure out how much to pass on to private residents within the city that are partaking that particular benefit. So I would say to the extent that we wanna go down that road, it requires more, again, sort of homework or legwork to put ourselves on a good legal footing. So that's one consideration perhaps for council.

Okay. So, and if we revoke the license and come up with a new plan, whatever that plan is, and someone doesn't want, doesn't agree with what our new plan is, we just revoke it and they can't gain access to their doc.

Well, again, revocable licenses adopted and approved by city councils deep into the histories of Belvedere say what they say. But I think that certainly you could expect some pushback, speaking as a practical matter, depending on the length of which they've had that revocable license and to the extent of what we are taking away and perhaps how much they've invested in that property as well. So, again... I certainly understand the city's position. I believe the council does as well. We will obviously maintain that position, but you know, there could be some disputes along the way.

Okay. Thank you.

Andrew, can I just follow up on that? Because if I'm an existing homeowner with one of these RLs and now I'm being asked to maintain the entire lot to lot property, RL, that could be a significant expense to the homeowner. And they can say, no, we're not doing that. But the only recourse is to just say, well, you can't actually cross that piece of land to access your dock anymore. That's where we'd be stuck. Is that right?

Well, they can cross a piece of land like any other member of the public could cross the land.

Right.

But under our revocable licenses, we could request that they remove the improvements on the private property. I mean, they can still walk down there, but it's all the other stairs and elevators and all the other stuff that they use. That's what is creating, I assume, in the initial instance, the need for the RL. If they simply walked down to their docks. Sure, that's fine. access the dock, it just may be more difficult to do so.

I mean, are we potentially burdening them with a big expense here? I have no idea what that looks like in terms of maintaining all of these different areas. I don't know how disrepaired they are. I don't. Sorry?

Do we spend any money? Does anyone spend any money maintaining it? Does the city?

HAB-Masyn Moyer- 310 312 beach as an example, we asked them, you know they're asking for that elevator it's not before Council and we said, well, you might. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Be you know Council might ask you to maintain the entirety, if you draw those imaginary property lines down and they were fine with it. So I don't know if it's gonna add, if there's certain properties sure that have had slides and that are very steep and maybe if that were to happen, then yeah, it would be a high cost at that point.

Yeah, I would just add on to what Rebecca mentioned and to the point, we have had some, we don't proactively maintain the hills higher the slope along this trip. We have had recent instances where we had material that fell down and BCDC enforcement action, which the city is most likely on the hook for. And there's other areas along Beach Road that fall in that same category since some of the structures on there are very old and not covered in RL exclusively. So that's one thing to consider. Also, I just want to mention too that oftentimes the problems that happen on the slope the result of the improvements from the property above. If there's drainage that comes disconnected or some other feature that wasn't maintained, that causes a slide that's in city property. And sometimes, certainly in an emergency situation, it's public works getting out there, the city identifying the problem and trying to, you know, during poor weather, trying to get out there and cover the slide until they can figure out who's responsible for it. And then the recovery aspect of that can be challenging too, because people argue, okay, what came first, the chicken or the egg here? Was it the water problem that caused the slide or was the slope instable to begin with? So Yeah, a more clearly defined ownership, or I should say maintenance responsibility, would be beneficial.

Can I follow up real quick? And Rebecca, correct me if I'm wrong, you, I think, highlighted this item well initially by identifying that this came up as a real question about the public benefit, that clearly when you're talking about a revocable license for a property, pretty much anywhere else in the city, for a city right away, the appearance, the improvements, the maintenance, is the public benefit. There's very little public benefit for these properties, city property behind someone's property, other than their access and someone occasionally walking by it, even if they're able to. So I think our planning commission in making recommendations to the council for these licenses have had a hard time justifying the public benefit for that license. So I think the question, I guess I'll keep it as a question. Am I phrasing it correctly? Is that really the issue? The issue is how we can rationalize the lack of public benefit for these licenses.

Yes. What is the public benefit of private improvements to access your own personal peer doc?

And similar to maybe our other discussion, maybe it's a policy level. I'll still keep it as a question. Maybe it's a policy level discussion because arguably, The public benefit is the question here. And if a broader maintenance agreement or one of these options is added to it on a policy level to these types of licenses in this area, it justifies that benefit somewhat more so than it is now. Because I think the Planning Commission has a hard time and justifiably so. I used to have the same question down there. Why are we granting this license for someone? Let's do it in another form. We just never got around to doing it. because you can't really articulate a public benefit versus you know the maintaining maintenance responsibilities improve landscaping you know hill stabilization reduce liability that's hard to justify you know for the benefit that that individual gets by having that particular improvement we haven't even got into the definition of structure right which is a another issue on this um So that's the gist of the issue is how we need to describe what the public benefit is. And if we can rationalize it within the same bag that we see licenses, that's I think why we thought about some other form, a lease or something, because you don't need the public benefit for a lease.

