City Council - Regular Meeting

Members of our Community and other interested parties for attending this Community meeting today about the mallard point project. Before we begin, I would just like to introduce the people that we have here on the panel in case people are not aware of who these various. Can you hear me better now. Can you hear me better now? Okay. I would first like to introduce Barbara Kautz, who's at the end of the panel here. She is our specialist housing attorney. Next to her is Andrew Shen, who is our city attorney. Rebecca Marquick is next, who's our director of planning. John Moe is probably the least well known here is our our city engineer. And then we have Brian Van Sant here, who is our building official. I'm your current mayor, Sally Wilkinson. And then I have Kevin next to me as our vice mayor. We're going to do this meeting.

Mayor Wilkinson, can I just interrupt for one second? Does anybody have the Zoom link on on their phone? In the room. No, we do not. We're getting some feedback on Zoom, so we want to make sure that nobody has that on. No, is anybody logged into Zoom? Okay, thank you. Sorry.

Okay, I will continue. We're going to do this meeting in a specific order, which I just wanted to give details of in advance. Firstly, I'm just going to have Rebecca provide a little background in terms of the sequencing of the project. And then we will be running through various conditions of the demolition permit, sorry, of the demolition resolution, which we know members of the community might be interested in getting more information on. We will then ask our housing attorney to respond to the brig letter, which we received this morning. And then we will open it up to questions from members of the community. We will be providing the opportunity for questions in person and also via Zoom as well. So I will kick off by asking Rebecca if she can just... answer a couple of or provide a little bit of background in terms of where we are with the demolition permit itself talk a little bit about the sequencing and if she can just also provide some context for why we're moving somewhat quickly in terms of this community meeting and issuing potentially issuing the demolition permit yeah hello everybody nice to see you all can you hear me

OK, great, thank you. So we are all here today to discuss the demolition building permit application for the project at Mallard Point. I think everyone in this room is pretty caught up on where we are with the project. We are close to issuing the demolition permit. There are some sort of, as Sally mentioned, outstanding conditions that are still pending. And then in terms of sequencing, as you know, the project applicant has separated the demo permit from the bulkhead permit. We do have a condition in the demolition resolution that sort of ties the bulkhead permit into or relates the bulkhead permit to the demolition permit. We have asked the applicant to acknowledge via email that the recommendations from the city building official and the city engineer, I can read you out those specifics to comply with the condition of the recommendations of the building official and the city engineer. We are asking that the schedule submitted by the applicants included in the plan set, which shows the bulkhead reconstruction beginning within The bulkhead reconstruction will begin within 14 days of the commencement of demolition and be complete by the October 15th deadline. That is determined by California Department of Fish and Wildlife. And if any of those regulatory agencies extend that deadline, that the city will follow suit with that. We are working against that October 15th deadline and we as a city are moving so quickly towards that October 15th deadline because it's a finite window, right? The applicant needs the demolition permit in order to evict the tenants, he has to give them 60 days, once that demolition permit is in hand. So that is part of the reason, you know, that things are moving so quickly. Sally, what is there anything else I'm missing?

No, I think that clarifies it. And just to be clear in terms of the notes that we've attached to the demolition permit, there's two conditions, correct, that they cannot start work until they have the bulkhead permit in hand and that they have to start bulkhead work within 14 days of demolition. And so that should give them sufficient time to complete the work by October the 15th.

That is correct. They've recently resubmitted for the bulkhead permit. We're on their second review of the bulkhead submittal. We find that it's reasonable to think that we can issue the bulkhead permit within the 60-day time frame that they need for their tenant to submit the tenant eviction letter.

Okay, so what I'd like to do is just to run through some of the conditions that we've had questions about and then ask the relevant staff member to answer as best as possible. So condition number four, firstly, and I'll read out the condition for people who don't have that. the demolition resolution in hand condition four says all demolition and site work including clearing of all debris and materials from the site shall be completed within 75 days of issuance of the demolition permit Barbara can you um elaborate on that because there's been some questions in the community as to how that is achieved

I think as Rebecca mentioned, the developer and the city and the community to some extent are stuck with two state laws in terms of interpreting this condition. One is the city must issue the demolition permit for the developer to be able to issue a notice to the tenants to vacate the property. He cannot require the tenants to leave until the city issues the demo actually issues the demolition permit and the developer must give the tenants at least 60 days. Those are both state laws. So essentially the city interprets this to mean that the demolition has to be completed within 75 days of demolition. of the end of that 60 day period. That's the only thing that makes any sense because otherwise the developer would have only 15 days to complete the demolition, which is not realistic. I noticed there was a question about what work was included in the demolition permit. whether it included more than the buildings. I do know that in some cases, the city needs to have the underground utilities remain until the actual project construction starts. But John, perhaps you can explain what's included actually in the demolition permit or Brian.

Can you hear me? Yes. So the demo permit includes the removal of the structures and just the flat work of those private properties. So it does not include the bulkhead removal. And it does also include the disconnection of the utilities, of course, to the structures, but not the undergrounding utilities on the site.

Is it 75 days after demolition commences, or is it 75 days after the 60 days that they need to give notice?

It's 75 days after demolition commences. I guess if all the tenants were to leave, say, within 50 days, they could commence construction. I mean demolition.

Okay. Thank you. Okay, moving on to condition number 11. And again, I'll read it again. Prior to issuance of any building permit, all required permits and approval shall be received from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Army Corps of Engineers. I understand that those permits may not fully be in place and wondered if Rebecca, who would comment on that?

So number 11 is in reference to, can you guys hear me through this mic? Yep. Number 11 is in reference to the bulkhead permit. And we have letters from all of these agencies, the regional water quality.

I'm sorry.

Corps of Engineer letter is expired so we have this one in our table as pending this will be remedied we will we have communicated with the applicant that it is expired and we will we have these 60 days to they have these 60 days to submit a letter that is not expired for the Army Corps

Thank you. Okay, condition number 12, which may be the most important one. The demolition permit building permit application shall be accompanied by a permit application to replace the Belvedere Lagoon bulkheads along the entire length of each property adjacent to the lagoon. The bulkhead shall be replaced as soon as reasonably possible in conjunction with demolition of the existing buildings based on the recommendations from the city building official and city engineer. So firstly, Barbara, can you maybe elaborate on why we would be issuing the demolition permit given that we seem to have this tie into the bulkheads?

In terms of the first part of the condition, the city has received the building permit application for the bulkheads. In terms of replacing the bulkheads as soon as reasonably possible in conjunction with the demolition, I believe that... I can't remember who did it, read the proposed condition. And so in terms of replacing the bulkheads as soon as reasonably possible, the developer had presented a schedule showing that bulkhead replacement would start within 14 days after the commencement of demolition and would be completed by October 15th. So consequently, the building official and city engineer believed those were reasonably possible dates, given that's what the developer had presented. And in addition, the city requires that the bulkhead permit be issued before demolition can commence. the city recognizes that there may be issues that happen during construction so that the project, the bulkheads can't all be completed by October 15th. You know, nobody, um, anybody who's done with do it has done construction knows there can be unknown conditions. So one, if the, uh, If the regulatory agencies extend the October 15th time, obviously the developer can continue to work then. In addition, if they're not complete before the time expires, the existing bulkheads would remain in place and starting next spring when the regulatory agencies again allow construction to commence, they would be completed. But our hope, is that the developer can meet the schedule that's in their plans and completed by October 15th or shortly thereafter. But the city needed to do the best it could to ensure that the construction would be complete, recognizing that problems may occur.