Yeah, I think it's, I mean, because pretty much every house has, or I would guess most houses have an RL. most homes and we should be, they should all be treated the same way. I mean, the strip shouldn't be, you know, pulled out and treated differently, good, bad or neutral. But I guess my question is why now? I mean, the leases don't expire until 2039. So that's another 13 years.

But they're different. They're docs.

Well, but I mean, yes, yes and no. But I mean, if you're a homeowner, I mean, that's you're, if the RL is only needed so you can use the doc. I mean, so it feels like, why are we, I mean, maybe are we trying to figure this out for people who may be coming before the council in the near future? Or, well, I guess you're asking, or do we want to step back and think of it holistically? I just feel, well, I guess I'm starting to deliberate, which I'll just stop there.

So the one thing is, is I'm sorry, but the one thing is, is not everyone that has a revocable license has a doc. Some people just have some retaining walls or decks or plants or something. So there are very few, but there are a few that don't have the docks.

And Rebecca, the impetus for this right now is because we have a potential RL coming before us in the strip, correct?

Yes. And as Peter mentioned, it's something that we've discussed historically. It's just...

So that's why it's coming now.

Okay.

All right. Let's open it for public comment before we bring it back for discussion. There are no hands raised.

Oh, I'm sorry.

We actually have someone here. in person.

Hi I'm Marika Bergson and I am speaking again as an individual, although I do want to acknowledge that I am a member of the parks open space and lane committee, so I speak through that lens and also mentioned that unfortunately Charlie could not stay. So I am sort of, although I'm not the chairperson. I'm also sharing. somewhat of his input as well. So I say that in this context. I wanna start by saying that unfortunately we were not given notice of this item at all in advance. So we first saw it when it came up in the agenda for the city council meeting. So none of us have been included. And I think first and foremost, we wanted to acknowledge, I wanna acknowledge and Charlie, I know it feels the same way that we are very happy to be having this discussion because we think it's really, really important and really, really valuable. And we do hope that the parks open space and lane can be included in it. The strip is actually open space. So this is actually directly in our area. And we would be happy to have a subcommittee, which is what we do in order to participate in a sort of an ongoing basis outside of the meetings. and bring things to meetings. So I just encourage, I hope that you will make that request in that direction, because we'd like to be a part of it. The other piece that I wanted to mention is that we have, as you know, I believe from Charlie, been working on a survey. We did a big survey of the lanes last year, and this year, part of our goal is to do the same thing for the open space. So of course, actually the strip and this area has been part of what we are looking at And ironically, we have been looking at the revocable licenses, which impact basically all along there. And so this is something we were already looking at. And as such, we have looked at quite a few of them, just sort of spot looking at them, looking them up and spot looking at them. And we want to call attention to the fact that they are all very different. For one, they have been brought about at very different times. Some of them are large. Some of them are small. I mean, we have the one at whatever it is, 270 covers basically the whole property. They have taken over the whole Tide lot and then versus the one that's at 310 to 312 are looking at this elevator and then some stairs. So I think one of the things that we request is that as we look at all of these suggestions, We really need to sort of get a do a really good job and be and really look at what exists there. Oversight has not been been being done. That just has not been part of the city's priority. And I think it's because they are all very different. So, you know, there's been no direction. There are things that fall into the onto the beach. And the number one thing here is that the policy 11.8.2 is for the public to be a public park and for the public to have free passage along the beach. And I want to note that a lot of these, including accessing either their dock or the ones that don't have a dock, they might have a shared dock, they also include steps to get down to the beach. they're not just crossing to their dock they all want to get to the beach and the idea is that this open space area and the way these docks and these various rls sort of connect to the beach and their docks not be done in a way or their maintenance of the hillside is done in a way that adversely impacts the ability of the city to fulfill this important policy of public access we want everybody to be able to have free passage and if you haven't ever done it I know Charlie and I would be happy to show you what an amazing trip it is to go down. Right now we can go down the Harry B. Allen steps and to walk along there. And we would both love to give anyone that option. So I will retire. That's sort of all of my questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Marika. Beth, you said nobody online, correct? Correct. Oh, I apologize, Mr. Rothman. Okay, bring him in. Hi, Dr. Rothman.

Hi, thank you very much. Could you tell me whether the city has a similar strip of its own land on the side of the island that looks out towards Sausalito?