Thank you, Barbara. Can I ask Brian or John at this point, because we're talking about the bulkhead replacement part, to just talk about the safety protocols that are in place during that process and what safety protocols would remain if there was a pause during the fall and winter season when the bulkhead had not yet been fully replaced?

Maybe start with how they typically replace the bulkheads.

Leon? All right, perfect. So by safety protocols, you're referring to such as stormwater erosion control or the retainment of the existing bulkheads?

Sorry, I should have been more specific. Firstly, just talk about how the bulkheads get replaced firstly, and then answer those other two questions you just raised.

So in standard bulkhead replacements, which many of you may have done or are aware of, they would remove sections of the existing bulkhead. And the new bulkhead comes in sheets of around two to four feet, and they're installed vertically straight down. So the removal of the entire 900 block, plus feet of bulkhead would not occur at one time. It would be more of a section by section removal, at which point they would then install the new sheet piles for the bulkhead, maintaining that retention for the soil or the land. In terms of the erosion control or pollutants or turbidity that may be added to the lagoon, they have what they call a SWPPP or a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan that is required by the city, the state, and other regulatory agencies. And that plan is solely in place to prevent any type of pollution, turbidity, soils, things like that of getting into the lagoon. So they have an approved SWPPP plan. And those measures, what they call BMPs or best management practices, would need to be implemented prior to the removal of the bulkhead just following the demolition.

Brian, do you mind just explaining there as well what kind of oversight and review exists during that process, meaning how does the city monitor that process, monitor the safety?

As with any other project, we would go out to the site, we would inspect it. It is right across the street, so it's fairly easy for us to get there and see. And again, if we are out there and notice that any of the stormwater protection measures are not working, they would be required to come up with a solution of how to install a working BMP to protect the lagoon as required by these state agencies.

Thank you. OK, we're going to move on to condition number 16, which says, Belvedere Lagoon Property Owners Association approval is required for the encroachment of the docks into BLPOA land. Dock and bulkhead plans shall be submitted to the BLPOA for review and recommendation, and the plan shall comply with BLPOA recommendations related to lagoon water quality and maintenance. Barbara, can you or Rebecca talk about that condition and where that stands?

Okay, there's no current proposal for docks onto BLPO land. Any bulkheads that are on BLPOA land do need BLPOA, I'm sorry, BLPOA approval. The plans have been submitted to BLPOA for review and recommendation. And my understanding is that it's the city's view that the plans do comply for the demolition permit. with BLPOA recommendations related to water quality and maintenance.

Questions later. Okay condition number 17 the geo technical engineer shall provide a letter stating that the proposed structural construction of the structures and the proposed site stormwater drainage is in compliance with the geo technical report john do you want to elaborate on where that sounds.

Right. The current response from the geotechnical engineers, there are no structures for the demolition permit. And therefore, that's not an issue with the there is no issue with the structure or with the demo permit. But there will be a response from the geotechnical engineer for the bulkhead removal. But we're just we it's under that's still under review.

Thank you very much. Okay, we're going to move to condition number 24.

18 was a concern from the community, but we may have already addressed it. Sorry.

yeah i'm sorry i will go back to this we've we've pretty much answered it but i know it's been a specific question a stormwater pollution prevention plan is required to be developed and maintained throughout the course of the project so i guess the only thing to add there is how does that uh how does that plan evolve if for example we do have a period during the winter when the bulkhead replacement hasn't been completed fully does it does it change

Yeah, if it needs to change, it can be amended. It depends on what the condition is at the time they stop the work. So it can be amended if it needs to be amended.

And just one added point. Again, the point of the stormwater or the SWIP, we call it the SWIP, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, is to avoid runoff and the runoff carrying pollutants, fine soils, which they call turbidity, into the lagoon. If at any point it is discovered that what they have installed is not working. They would be required not only by city regulation, but state regulation to revise what they're doing and install the measures that are required to prevent the runoff or any pollutants of getting in the lagoon. We don't know yet, because again, from what they have provided us, it seems like what they have provided us should be sufficient for their project. However, if once their project commences, we see it is not sufficient, they would need to stop what they're doing and then beef up, I guess, for lack of a better term, their stormwater prevention measures.

We're going to do questions later, so you can raise it then. Okay, we're going to go on to condition 24, which has been raised. A traffic control and work plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Director for review and approval. At a minimum, the traffic control plan shall address... Ingress and egress, haul route flagging and maintenance of the road and identifies a staging area. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the chief of police and the planning department prior to the start of any site work. So I guess the question there is who has reviewed this plan and who has approved it?

I have reviewed the plan, the Chief of Police has reviewed the plan, John Moe has reviewed the plan, Brian Van Son has reviewed the plan, and we are all in agreement that the plan is approved, the traffic control plan.

Thank you. Question 25. An encroachment permit is required from the contractor for temporary and permanent improvement, work activities and staging or storage of equipment and materials within the public right of way, subject to approval of the public works director. Rebecca, can you comment on that? 25 is relevance.

Is this on? Yeah. So encroachment permits are required for encroaching into the public right-of-way. At this point, this condition is not relevant. We will require encroachment permits, as we do for every other project, and they will be reviewed by myself, Public Works Director, and Brian Vanson.

Okay, question 26. The project will require construction management plan to be approved by the public works director. And I won't run through the bullet points there, but has the public works director reviewed this construction management plan?

John Moe is acting in lieu of the public works director. He is the person who has reviewed the plans from the very beginning. And he has reviewed the construction management plan and has approved the construction management plan. And I don't mean to speak for you. Okay.

Do you want to add anything? No. Okay. And then the last condition that we're aware of, there have been questions raised around our conditions 30 and 31. I'm not going to read them because they're very long, but this relates to the affordable housing agreement. And so, Rebecca or Barbara, can you comment on where that stands? Okay.

An affordable housing agreement, including all the provisions in the conditions has been signed and notarized by everyone and just needs to be recorded with the county.

And so that needs to get recorded today for us to issue the DEMO permit. Okay, thank you. Okay, and again we'll we'll obviously give the Community, the opportunity to ask questions around all of those conditions and any others, but I just wanted to acknowledge the letter from break that the city received this morning, which we've reviewed but wanted to hand that over to Barbara to to provide any initial comments.

on all the Brig comments?

No, but just in aggregate, your read of that.

Well, Brig, let's see. Brig had obviously numerous questions about the conditions. And I think we've gone through all of them, except with condition 31 regarding tenant rights. And that's actually included in the affordable housing agreement. The letter states, the letter that they were concerned about does not need to be given to the tenants before the demolition permit is issued, but should go out to them with a 60-day notice. Whenever the 60-day notice goes out. I mean, I think with the other, the city is essentially limited to... In deciding whether the demolition permit can be issued, the city is limited to the conditions that were applied to the demolition permit. And I think the city has been, in my experience, incredibly diligent in trying to make sure that all those conditions have been met. So to the extent that there is concern about the demolition permit being issued, the city has no ability to add additional conditions and can only make sure that the conditions have been complied with. That's really the limit of the city's authority.

Barbara, I had another question for me in reading this letter this morning is that it seemed like the meta question was whether or not we could separate, the city could separate the projects and sequence them the way that the developer was proposing. At least that's what I read in the earlier part of the letter. So you might want to speak to that or address that question that was raised in the BRG letter.

Separate the infrastructure?

or separate the bulkhead and the Yeah, if you go to page three sort of summarizes what break would like the city to respond to. And it's really a determination as to whether or not this could move forward as a separate phase. So I think it's it's a question I think what I was reading is that can they be separated? And can it move forward as a standalone?