No, we don't.

In other words, it goes from private property to what, to state?

State property. State property.

Is that right? It just goes from property to state. Thank you very much for that information.

Yeah, I'm looking right now. It's the state from the end of the islands working eastward, sorry, northward, westward, and then around, before it gets to cliff, it becomes county property.

Oh, but it's never city property.

Never city property.

Thank you very much for that information.

Thank you. Okay, this is getting more complicated, but let's bring this back for discussion. Who wants to... Peter, do you want to kick off?

Yeah, I'll just touch again on what I mentioned before that... I believe it was Don brought it up in the last planning commission meeting in reference to that hill evader that he was talking about the discrepancy or the hypocrisy almost between public benefit. And when you're looking at a revable license anywhere else on the island, you don't allow private privatization of the property. You can't put a fence there. You can't even put a garbage enclosure. And there's all these guidelines that we've, uh, pushed out over, over the years to make sure that there really is a public benefit to that, you know, six foot by 20 foot, 200 foot stretch along the front of their property. And those all seem to go out the window when you're addressing, um, significant private improvements and private benefits and private exclusive use of this revocable license area on the strip. So he was having a hard time with that. And I think it brought it to everyone's attention that, uh, is an RL the best form of this? Do we want to keep it in the same structure? Because it's not necessarily apples to apples when you look at what that private benefit versus public benefit is for that property behind them versus something somewhere else. And I think that was the impetus for this discussion. And I think to the parks open space committee comments broadly about uniformity is we don't have it there. And it might be an opportunity to design it going forward so that we can use it going forward and make an attempt to retroactively try to improve it. And certainly we have leverage going forward to get broader maintenance agreements, either with a specific, which has a different calculation between public and private benefit, or at least that doesn't even contemplate that, and have a better understanding of those licenses and then seek to get them all aligned, which isn't that unreasonable. And I don't know that we would need to go as far as to require someone to cover their whole property if they haven't covered the whole property before. We obviously want to have as much as a status quo as possible, just have it be a more consistent approach where we can. So I'm open to a lot of ideas. I just recognized as Rebecca presented this, the differences that the planning commission has to face when they try to recommend these licenses to us.

Kevin.

Yeah, sure. I mean, I guess I'm still struggling with just RLs in general across the community. I think it's always been a very thin argument to say that they are delivering true public benefit. I mean, for many, at least when I was on planning and even since I've been on council, I mean, they're not really. I mean, we say, oh, well, this is going to get a car off the street. Or this is going to, they're not things that are truly creating community benefits where people are going to congregate or, you know, in the park in front of their house or whatever it might be. And so I know even at our home, I think we bought it this way, but there's a wall and a gate and so forth. I mean, nobody's getting the benefit of that except for us. And so I think that's probably true of many RLs around the island. For whatever reason, I don't know why the city was planned in this way many, many, many, many years ago. So that's one piece is I think that it's a holistic question about RLs. And I think we have to be careful not to trying to apply a different discipline to this particular part of the city over RLs that have been approved throughout the city. So that would be one. And then the second is I also feel very uncomfortable about Anything that might be retroactive or would be affecting people who are currently, for whatever reason, have the benefit of these RLs and leases through to 2039. I mean, that's the only sort of event that's in the future where, you know, there's a moment where these... these uses will be reconsidered and have to be renegotiated, I would imagine. And so I would rather we be thinking about how to make it coterminous with the lease. Like if this is something we're going to tackle, that feels like the most appropriate time so we don't sort of dilute or diminish something that's already been promised or given to residents.

Okay, sure. Well, I guess trying to comment on some of the others, I think I do see the strip RLs as different in some ways from the rest of the city because every house on there, or at least everyone with access, has to cross open space, not just city land, but designated open space. to be able to get to their doc or peer, however you want to call it. And in a way, there might be some similarities in that we give RLs for people to get to their stairs, to get to their front door. This is them getting an RL, getting to their property of some sort. I think it would be, you know, it would be hard to balance the logic of taking away access to the docs that exist and have a lease until 2039 by saying, um, you know, we're not going to give you an RL unless you do this, that, and the other thing and take, take whatever five was taking, we're just revoking all of them. That, that doesn't seem logical or make any sense to me at all. Um, So I think because it's open space and because along this particular open space and strip area, we do have, I think, four lanes that are also involved in this. So it isn't just, where do these come in? A lot of the RLs are, like I said, one lane has three RLs from three different houses that connect with it. And so I think we'd be opening can of worms if we try to make it the same as other areas in the city where those RLs really are specific to every single home. There's not a lot of overlap. And in this case, We do, they are different. I do see the open space and the strip as being different. How we handle those differences, you know, again, I think I would hate, I think it would be no matter whether we decide to do research with the lease idea or if we amend the RLs, specifically for the Strip because it is so different and it doesn't have anything else anywhere that that matches it um I think we just have to be really careful about public access because that's one of the main things for open spaces and um as far as public benefits um I've taken that walk with Marika once the whole strip and once just part of it. And the public benefit is that you can get along our whole, all our open space by having access provided by these homeowners that connect to their peers and allow stairs to, go over huge boulders that you normally would have to scramble over or um and and it's not just low tide low tide you can get a get through with anything but it's um in case of emergencies if it's a moderate tide high tide would be tough anyway but there are a lot of tides in between and these um additions to the piers really do help with that access So I think we need to get parks, open space and lane involved going forward. Definitely. Even if it's just a subcommittee so they can meet at the time that is more convenient for the rest of the city. And then I think we have to, from my perspective, I do see the strip is requiring some additional thought and differences from what goes on in the rest of the city.