Practically the demolition must proceed before any of the other phases can continue. The bulkheads can't be constructed until there has been at least some demolition near the waterfront. The infrastructure can't be completed until the project, the demolition has proceeded. And so this is a very typical way. It's very unusual. I understand that in Belvedere, typically the demolition permit is issued with the building permit for the home, but we understand that one of the reasons that is done is because of the city's strict limits on how long construction can take. Um, here you're dealing with a much larger project, um, which can't the city granted or was required to grant an extension to the usual construction limits to allow the project to proceed, um, as is required by the, uh, you know, as is required by the, um, the practicalities of the construction, you know, we, anyway, um, but anyway, there's no requirement in the demolition permit that the infrastructure improvements be, uh, be approved before the demolition permit can be issued. There's no requirement and the city, there is a requirement that it be linked to the bulkhead construction and the city has enforced that condition. So I'm not exactly sure You know, practically, the demolition permit is the first stage in the construction. And I don't view that as a practical change in the phasing that was ever contemplated.

And the only way that we could have required all conditions to be satisfied before they could even demo is if we had a development agreement in place, is that correct?

Um, there would have had to have been an additional condition of approval. Um, and, uh, our understanding is that, um, a city cannot. Yeah. I mean, There's no authority for a city to require that construction take place, barring an agreement from the developer or some kind of a bond. Cities can get a completion bond, but all those would have had to have been applied for before at the time that the project was approved. Did you want to add something? Yeah, if you don't mind. No, not a bit. Okay.

Mayor, if I may respond to your comment about, or question about a development agreement. It's my understanding that development agreement was never proposed by the developer, nor is it my understanding that the city approached the developer for development agreement. I would just say as a general matter, development agreement is just fundamentally a contract that needs to be agreed to by both sides. And certainly that's something the city was interested in exploring way back when. The city probably would have had to also consider other concessions or other things that it wanted to give as part of that bargain as well. So it's a little speculative at this point, but we're certainly not at the stage, obviously, where we have a development agreement before us.

OK, thank you. OK, I will open this up to comments and questions from the community. This is just a public forum, and so there is no limit in terms of the time that you can speak. But we would ask, if possible, for people to limit themselves to three minutes. So if you can raise your hand, and our city clerk will hand the microphone. or Rebecca will hand the microphone to make a comment or raise a question.

Thank you. all right can everybody hear me everybody good okay good morning i'm susan cleff and i have three comments and some questions and i'm not shy so i will go first um first i wanted to be clear about the permit being considered today this because this application would allow demolition of 22 existing rental homes on three parcels not including the road not including the deep utilities which are not that deep and not including the decks, docks, and bulkheads. I think I'm correct on that. And then that might leave the site vacant for an undefined period of time while other permits, technical studies, agency approvals, and construction plans remain incomplete and unresolved. It's not clear right now that the project can feasibly be completed as planned. And there's a timetable for the whole project. When it was approved, the demolition was presented as part of an integrated 40 unit redevelopment and would not have been approved if it had not been part of a 40 unit development. And the city is now being asked to separate out a first irreversible step, building demolition while everything else is deferred. Plus this work is apparently going to occur just before the rainy season. Secondly, the administrative record appears incomplete. You guys have been talking about projects and plans and things nobody has seen in this group here yet. For a permit of this significance in this location with this level of risks, I'd expect a clear project description and document index, a list of controlling plans and reports, and thank you, John Moe, yours is the best of the list of reports and plans that are being considered, detailed review and agency comments, floodplain environmental and legal review in writing, and a clear record showing who reviewed, approved, reconciled, and signed off on each condition. We're hearing about a lot of that right now. Instead, we have a link from the project website to a developer-maintained dropbox and an unsigned, undated status checklist that was posted yesterday and the FAQ we got this morning. The checklist then only shows that something was submitted. It doesn't show what was reviewed, that it contained the required information that applies to this demolition-only phase and nothing else, or who determined the condition was satisfied. It does not explain legally and on the record how this demolition phase can be separated from the approved project and treated as ministerial instead of discretionary without further environmental, technical or discretionary reviews being needed. We're all very interested in the conditions of approval, but I want to give you three because I've done the work. I was up very late last night. The first is stormwater. The SWPP appears largely unchanged from 2024, is unsigned by the person who developed it, the qualified SWPPP developer, uses a May 2026 through 2028 timetable, and does not analyze the separate demolition phase or an extended vacant site period. It's not in there, all 200 and some odd pages. The timetable matters because it is the basis for assessing when the soils are exposed, whether work occurs during stems, and how long erosion controls must remain. That is part of the risk analysis, and it is part of the SWIP. Changing it later isn't going to make it that you're not gonna be able to get that material done that quickly. So I'm wondering when that detailed study and calculation is gonna get done. The second is agency approvals. Agency approvals are usually very specific to the scope and to the timetable and to the plans they've been provided. The agencies were provided 2025 plans and not the ones which are currently sitting under the review. I have called a couple of them and they have not received any amended plans. Condition 11 requires listed agency approvals before issuance of any building permit. Yet the city's own report says the Army Corps authorization has expired and states that agency and BLPOA approvals are not needed for demolition. I don't understand that. The buildings are very close to the shoreline. The third is bulkhead stability. These are old and deteriorated riprap and timber bulkheads and infrastructure built in the 1950s. Heavy equipment will operate near the lagoon edge, yet I have seen no review of setbacks Load limits, vibration, monitoring, temporary stabilization, or emergency if the bulkhead begins to fail. Has that been done? I haven't seen it. It's not in the Dropbox. I haven't seen it submitted. These are not minor paperwork issues. They concern stormwater, pollution, public safety, ensuring valid agency authorization, and the physical stability of the lagoon edge. So my request is simple. Do not issue this permit today. Complete the administrative record, a defensible, solid administrative record. identify the legal and the technical sign-offs, and show if and how this irreversible first step, which will affect all the present tenants from their homes, can lawfully and safely proceed on its own. Thank you.

I don't really have, I have a question. It was about the demolition of the structures. It's unclear to me, are you talking about just the building structures or does it include the foundations too? That was not clear in your statement.

Can you hear me? It's the buildings and the foundations.

Can you guys hear me? Thanks. Um, hi, I'm Stuart. Um, I guess I serve two masters here in a way. I'm a resident of Mallard points and also a Belvedere citizen. Um, so I have just, you know, I certainly don't have any objection to a developer redeveloping his property within the bounds of the law. That is absolutely his right. And he certainly deserves it. But, um, What I have seen from this town council is a lot of bending of the law. And I'm not going to rant on that, but I have seen things bending that don't seem appropriate to me. Now, I'm not an expert like all of you. in real estate development but it seems a bit crazy can you confirm a couple things for me one did the town have the right to enforce a three-month relocation fee if you will for the residents or not barbara can i ask you to comment on that

Yes, the town did have the right to enforce relocation payments to the tenants and the cities has received copies of checks paid to the tenants and had the amounts confirmed by an outside consultant.

Right. So why wouldn't you pick three months versus, say, one month?

Pardon?

It took, say, three months versus... Oh, no, no, no.

The only tenants that are entitled to relocation payments were the lower-income tenants. There were two... There were initially two lower-income tenants and one very low-income tenant, but the very low-income tenant passed, and the other two tenants were paid there.

Okay. That's interesting, because when I applied for my lease, they asked me to fudge my income, but okay. Secondly, I would... When I was asked to apply, this is a long time ago, I was asked to just put in whatever number makes sense to be whatever type of tenant they wanted to call me. And I have that in writing, by the way. Secondly, can you explain to me If you are here today to issue the demolition permit by the end of day today on behalf of the developer, is that set in stone? It doesn't seem like there's a vote here today or anything like that. But as it was explained to me, and I could be wrong, so please correct me. Fish and Wildlife would not give him until November 15th or later. So therefore, he needs to complete it by end of day today. Is that true or not true?

We are going to issue the demolition permit when all the conditions of approval are met. There are a few out still that are pending.

Today or.

There's some pending. I guess your question is, is it set in stone? There's nothing set in stone at this point.

My final question, and those were questions just as a resident. My final question as a resident of Mallard is, what does a 60-day eviction notice require besides a valid demolition permit and a start date?

That is really for the developer's attorney to determine what the 60-day eviction notice requires. The city doesn't monitor that. The city can't.

Okay.

Yeah, I mean, if the 60-day eviction notice is improper, that can be challenged.

I don't know the law, but I'm just asking the council because you probably know better than I do. Yeah.

Pardon? Yeah. The city can ask the developer for a copy of the 60-day notice.

Barbara, we can review that for its legality. Pardon? We can review that to make sure it's compliant with the law.

Yes. Yes, okay. Well, they're not, they cannot send out the notice until the demolition permits issued. So it's not something that the city can review before the demolition permit is issued. Rebecca, I also want to, you know, I, yeah, I mean, I guess we could ask for it.

Excuse me, can the demolition permit be issued without the signature of the Lagoon Association, the Homeowners Association?

Can you hear me? Yes, it can, because there are no improvements on BLPOA property as part of this demolition permit. The BLPOA has jurisdiction over their property, not private property.

But what might spill in the lagoon without what might have issues with the demolition and going into the water?

Quality issues, those are addressed through the regulatory agencies and the SWPPP. For this portion, they're addressed through the SWPPP.

And the SWPPP is...

To clarify, that BLPOA condition will have to be met before we can issue the bulkhead permit. I'm sorry, that the BLPOA condition in the demolition resolution will have to be satisfied before we can issue the bulkhead permit.

And demolition cannot start until we've issued the bulkhead permit. So they're tied together. If we issue the demolition permit today, there will be 60 days in which the developer and the city will work together on getting the bulkhead permit ready to be issued by day 59. If the bulkhead permit is issued on day 59, then demolition can start on day 60. Demolition cannot start unless the bulkhead permit is issued. The bulkhead permit is tied to all of what we call the regulatory or ABC agencies. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Army Corps, et cetera. So that condition that speaks to those regulatory agencies is tied to the bulkhead permit. The bulkhead permit is tied to the demolition permit.

And the bulkhead work has to commence no later than 14 days after demo begins. That is correct. It can start before the 14 days, but... by October the 15th.

It has to be finished. It was taken from the developer's construction management plan and GATT chart. I think, you know, let's think sort of logically here. They have to demo something to get access to the bulkhead, right? So they are going to be working judiciously to get the bulkhead permits in prior to this October 15th date. So assuming, you know, my limited knowledge of construction is they're going to demo a portion and then go in and start on the bulkhead, demo a portion, put in a So they're interested in moving this forward before this October 15th deadline.

If I could just add. If I could just add, so this goes all the way back to planning. We've always contemplated those two things happening in concert. And we've heard a lot of feedback from the community that we wanted to understand when was the bulkhead going to be replaced and how would it be tied to the demolition? There was a lot of concern about, would they be allowed to go in and demo the lots and then just not deal with the bulkhead and leave it vacant? Condition 12 was designed for this very purpose to ensure that those two things were done in sequence. And so based on, and we pushed very hard for this and based on the recommendation from the city engineer and the building official, we have determined that And this is consistent with what the developer proposed. So it's considered very reasonable that they must start the bulkhead replacement within 14 days from the start of demo and finish it by October 15. But they can't do any of that unless they have a bulkhead permit in place. And so it very tightly ties those things together. So we're assured that they will be done together, which I'm not saying that solves all of the questions that the community had, but that was a big issue that people had. And I think we've solved for it by the condition 12, which was something that was contemplated all the way back when we looked at this from a planning perspective. I was on the commission when we did that work along with Pat, who's here in the room. I'm BLPOA.

We really appreciate the tie in on this. I'd like to tease out that schedule a little bit more. It was mentioned that stage, the demo permit, the evictions, et cetera, then start within 14, finished by October 15th. About that October 15th date, let's say it's not done, following on with what Barbara was talking about, and given due considerations of a finally approved SWPPP that Brian was talking about, what is actually going on on the site when all work on the bulkhead is stopped on October 15th, putting aside an extension of that date? Any work at all or a completion of demolition?

Continue with the demolition.

I have to finish that within 75 days of the end of that 60 day period. Right. So let's say, will there be a, you've been talking about a bulkhead permit being worked on and we obviously will participate in that because some approvals are needed, but will there also be a structure construction permit application being worked on at the same time? So that potentially if they finish demolition but still haven't finished the dock, you've now got a wholesale residential construction process beginning also before April 15th? Or is that in the future? Construction? Yes.

The next step is they need to get their final map recorded. And the infrastructure. Okay. I don't know, the developers here.

That would be the subject of future work. Let's just say that. Another question. So the demo will be finished during that rainy season. What happens with the docks? Will they be tied to the bulkhead permit application as well? Because that's water work, effectively.

Yeah. Our understanding is they don't intend to construct. Tell me if I'm wrong. Construct the docks until they do the homes. Is that correct?

That is correct. Additionally, they will not be removing any docks or any other structures within BOPOA property as part of this application. And going back to your first comment, David, it's good to see you. We have no applications in at this point for any residential construction, vertical construction. And as Rebecca said, they would first need to get their map finalized before we would even accept an application for any residential vertical construction.

Back to the docks. They're all integrated. The bulkhead removal is part of getting the docks out of the way in many cases. So moving docks, demolishing of docks, that all has to be included with demolition of the bulkhead, right?

With the bulkhead permit, yes. The demolition permit as it stands now, no. Only work within their property lines is proposed under this application. As part of the bulkhead application, yes, they will need BOPOA approval for portions of it within BOPOA land. And as part of the permit, we are permitting it in all 900 feet.

I don't want to put words in your mouth because that's what the purpose of this meeting is. So in the bulkhead permit, By necessity docs will have to be removed in order to access places where those that bulkhead is. Is it not reasonable to assume that it will be docs and bulkhead permits, at least to the extent of demoing the surfaces of the docs getting rotten tears out of the way. I mean basically the. We're trying to protect the water and moving piers and docks and bulkheads and riffraff is all part of that water work.

Correct. And we would have proper documentation such as silk curtains for BMPs, things like that to protect as much as the lagoon as is required. And additionally, that work would not be allowed in between the closed down dates of October 15th or April 15th unless approved by the other outside regulatory agencies.

Because I was surprised at one comment that was made about what is the scope of the demo. We have been understanding that the scope is just the vertical structures that are there now, not the foundations. In other words, no disturbing of the ground until all of this bulkhead is in place. Is that your understanding as well?

There we go. It is our understanding that the vertical wood construction, the foundations, and any flat work such as patios, things like that within the residential area, so not the roadway or anything like that. Additionally, it does not include any type of storm drainage infrastructure, anything like that, besides the capping of the existing utilities in their current locations.

Okay. I would echo some of Susan's comments then about whether the present or the newly revised SWPPP accommodates potential open ground below the foundations. I think you're still reviewing the SWPPP, is that right?