So The RLs in the strip are totally different than most other RLs that the city uses. And I think the, first off, I don't want to call it generic, but the revocable license that we use for the strip is... doesn't fit in with what the strip is all about. So I think at least, the very least, we should be initially looking at that revocable license for the strip and how it's worded and what it's included. I look at the strip as city property and we're giving away a portion of the city property for the benefit of the people that own those homes. And it was done... Many, many, many years ago. And probably there were times that people just put in the staircase and didn't realize it was open space. But I think it's time the city take a look at it. and figure out the best way to go. You know, I remember a prior attorney saying that we shouldn't be giving away our city land, we should be collecting a fee for what we give away. Which I find hard as Kevin says, you know, a lot of properties, you know, your gate, your driveway, I mean, of course, people have to have that Well, maybe not your gate. You wouldn't get that now. But your driveway, you definitely need. But the strip is totally different. And I think it needs to be handled different. And the right process to go through. I mean, you know, there's a balance there between the city benefit and the individual benefit that I think we have to weigh together. And I think this is also a greater community discussion. It may be that we need to schedule this discussion again and maybe hear back from some of the people that have the RLs just to hear their input so we can balance everything out. um but i think we should investigate um you know some of the suggestions here i'm not calling to spend a lot of money um but i would say um we should look at you know um is a fee schedule better than a lease and or you know do we maybe not say you have to pay for the whole area of your the strip that you're using, but you're going to have to share in some of the costs. I don't know what the right balance is. But I definitely think that this is something we're going to have to investigate. And probably a task force. would be a good idea just to get some parameters and hopefully we can hear from some of those RL people to get their feedback.

Thank you, Pat. Rebecca, part of the reason this is coming forwards now is that time crunch associated with a couple of one property or two properties that are looking to get an RL on the strip right now.

It's two properties, one RL.

Okay.

Well, it could be two RLs, but it's the same improvements. They're looking for a shared elevator.

And if we... I mean, I agree with Pat that this... You're not going to want to hear this, Rebecca, but this needs more thought and some form of... A couple of council members working with parks and open spaces might make... sense but how far can we push back these homeowners because that isn't going to happen overnight yeah they were a little frustrated they were originally going to be agendized tonight um we've pushed it back twice now i think it would is it part of a bigger project that they're doing no no andrew do you have any comment on that in terms of our obligations

Legally, I think you can seek more time to ponder this issue and figure out the best way forward. I don't know if they have any legal expectation to have their application decided by a certain date one way or the other. I'm not aware of any.

I don't think that we... I think we have responsibility to act in a timely fashion with any applicant, let alone these applicants who've already been put off. I would... As Pat pointed out, this has been going on for a long time. I'm not sure we are making a huge mistake. hearing and granting ultimately upon review a license for them, even if we have to say, you know, this as an additional condition of that license that we're going to look at the ultimate form and it could be revoked if the item is changed, which we have the right to do anyway. But I can't imagine that this process should hold them up because if this process takes on the type of scope that we've just contemplated tonight, they're not going to come up before us for a year. And I don't think that's appropriate for them. Yeah.

I agree with Peter.

I mean, I don't think it's our best practice.

Well, but just going back, I mean, when this was initially worked on, it took 24 public hearings in five years. And so, you know, I... No, no, no.

I think it was the dock leases.

The dock leases took that long. And so, I mean, it's... It took five years and 24 public hearings. It took the council 24 public hearings over a period of five years to resolve all the issues and concerns that were raised by the dock owners, city attorney, and other members of the city staff.

It was before the internet, that's why.

Right, right. AI could get that down to 22 meetings. In four years. But again, I think to your point, I would say we should proceed with 310 and 312 because this is going to, we shouldn't hold them hostage to a policy evolution desire by the city, which could take quite a while. And I think it's similar to the sidewalk issue that you raised earlier today, Pat. It's like, I mean, yes, we probably should have a sidewalk policy and we probably should have sidewalks along the park, but we can't hold up that homeowner until we get our policy work done.

So do you have a comment on that or does that make sense just to bring them forward and we are going to do a broader review?

Okay. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Ones on that one specifically they've also agreed to maintaining the entirety of the strip so that's one thing we've also walked with marika and Charlie with the homeowner one of the property owners and they've agreed to do some raising of a platform so that people can pass through that. to give the public better access.

Okay, so it feels like that should just come forward as planned next month. But I have a question for Jane in relation, because it sounds like Parks and Urban Spaces is looking to sort of revitalize the Strip, and so that's part of what's playing into this discussion, correct?

Well, I think it's important to realize that they are a very active parks, open space and lanes committee. And I would say lucky for us because they're really doing a phenomenal job of documenting every lane and the next focus area is going to be on the open space. And with that documentation and database, I really see, and I think Tony has mentioned before, that it's a great asset because we don't have the ability in our staff to be looking on a regular basis at what's needed for every single piece of lane or an open space, but they have the ability to do that. And that could be easily given to them as an annual job to go along and document our people's Are the ladders falling apart? Can you still walk down a lane? Can you get to the strip as stated in their revocable license? Are they keeping it up? And that is something that would be doable as an enforcing policy. issue that we always struggle for. So I think the parks open space and lane because they have renewed energy and focus and they're really tackling what they're supposed to be doing. And yeah, so I think that is a part of it, but I think it's a great benefit.

Okay. So it sounds like there's broad consensus that the strip is different from other RLs, except for Kevin, who disagrees with that. So it does feel like there is more work to do. And then the question is really, how do we do that work and not take five years and however many meetings? So if people have specific suggestions, and I know Pat suggested a task force, if it's very narrow, I would certainly support that. I don't know how other council members feel.

I think if you reread number one, it's pretty, it's almost an exact model of what Rebecca is proposing for 310.312, which is, our existing license and you're threading the needle by having increased responsibility over the whole stretch and the increased obligation for maintenance that can provide the planning commission and ultimately us with a greater sense of public benefit that works well within our existing licensing structure. Because you read our policy with the verbal licenses, not specific to the Strip or anywhere else. It talks very extensively about a significant public benefit. So I think that approach going forward, meaning guidance from us in a conversation just like this, solves a decent part of the problem as far as giving the Planning Commission clear guidance as far as how they can recommend these licenses in this area for us going forward, which might be not too many going forward, but nonetheless gives them that guidance, which liberates us, I believe, to think about this more holistically and maybe we push that back to the parks and open space committee to think about it as in concert of their survey of the open spaces going forward in particular this area, what recommendations would they make to the city council in further licensing this area? What's the periodic review survey updates and then contact the homeowners how they need to maintain it and so forth. I mean, there could be a whole schedule they could put together um that could go forward i mean i don't know that this is something we need to invest a subcommittee beyond what's already in place in the parks committee if we if we go with a general direction that these ongoing maintenance obligations um for the broader um border to border responsibility and take out the going backwards. We're not going to necessarily look at that right now. That'll become a recommendation of how out of sync we might be with older licenses as you look through those or as parks look at them one by one across the total property.

I'm a bit confused. So you're saying going forwards, we should impose broader requirements, but in terms of the existing licenses, you're saying leave them be?

Leave them be. I think Parks Open Space, part of their open space survey is not only to look at the physical condition of the strip, but examine the licenses to see how they correspond to the maintenance that exists on the strip and come back to us and say, these six licenses are in good shape. These six licenses are in bad shape. Here's how you could potentially improve them.

In good shape or bad shape, meaning that they're not maintaining the whole...

They're not maintaining it as they're supposed to be maintaining it or the license doesn't cover the area that needs to be maintained. you know, if I were to do it, I would look at the three or four, three properties that exist there and have a good understanding of all the licenses and have a database that identifies where the problems are. Are they covered by licenses? And if they are, then the homeowner is not living up to their obligation as a licensee. And if an area that's neglected or needs some attention is not covered by a license, either the city needs to address that problem short of a landslide or something like that, or we need to go to that homeowner talk to them about broadening their their responsibility revoke the license or if we don't see that as a plausible option we need to you know step in and and and recognize that as a a an obligation or a liability you know for our further assessment of our property

So the only thing I would say there is this sounds like it gets into a little bit of the Mills Act stuff where you don't actually see the annual reviews taking place or it just falling apart. And so to me, you have to cover, if you're going to do it forward-looking, you do it backward-looking, you issue everybody with the new requirements and then Parks and Urban Space can come and say when they're not honouring those agreements.