The SWPPP has been approved, and it does address those conditions. The documents that I review are within our permit file. I have not reviewed the documents on the website specifically. That is okay. The billing department will use what is submitted to them and not use the developer's website. Your questions and your reservations.

There's a revision in place now. All right.

Can we post whatever Brian's referring to, just so there's full transparency? If there's a discrepancy between what's on our website and what you have, let's get it posted so people can see it.

Hi, everybody's very concerned about the water. I am too. But I have a question about the air. There's been no mention of asbestos. Those buildings were built in the 50s. I'm sure there's asbestos in them. And I'd like to know what the abatement plan is and the timing. of that vis-a-vis the demolition and all that. Can you give us like a timeline of how these things are going to happen and what's going to happen with the asbestos? Also, in terms of notifying nearby residents, and do you have to close the park? I mean, what's involved? Thank you.

So the applicant has submitted relevant J numbers, which is the permit provided by the Air District, which is the governing body for such work.

There is no mention of asbestos anywhere.

We can post the J numbers from the air quality.

About what they're going to do for abatement?

It would need to comply with air district regulations. So again, the air quality district is the body that would oversee their demolition and any abatement of hazardous materials. And so they would need to comply with not only those regulations, but regulations set forth by the state of California.

No involvement in that process.

If there's any question about it, we would go out to verify that those mitigation measures are being met. But no, we don't have a say in it. The state and that governing body has the say in it.

Do you know if that includes notification of residents when that abatement would take place?

I do not have that information, no.

Thank you.

I'm going to do this sitting down. I've got some notes, sorry. This is a big project. The city has not done it, and people are working to the best of their abilities. I want to frame the appreciation, but hope is not a strategy. And a lot of the comments today were the city hopes, the developer hopes. This is six years into the project, and all of a sudden we care about October 15th of 2026. These plans could have and should have been done years ago. And now the city is bending as far as it can possibly bend because we want the housing, we want the project. For a developer whose financial position at best is suspect to be able to deliver on the promise of the housing and the units and the waivers. So if we're trying to kind of be prudent, The over-underline would suggest that there's not a shot in hell we're done by October 15th. That is a hope and a huge bet, which means you've got some form of partial development through April when the window opens again. So we've evicted 32 tenants, 22 tenants, whatever the number of tenants are, prematurely because of this October 15th that the city has somehow embraced as our problem when in fact it's the developer's problem. So being compliant and over-anxious to meet this artificial statutory deadline, I don't believe falls on the burden and the shoulders of the city and its resources. And not being an engineer, I don't know how you can predetermine the physics of a bulkhead properly engineered and installed without the details of the verticals and the weights required to hold back that land. So again, we're kind of putting a lot of carts before horses here without the detailed knowledge, which it doesn't have to come to later. Great. But now you're going to wind up potentially putting in bulkheads towards what geotechnical requirement when, in fact, we don't know the vertical weights. We don't know that engineering. And by the way, it's six years into the project and we still don't know it. So I'm a little frustrated that because the developer's financial capacity to move forward responsibly and collaboratively It hasn't happened that the council is now feeling some obligation to meet the deadline of the 60 days so that then 15 days concurrent. And oh, my God, October 15th. There's not a shot in hell that October 15th they're going to be done. That's a hope. By the way, it's a hope. Hope is not a strategy. And now our vulnerability as a community for all the issues of safety and environment are at risk. I don't see a huge financial guarantee, a completion bond of consequence. And while it might not have been in the additional original COAs, we've been to say, and by the way, the disinformation where the developer said, well, the city asked to separate the demolition permit. No, the city did not ask. to separate the demolition permit. The developer asked to separate and the city probably said, well, yeah, we might be able to do that. And now look at how the dominoes fall to the benefit of the developer, love the housing, want the projects, wish they were there already. And the exposure the entire community is taking both physically, economically and financially and legally. to have this project possibly abandoned as other developers' projects have been abandoned for different reasons. So I think we're really embracing an artificially imposed deadline as our responsibility. Instead, you know what? April 15th, let's look at that date. Let's get people lined up. Let's give the eviction notices April 15th. I mean, all that stuff. Why are we owning that deadline and that sense of urgency that we got an email a day ago that we were 95% complete, and now we're scrambling to get attorneys to give us reasonable guidance? We're sitting here this morning for a permit that may or may not be issued today because we seem to own the October 15th problem. I'm sorry. I'm not sure why that's our problem. Six years into this process. So I think the developers... got that issue to deal with, I don't think it's our problem.

Yeah, I guess having watched this process for the last six years and been part of it, this group of people and a much broader group of people have invested millions of dollars in this community. This is their home. And it feels as though their city representatives are not paying attention to their community concerns and their investment and their community and what risks we're all taking by this really fast move all of a sudden, as Jim has said, to meet their deadlines. We were given less than 48 hours to even pull ourselves together to recognize that suddenly we were going to meet the deadline. And we had a 10 AM meeting scheduled, so nobody who's working outside of I don't know what could even attend. It just doesn't seem as though our investment in this community over all the years we have invested and our future investment in this community is being considered whatsoever in light of the demands of this developer. And so I just want to say that we really don't understand how we have become such a low priority in this process.

My name is Sanz Christen. I have not been following the procedural sequences of how the separation of the demolition and the permit in general came about. I think it's a mistake. I think that anything that can happen in terms of construction that affects all of us could have possibly been determined to be happening first before the rest of the project is known. It's been said in many different ways, but the fact that we are hoping that will oblige our wishes is silly. We have to first get this project completely defined before we let anything happen. And this is certainly not what's happening.

Okay, so I can't begin to tell you how much I agree with all the comments from the peanut gallery here. I want to bring you back to the last meeting we had where my husband mentioned the fact that when he goes into surgery, he has a plan A, a plan B, and a plan C in case something goes wrong. We don't see that at all here. And I want to also say that I understand that the developer has this construction management plan that he submitted installing, you know, with the dealing with the asbestos cutting and capping utilities, installing a fence, the curtain around the lagoon, which to me deals with water. And so I really don't understand why BLPOA is saying, we're not going to sign off. And you're saying, well, it doesn't have anything to do with the water. Makes sense. There is all this back and forth between you and the developer, and it's hard to get a handle on this, especially for a lay person. This isn't my work. You know, I don't do this. So I'm really having to learn and catch up with all of what's going on. And for example, we've asked the town city council and the residents have asked for something called a swim chart. So all the information could be seen in an organized way. Okay, we haven't seen that yet. So I don't trust the developers. So I have to rely on you. And I want to know how you're going to assure the residents that the right steps are being taken when you can't even get together on creating a swim chart. I mean, it's so frustrating for all of us. And we really do not feel like you are supporting us. You are our representatives. It's not the other way around. So anyhow, that's what I have to say.

Hi, I'm Neil Rudolph. I think the connection of the bulkhead permit to the actual demolition brings into question whether the developer is actually going to engage with the BLPOA on their memo of understanding. We've been attempting to do this for a number of months now, and real negotiation has not occurred. I really think the timing is really at risk here for the 60 days.