I'm just responding to both Jane and the parks open space committee wanting a seat at this table to continue the assessment process just as they do the lanes that these open space, including the strip becomes part of their ongoing active review of city property.

But does that answer the full question that we're being asked tonight? I mean, that's talking about maintenance. And I think we're sitting here saying, you know, we have private development on public land that we've given RLs to. And are those RLs the correct vehicle we should be using? And If they are the correct vehicle, does it cover everything that needs to be covered because the strip is different? So I think there's, I mean, I think it's great Park and Open Space wants to go out and take a look and see who's maintaining, who's not maintaining, who needs to do this, who needs to do that. But I think that we're at a higher level here asking the question, how are we going to address this private development on public land? And, you know, a greater question of, you know, who's responsible for what. And I think that, no offense to anybody, but I think it goes beyond park and open lane for that discussion. So I just thought that if there was a task force we could look at, you know, What could a lease look like? How are we going to come up with a fee? Are there somebody else out there that we can look at how they have it structured? I think we're very unique in what we have. So I don't know if we'll find somebody that has the same situation, but I think it just takes a broader look to see the potential of what we can and can't do. And with alongside respecting our community and the members who have their RL and how we're gonna mesh this all together so that we can all get the greatest benefit. They get the great benefit, we get a great benefit.

The only thing I would add to that though, is that the city has already decided, assuming that these structures comply with what was approved by the city. I mean, the city has already decided that these people can build what they've built. So, I mean, I would just be cautious about reopening decisions that have been made and settled for many, many years. I mean, if there are things that we want to do on a going forward basis that addresses some of these issues that were raised tonight, I can understand that. But I don't think that we want to create a narrative that we're going to, at least in my opinion, re-examine what we've already decided. That would be like someone coming and saying, hey, you know, we've changed our mind and you can't have your second story if it was approved or whatever. It's like, that's settled.

I can see where you're coming from, but I'm also thinking, okay, so someone has had a revocable license for 15 years and And, you know, somebody, you know, I mean, I don't want to pick on any single property, but I mean, you know, we had this arrangement and no longer is working. Now we want this new arrangement. Well, OK, they had a revocable license, but that revocable license they had. they don't want anymore. So now we got to give them a different revocable license because they're doing reconstruction or changing the whatever. That is when we could go to someone and say, okay, you know, this is how we're going to structure it.

Right. But that's different. I mean, like a catalyst for change, like at 310 and 312 to me is different because they're coming to the city saying,

No properties mentioned.

Well, no, no. I mean, that one we have because it's the one that we said we should bring forward. But that's to me, it's a catalyst for change. And so therefore, it's required to go through this process. It's being, you know, they're saying, hey, we'd like the city to actually give us something. And so I think it's a fair thing to discuss that. you know, what's the best and most balanced approach to that. I just, again, I'm just cautioning about, you know, being very careful about navigating decisions that have been made for many, many years, experiences people are relying on and counting on because the city's granted those experiences. And so we should just be very careful and I would be very respectful of those settled decisions.

And I recommended that approach or just throughout that approach, number one, without the retroactive element, just doing my informal head count. I didn't see a great will to among, I guess, at least the four of us to change much of the methodology, leases, fees, structure-wise, other than trying to improve the maintenance liability and potentially the public benefit. And than to consider that what Pat and Marika talked about is having the parks and space committee sort of continue their broader oversights of this space, just like they do the lanes and everything else.

But then maybe that would be helpful if we're going to have folks think about this, maybe we need to be clear on the parameters. Like, I mean, is this green space or is this, you know, here are some parameters to operate within or to ideate within. Again, maybe there aren't, but I think we haven't, I don't think aligned on that tonight. And maybe that's worth coming back. and agreeing to. It might make it a more productive process.

As Peter said, do we mostly have agreement that before discussing whether it's just going forward or retroactively, an idea of it's the maintenance obligations that we want to pass over? Is there a broad agreement that that's the core issue that we have here?

Well, I mean, I think the maintenance is part of it. And then it's I mean, I don't want to take anything away from anybody that has anything. I'm not advocating for that. But a lot of it is is just, you know, when people redo their staircase down to the dock, sometimes they change it. Sometimes it was like a direct, you know, like killer down and now they want to kind of do a meandering thing. Well, that's kind of a new revocable license and that's where we can open up the discussion. So I'm not advocating that we take anything away from anybody, but I'm just thinking that we need to think of this in a longer term how we're going to look at maintenance and, you know, is the revocable license the right term we should use or should the revocable license switch to something else? I don't know.

I wonder if we've had task force before that have had finite dates on them. And I don't know if that's a possibility just to get a little bit more information from the community, greater community, as well as having parks, open space and lane representatives there. And maybe, you know, so that it doesn't take five years and make it a three month process. meeting schedule, kind of like the seawall is not going on forever. And they have a small subcommittee committee that's meeting as needed and getting through whatever it is they need to get done. And perhaps we can use that as a model for something more finite in time.

Rebecca, I feel like we're giving you no direction here whatsoever.

I think what some things I'm hearing are, I think parks open space lanes committee would you know, they have the energy, they have the momentum, it would be great if they could assess each revocable license. And like Jane and Pat were saying that some of them cover the entirety of the strips, some of them only cover the stairs, right? So then that can give us sort of a basis of what we're looking at, right? And I don't think I think we're looking at ways to move forward with these revocable licenses. You have to remember, we have all those 21 properties. There's 19 RLs already. So the chances of a new RL coming back are pretty rare, right? Unless somebody sells a property, demos a house and redoes it. That's probably going to happen once in the 10 years I've worked here. So I think we could move forward with parks and space lane doing an assessment and then coming back and reporting on that and see if there's anything that we can do to sort of, you know, improve getting more maintenance out there. I also think that keeping the existing RL might be a road we wanna go down and enter new language for RLs in the strip that discusses maintenance moving forward, similar to what might be coming next month, which to me seems pretty clean, but I don't know if it goes as far in depth as Pat is suggesting, but it seems like it would sort of help us move forward.

Right. So I guess the only question is in terms of asking parks and open spaces to do that, obviously, Jane would be working with them on that. Is there any reason to include any other council member in this, in that part of this or not? Meaning, do you feel like you're, would that be helpful?

No, I think it's fine unless someone wants to do it. I don't think it's necessary.

So does that seem like a good approach that first parks and open spaces does that assessment? And at the same time, as they're providing that information, we really start to think about what the policy will be around, whether we're just requiring maintenance obligations or whether we have to open this up more broadly?

Well, I guess, yeah, the question is part of mine. What is the point of them doing that? They already exist, these RLs. We're not going to go retroactively back. So I don't know. Maybe that's not the best use of their time.

Sorry, not helpful, but now that I'm thinking about it, we don't want to waste their time on assessing these. I believe the way forward is to do a slightly modified ROPA license addressing the additional stabilization, landscaping, maintenance aspects of this particular piece of property. which gives the city the security relative to stabilization, but also helps thread that needle, which I talked about relative to the public benefit. That seems the right approach going forward. I'm responding to parks open space, existing and already planned survey of open spaces in the next year, whenever they decided to do that, whenever they hope to do that. And it wouldn't be that difficult in that survey of these open spaces to include information about whether it's licensed or not, whether there's full coverage of the property, whether there's landscaping responsibilities to the homeowner. whatever three or four or five questions they come up with to identify where there's additional risks relative to that public space as it relates to the public's use of that space. And if one property doesn't have a license on it covering anything more than just the stairway up the hill, and there's a lot of loose soil with no vegetation there, I might say in that survey, this poses some risk of slide in the future. And maybe that gets rolled over to Tony and then they do a more sophisticated assessment because that could become the same situation where we had with BCDC, you know, this past year.

But the issue I have with that is that while we have an active parks and open spaces right now, we might not do in five or 10 years time. And then nobody's doing those assessments.

I think it's a one-time survey, just like your, like your lane survey. I don't know that needs to be readdressed that often.

But that would be a piecemeal approach. So you're saying some, we would apply this retroactively to some, depending on the circumstances and not all.

No, it's just an assessment. It just tells you where we are because that way you file it, not only in the parks archives, but Rebecca has it. So she knows the history of where everything is.

But we're not expanding their obligations retroactively under your model.

So what's the point? I'm with Kevin on that. I don't think we can or should necessarily sort of impose new requirements on people.

No, you're not imposing new requirements, but within the RL, it does talk about maintaining. So if they have an RL and the maintenance is not occurring, then it would give the city leverage to be able to say, we've noticed that the stairs are crumbling and you haven't kept them up and this is now dangerous for the public.

It would also provide a good basis if they did come back for a new RL, for new improvements, we could say, well, we have this study and here's what, you know.

And could we ask Marika if this seems okay?

Marika, come back up.

She's right there. We're sort of telling her what she's doing.