Yeah, I'm Larry Storer. I'm on the BLPOA board. And Ken, our president, is out of the country. And he sent a note that I thought I'd just read to you tonight. It's real short. But as Neil said, it's actually been a couple of years we've been engaged with the developer on of bulkheads and concerns about the water quality and what impact it will be on the lagoon. BLPOA has previously submitted written comments explaining why we believe decoupling presents increased risks to the lagoon waters. And we urge the city to stay within the intent of the city's own resolutions applicable to the project. Again, it is in everyone's interest that the bay waters that are in the lagoon be protected from day one, which starts with demolition. I guess listening to everything here, we are concerned also about the timing Because I think we did a calculation. If you wait for the 60 days, you only get like 21 days to put the bulkhead in. And we think that doing 900 feet of bulkhead is probably not going to be able to be done. So it kind of seems like the project may be staged so that some of the bulkhead gets done before October 15th. And then the demolition will be completed. And then next April, they can start completing another section of bulkhead. So maybe what was initially sent to us months and months and months ago was a staged plan. It changed over time. And now we're not clear yet what the plan is. But I just wanted to read Ken's comment to you. Thank you.

that if I understood you correctly you have 59 days to approve the permit of those 60 days but in the meantime we have to be the tenants have to be long gone by the 59th day or I guess the sheriff is gonna escort us out so that well though it seems like you guys will probably figure out a way to make the permit happen But assuming you don't, it's just, it's not terribly nice to us that are living there. And they are going to have empty places. And I don't think they'll like that either. They wanted us to stay till the quote unquote bitter end. And yeah, we just would like, we haven't heard from anyone, anyone from the developing office. We have a few friends, of course, in the community, and they let us know what we, you know, we take what we can, but we don't, we have no idea. I've been looking at places to live. They all want me to move in August 1st. well, actually it was July 1st, but I just couldn't pull the trigger. And there's also been no help to help us get other housing, which we understood that was gonna be part of the situation. And so we're clearly and my friends that are in the real estate and development business have made it very clear that developers do not give a hoot about tenants. And we are that's becoming very, very clear, which is unfortunate because we've kind of wanted them to do well.

Can I just make one more comment on behalf of the BLPOA? It's our intention to work with the city and the developer during this 60-day period to try to complete our MOU that we started a couple years ago. We've had a couple iterations with them, but things have changed so much that we're concerned. But our intention is to work towards your objective here. She was next. Okay.

with what everyone else has already talked about and their concerns is way more important than what I want to say. And I totally agree. I mean, there's a ton of worry. I mean, I see the people swimming in the lagoon and out on the lagoon. What is going to happen to that water? And can that be guaranteed? It's going to be safe. I'm sure nobody's going to want to be swimming in the lagoon until that's found out. The other thing is, is that when we got the 120 day notice of a potential date that we needed to move or actually the date we had to move by. In my reading and my research that notice was not valid, because it did not have permits attached to it and it's like it the. Yeah, the California Tenant Protection Act AB 1482 is legally invalid if the landlord has not already secured the necessary government permits and attach them directly to your notice. And again, I agree with you. There's been no discussion. All we got was an invoice for our rent for August, which was supposed to be our free month rent before moving out on September 5th. So the stress and the anxiety of having to try to find a place to live when there is barely anything in the area, if we work down here or want to live in this area, no permits attached to that. It's kind of like stuck to your door when somebody gave it to you and no communication. It's it's really horrible.

The city would agree that the notices you received before are not legal, as you say, I guess, notices to vacate. You're correct. They can only issue those after the demolition permits issued.

And then what... this article says is that then they start with day zero over again once the permits are issued right that starts the 60-day period they talk about the 120-day period but yeah i don't i don't know where they came up with it i can send this to you yeah

Good morning, my name is David Kenneth Smith. I live on Leeward Road. A previous commenter mentioned about the sort of background of our audience here, and as some of you, but not all of you know, this business of geotechnical is my work. I'm a registered geologist in the state of California, and I have a graduate degree in geology, and I've been following The technical issues, both as a member of the board of the BOPOA, as well as with my individual interest in this project being a neighbor, I think that one thing sort of going forward here, and I applaud the city, is that There were initial geotechnical reports prepared by Miller Pacific Engineering, as well as a stormwater pollution prevention plan that was initially drafted by BKF engineers. Those reports were provided sort of a foundation or a general understanding, but they raised some additional questions and needs for additional data and clarity To the city's credit, advocacy from all of us, but also very consistent with my own view, the city wisely hired independent peer reviewers in the case of the geotechnical Herzog engineers and the case of the stormwater pollution plan Herzog engineers. geomorph designs. And the peer reviews came back and also independently as third parties raised some additional questions as well. We're sort of in the process of looking at the response to the stormwater pollution prevention and the geotechnical peer reviews, but there still is a lot of ambiguity. And I guess, consistent with, I think, the tenor in the room here, it just seems to me that it makes sense to look at something that I also work in. It's called risk. And risk is involved with vulnerabilities, threats, and consequences. And I think all three are at play here. And to my opinion, as a neighbor only, not as part of the BOPOA, it just makes sense to me, why don't we revisit this in the springtime when we actually can take time to provide confidence, as was eloquently said, to our community. There is over $2 billion in home values around the Belvedere Lagoon. And to put this in jeopardy, to try and meet a the developers imposed deadlines seems to be, I think ill-advised at minimum and maybe with more draconian implication at worse. And so to my opinion, I would suggest that we do this project. All these buildings are old, they need to be redone, but let's do it with confidence in something that builds to Belvedere's future. And again, I just ask that as we proceed forward, that we take a measured and considered process with this mallet point development. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Jessica Hotchkiss. I'm the recreation director with the ranch. And as some of you know, we run our recreation programs out of the community center downstairs, which is going to be across the street from this project. And what I'm looking for today is some information and guidance on what the impact for the community center is going to be. The majority of the programs that we run out of downstairs are primarily for our toddlers and our seniors to populations that very much need to park as close as possible to the front of the community center. So what I'm most looking for in the future of this project, whenever that might be, is is what will the condition of community road be? Any closures, any closures specifically to access to the parking lot or the community center? It sounds like that might be a part of the traffic plan that's already been approved. Is that true?

They're not proposing to use the community center parking, and they have not identified parking even along community road. All has been identified on site.

So there won't be any closures to community road at all that we are aware of?

Yeah, right at this stage of the project, correct. If there were closures, there would be, it probably wouldn't be a road closure, but that would be a part of the improvement plans, which would The work that's within community road, there's sidewalk replacement that's proposed within community road, but that's at some future date.

Okay, so do you think we'd be...

If they need a road closure, they would have to apply for an encroachment permit and we've been in contact with you.

Be formed probably in like a Belvedere blast in the same way as any other kind of...

Well, you directly, we would let you know.

I guess I just have one final question before I leave, which is if you were to take a vote of all the community residents, and I don't believe this is just a NIMBY comment and issue, but if you were to take a vote, you would find, I would think at least 95% of your residents would agree with the idea, better safe than sorry. And what I'm wondering, I'm wondering, what are you risking? What are you afraid of that you can't do that? That you can't say to the developer, we have looked at this. We are still finding a lot of incompleteness. We are still believing that this project can't be safely taken care of with a demolition permit, allowing this to begin. in 60 days or whenever it starts. And we have elected to begin in the spring. What are you afraid of? Is there a lawsuit pending for you that we need to know about? Is there something that is restricting you from taking a decision that seems for all of us who've done a hell of a lot of work on this in the background to be the reasonable, rational, safe, wise, and very consensus decision among all the residents of the city you're dealing with.

Essentially, if the conditions of approval have been met, the city is required to issue the demolition permit. Who says that's the California building code, the housing laws? Well, the city certainly cannot extend it for six months. Why not? Because if the conditions of approval have been met, the developer has a right to have the permit issued. Right. I mean, I think as the city staff tried to go through, it appears right now they're very minor. Oops, excuse me. With the exception of needing the developer's agreement to the note, The other conditions that have not been met yet are quite minor and can be. And so once those are complied with, the city must issue the permit. So, Barbara, if there are anything else, if the city refused to issue the permit, The housing laws are quite strict, and we consider that to be evidence of bad faith. And the city could be could be subject to pretty severe penalties. You know, we don't want to make those threats, but I mean, I don't like making those threats. I don't like the state laws. But the law is quite clear that the developer has a right to get the demolition permit issued once the conditions have been met.