Yeah, so I was Michael. Yes. Oh, it's green. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, I think so. What we were looking to do is as part of this open space that we did commit to work on this year, because we did the lanes one last year. So we're heading into fiscal year, whatever July 1st. is to and so we've already started is to look at all of the open space, not just the strip, but all the open space and to do a similar survey that we did with the lanes, which is looking at sort of all the different aspects to create this sort of catalog for the city and sort of a baseline you know look into what they have and one of the big things that has come up for us was of course these uh rls particularly in the strip and so what we realized is we did look at a handful of them and i will say recent projects encouraged us to do that so we did look at a couple and they are the ones that are there are very different and there are bits that one um would, I believe, give the city, if the city had that survey, they would know what the existing obligation is under existing RLs and whether they're being fulfilled. And so I think that is a benefit and it's not retroactively creating anything. It's really looking at what exists and are they doing it? An example is giant trees that have fallen down and now are blocking the beach. And the question is, it came up earlier, you know, is that the city's maintenance obligation, or is this happened to be one of the RLs that's bigger and it actually should be the homeowners. And I don't think anybody knows because they're not easy to find. That's the, you know, they're, they're buried and they're not easy to find. And so, I mean, I looked at them up at the county assessor's office because I was there waiting for my jury duty. So, yeah. So that's the one thing. The other piece that I just want to bring up that this has been a big focus on maintenance. At the core of this and a big piece as to why we are, you know, looking at this and why we're looking at open space and lanes is about public access. And so to the extent that the city has allowed, has given RLs, where there are stairs to get to the beach and to get up and over the dock, and people have put in docks or developments that block people's access, their walkway across the public area. And there are places where stairs that were there are no longer there. This is an example, and I couldn't even tell you the numbers, but there are stairs that were clearly there that would have given people passage that were probably part of the original. development in RL and now they're gone. And so that at certain tides that prevents the public from having public access across that land because it's not just that they're maintaining an unsafe land area. It's that they're not protecting public access across the city's land, which is part of all RLs. So I didn't want us to lose track of that in this focus on maintenance because there's a ton of different things down there. There's decks, there's steps, there's connections to dock that are up high, there's connections to docks that are down low, and the down low ones block access. We did mention the proposals for the upcoming one. Well, we met with them, we had a great meeting with them and realized what they're proposing, if they did some sort of an adjustment of how they laid out the stairs, you could easily go behind it. So that's an example of not changing the obligation of existing RLs, but really looking at what was the obligation to start out with and are they still fulfilling it both for maintenance as well as for access.

That was very helpful. So thank you for that. So does the approach seem to be that we going forwards, we're going to do what we do with this new property that we're going to require them to cover the whole lot. That's all that we're going to do right now in relation to RLs, but we are going to have parks and open spaces do a review of everything existing and come back to us. Do you have an idea in terms of

time horizon do you want to bring that back to the city council directly or how would you want to approach that i will say this is brent is a new sort of a time-framed assignment so i think you know we would be happy to you know get the direction from you. It will take a while. So we don't want to delay. We're very eager to do it. And we had given ourselves this year to sort of do it. That was, and we've already gotten started. So we will be on it. And so you give us the direction. If you gave us a timeline, we would look forward to meeting, because this is our top priority, one of our top priorities for the year. I think this is, as you can see, even just from today's meeting, And in recent events, it's very critical and we want to be a partner.

So what's the shortest timeline you feel is realistic? I guess that's a question.

I think the summer is very difficult because everybody, you know, all of our members are coming and going. So I would say that to expect us to come back at some time in the fall, I'd have to even have to look at our meeting schedule because the other thing is we only have so many meetings. So I would need to look at the meeting schedule that I don't have at hand. Maybe Maybe Tony does. So by the end of the year.

Or at your next meeting, why don't you come up with a date and have Jane report back as a council report.

Yeah, we have a meeting. We do have a meeting coming up in June. So we could do that and Jane could report back.

Perfect. And you always have the option for special meetings if you need more meetings, as you know.

Absolutely. And we do have, just so you know, this whole project is being done by a subcommittee. You know, so we have a subcommittee who are working on this and working on it in between the meetings.

Okay, great. Okay. Do we, we don't, you're just looking for feedback here. We don't need any specific motion on this now. Correct. Did I take public comment? I can't remember. I did. Okay. I think we are done with that item. Moving on quickly to our last item, which is open forum. I'm not going to read the whole verbiage. Is there anybody here for public comment for the open forum?

Mayor Wilson, there are no hands raised.

And I see nobody in the audience. So with that, I think we can adjourn. Thank you to everybody.

Thank you. Thank you.