You're betting that within the 60 day period, it will be met. Why are we taking that risk? Why isn't the Army Corps of Engineering requirement met? a requirement that's firm.

Because it's a requirement of the bulkhead permit, not a requirement of the demolition permit.

And to be clear, because I want to be very clear here that if by the time the 60 days passes, we cannot issue the bulkhead permit because that condition hasn't been satisfied, they cannot begin demo.

All the tenants. You put 22 families out on the street on this. and prematurely.

And understanding that, but by the law, if they have satisfied the demolition conditions of the demolition resolution, which they have other than accepting this one note, which we will hold the developer to accepting that note, if that condition is satisfied, they've met those conditions and we legally have to issue the demolition permit. Otherwise, there is legal risk.

tie this up in a bow i've spoken too much when we hit the 59th day and the definition of permit statistically is n greater than zero percent that it's not done that the project's kind of frozen because you can't do it till april and we have unnecessarily evicted 22 families almost a year prior to when they could have been relocated. I just wanna make sure that that's a responsibility that we're saying we have no choice by law. And I just find that to be a ridiculous argument in light of the housing shortage in California. And we're gonna be down 22 units for Reno, let alone trying to spring forward to the 40 odd units we wanna get. And I think there's a fiduciary responsibility that extends beyond how one might choose to interpret the text of the law in the holistic concern for our community. And the people who aren't going to be having a home to live in, is the council prepared to personally guarantee them housing? No, we're not, of course. So we're taking a developer's risk and personalizing it on a timeframe that, again, they've had six years, Sally, to get to this point. Why do we care? And you know what? Fine. Developer can sue the city. Great. The tenants will remain in place. You guys aren't here to prevent lawsuits. That's not the number one goal of our attorney or of our elected representatives. That's not how you would judge the quality of the work. Lawsuits happen. I've been on too many of them on all sides. You hate them. They're bad. But you don't avoid them at all cost. And I just think there's a humanity vector that extends beyond a geotechnical analysis and a SWIP analysis and other acronyms I've never heard before. This is how can you tell these people goodbye in 60 days when we know, we know there's a high probability that that developer is going to have a unfulfilled opportunity to make the October 15th deadline. It just seems irresponsible. Right.

Can you hear me?

Yeah.

I'm a mere mallet resident, a tenant. And I live in a lovely home on the water that we really love. And we've been there seven years or more. And I am not looking forward to trying to find another place because we have a lot of restrictions with my family. But I've been accepting the fact that that's going to happen. But what I'm hearing today is, that I very well may be walking by my old house as a mud pile for four or five months when I could have been living there. And I hope that we can think about this because I've learned a lot today. And this October 15th deadline is just what everybody's after. But so many unexpected things happen on the way to a deadline. And then if you can't get it extended, it's lost. We don't have, as you explained, a plan B. So I just would like you guys to think about it a little bit more and see if there's any way that we could postpone this to make it a reasonable, and especially for the 22 of us who are losing our homes. Thank you.

I agree with you 1000% because I'm also a Mallard Point homeowner and have been there for probably over 10 years. Yeah. When somebody was talking about the pollution, air pollution, you know, I started thinking about my grandchildren who used the park and the kids playground. That's not going to just be by the water. That's really very concerning. Very, very concerning about what's going to be in the air and are we going to tell our kids I can't play at the park anymore we can't have concerts in the park. All the things that our community sort of thrives on and it's so wonderful about this place, they need to really be careful about the air.

I, as I said, have been through the documents very many, many, many times and the entire city's evaluation on their environmental impacts and everything that goes forward to the SWPPP plan, to the geotechnical plan, to everything else was based on the original CEQA report that was done by Ascent. And we won't get into that report because it was quite a long and very convoluted thing. But just because we got an exemption and the project got an exemption for 32 doesn't mean that the city takes can take a pretty blanket approach to what those environmental impacts are. Those all those reports and the SWPPP report were based on a two year, no budget. timing in between, timetable. It's in the SWPPP plan, it's in our CEQA plans, it's in all of our evaluations. Those were the plans that were used for the evaluations of the risk, for the levels, for everything that John Moe looks at and everything else. It was based on that timetable and those assumptions of truck trips, particles in the air, all the technical details that are being pushed down the line. It was not ever supposed to be over several years. And if it is, the city has a responsibility, I believe, to look at those environmental impacts and say, this is the same project. It's not going to be any more than what we had already looked at. That analysis has not been done, not in anything I've seen, not in anything anybody else has told me about, and not anything that has gone to the outside agencies. The outside agencies are still working on the assumption of the original plans and the original project that was done. The outside agencies are still working from an aerial survey, not a field survey. You guys are also not working from a field survey with boundary lines. I know from the field survey that the BLPOA property is very close along the whole side that fits onto Luard and that you might have to walk on it if you're on a dock. That would be verified by an actual field survey where those boundary lines and properties and shorelines where the new bulkheads will be going. That work is also being deferred. The project that has been analyzed and put in front of you was a different project, a different assumptions. If they are the same as what the developer is now proceeding there, I think you need to put something in the record. This needs to be a defensible administrative record that these things have all been looked at by the city and have been evaluated. And there's somebody in there with a signature on it that says that. I can tell you what I've seen. It's not a clear record. And you need to have that. And I really, really... Hope that you will put that record together because today I don't have it. I can't see it. I've asked for it many times. We've asked for the status report many times. We've asked for reports many times. I've read every one of John Moe's letters. I can't make it reconcile. The city is going to have to make this reconcile if this thing's going to get built. I hope you do it. Thank you.

Thank you, I think, in the interest of giving everybody an opportunity to speak, we like to move on to online comment if that's possible, we can come back. we've got one more comment from Andrew and then we'll move on.

Okay um. I left work, rearranged my schedule to come in here on two days' notice because the announcement was made. And that's been addressed. I was able to listen to the Zoom call as I was driving in here. last meeting as a second statement to a meeting before we were promised by rebecca that they would have on the city website a spreadsheet indicating all of the issues and how they were being tracked and everything else she said they would have it in two weeks at the last meeting that has not occurred okay we're setting up a meeting on two days notice and really not even two days notice. It can really be about a day and a day and a half notice. That's suspect to a lot of people here. Why was it done with that urgency? It's been said multiple times that this is a six-year project that And we get down to a two-day or less than a two-day announcement and the pressure that's putting through. All of these things create a tremendous amount of suspicion in the community that something isn't quite right. That something's happening under pressure from the developer. And the city is complying with that when in fact, it's again, very suspect why that's occurred. We don't have information, promised reports that were going to be put on the website have not delivered. And then we get this announcement with less than two days notice. My understanding from what I've been listening to is that, and I want this to be stated clearly that Even though the demo permit is being given today, no demolition can begin until you have the bulkhead permit. If that, in fact, is the case, who made the decision to separate those two? Because effectively, they're not separated. All you're doing is you're allowing the developer to kick the tenants out. But he can't move any further without a completed demo. Then he has the option of starting the demolition and has to complete the bulkhead within 14 days. We don't know that the developer has the financial wherewithal to do that. So he could start the demolition and then, well, we don't have the money for the bulkhead. And you can get a lot done in 15 days when it comes to demolition. So all of this has been put together in a way that under suspicion, I will tell you in the community that there's something not kosher here. And you're making decisions that are illogical, which is to separate the demolition from the bulkhead. And you're also not providing us with any assurance that this project works. will ever be completed certainly by the because he hasn't been able to show that he has the financial wherewithal to do that so in under that veil why are we feeling pressured to make that decision to kick tenants out of their homes with all this uncertainty

Hello, so it's pretty straightforward. They can't secure the financing until they kick everyone out. As soon as they kick everyone out, they're going to work on getting the financing and start in April. It's not going to happen before that. This is all just a chess game so they can get the money. They don't have the money.

Okay, let's move on to online public comment. Beth, can you bring in the first person?

We have Juliette. Juliet, you can speak. Hi, can you hear me? Yes. Hi. I am a third generation growing up here on the Belvedere Lagoon. I was raised here. My parents are in their 80s. They live next door to the 2B demolition. I live one house over with my children that I choose to raise here. Three generations are living next door to this proposed demolition. I actually lived at Mallard Road in one of the units for many years. I was asked to leave by a prior owner within a month with my children as a single mom due to the fact that the home had severe mold. I do believe these units need to be redone in a proper form that is attuned to our community, redone, cleaned up, proper little cottages. However, They need to be done right, and that's what the community has been saying, that they need to be done safely. We have a community here of all ages, of babies to many seniors, and we're worried about the safety of our health and our environment. There are many swimmers that, whether they are children swimming or they're in their 90s swimming, we are worried about our water safety. There was never a proper environmental regulation research and report done. And that needs to be really, really looked at because the liability of our health and safety and fiscal responsibility, as many members of the community have said as well, is of a concern. I think that there is no need of this rush to October 15th. In fact, they actually lowered the lagoon then. So it actually really is not a rational time to to have them focused on. on that and that they should, as everybody has said in this community, wait till the spring, wait till April, do it right, have more thorough analysis of the environmental impacts as well as the park And people have said the asbestos, the air. You know, there are so many people that use that park in not only the children at the park, but fitness as the ranch, the local community center said. And that is really a health hazard. So I think that they need to really, really focus on doing this right and looking at it in the spring. And the reality is they're not going to get the bulkhead done in 15 days in right before the lagoon is lowered. That's the last month that these lagoon homeowners can enjoy to swim. And they're definitely not going to want to be swimming that last month. The lagoon is up before October 15th. So I appreciate you really looking at this, not only with a heart for our community, but taking a step back and just looking at how we can do this right in the spring. Thank you.

There are no other hands raised. Okay, unless there is any further public comment in the room, we will wrap this up. Again, from my perspective as one of our council members, we of really trying to hear the community's concerns, be as transparent as possible. We hear what you say about providing additional information, and we'll definitely be working with staff to provide as much information as we can. I hear the concerns around asbestos. They seem very valid. um will not be issuing the demolition permit today if they haven't satisfied the outstanding conditions and there's one in particular there's a couple of minor ones we won't be doing that and we have worked really hard to ensure that the bulkhead permit will have to be issued before demo. And if that doesn't happen, this will get pushed to the spring. I mean, if they don't satisfy the conditions of the bulkhead permit, that won't be issued and demolition will be deferred. We're trying to be as safe as possible with this while being compliant with the law and our guidance from our council is that we have to issue the demo permit if they've satisfied the demolition conditions of the demolition resolution. And so we're bound as council members to follow the law. It's not something that makes us happy. It's something that we're required to do as elected officials. And we do have fiduciary responsibilities to the city as well in terms of our fiscal position and not exposing ourselves to unnecessary legal risk. So again, thank you to everybody for attending. If you have additional follow-up questions, want comment, please do send emails to the City Council and we'll do our best to reply and respond to those questions and try and keep everybody informed. I see one additional comment.

Oh, okay.

I've just want to make sure I understand you correctly that that you're there's still a chance that you would be giving them the permit tonight. Had five years to get these little things accomplished and signed. And so that would mean that the tenants would then be given their 60 day notice and move and then it may or may not start in the 60-day timeframe. Is that correct?

So I can re-summarize. If the remaining conditions of the demolition resolution that relate to demolition are satisfied today, we are obligated to issue the demolition permit. That will allow the developer to issue in accordance with their timing, the eviction notices to the current residents of Mallard with a 60-day notice. We will be working during these 60 days.

What about what's happening today? So you guys seem to be bending over backwards to accommodate... seemed to be bending over backwards to accommodate Thompson Dorfman. I'm just kind of bewildered about that angle. And how did we get in that position? I thought those pieces needed to be together, and now they're separate. They can get the demolition today and then have another 60 days to come up with the bulkhead. Is that correct?

The two are still tied together in terms of implementation, certainly. The demolition cannot begin until they have the bulkhead. and they need to begin bulkhead work within 14 days of demolition. That we need the developer to accept those notes to the statement, which we're waiting for them to accept, and it will not be issued. The demo permit will not be issued without those conditions. But again, we haven't separated, but as our guidance from our legal counsel is that if they have satisfied the demolition conditions of the demolition permit, we have to issue. And we have to issue and there's nothing that we can't just wait another week or a month or three months to do that. It's a timely consideration and we have to issue if they've satisfied the conditions.

This timing issue has become really last minute on, you know, why now? I mean, why hasn't this been brought up or haven't they figured out the bulkhead in the last five years? It just seems really peculiar that this is all. Did you know you're coming back after the holiday to these deadlines? Yes.

We were aware that if the conditions of demolition were satisfied, we just weren't sure whether the developer would provide all of the documentation required and satisfy the conditions. But they have, barring one significant note and barring a couple of things that need to be recorded. It's item 12, and we have attached a note to the They are required to acknowledge that no demolition work shall commence until the building permit for the bulkhead replacement has been issued. Number two, work on the bulkhead replacement shall commence no later than 14 days after commencement of demolition. No bulkhead replacement work may take place after October 15th, 2026, unless all regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over the lagoon allow work to continue beyond that date to take place for the period allowed by those regulatory agencies. So they are being required to accept that note, which is a note to condition 12. And as yet, we haven't had a response to that. If they do not accept that condition, we will not be issuing the demo permit. 14 days.

I would just add to this is, personally, I need to take a beat. I mean, I'm hoping that we can take a moment to reflect on, I mean, the reason we have these meetings is so we can get feedback from the community. Legally, we may be compelled to do things that we may not want to do, but personally, I need to take a beat. I need to reflect on what I heard today, I need to be sure that anything that was raised today is consistent with what my understanding was of all of the COAs, one through 31. And so again, I personally just, I appreciate what everyone has said. I mean, there's a lot of heartfelt feedback that came today, a lot of rational, objective feedback that came today. And personally, I think it's my job to reflect on that. And it may not change the outcome, but I'm saying to you, I heard you and I want to process that. And so I don't know what that means. I can't tell you in this moment, but I can tell you that I heard you and that I need to think about it. And we probably need to discuss it internally as well. But anyways, I just wanted to say that thank you for the feedback and it's meaningful to me and I need to process it.

Again, in the interest of transparency, I'm confused, and I've asked around, nobody can... Who made the decision to separate the demolition permit from the bulkhead permit, and were you legally required... to do that and if you were not legally required to do that why was that done so who made the decision was it a legal requirement that it be done and if not why was it done demolition application and the bulkhead application were always separate applications

What was separated was the demolition from the infrastructure installation. And so they separated out solely the demolition. So you're saying that from day one, they were separate? Separate applications for both, yes.

Did the town have the legal authority to put them together? Because you've effectively put them together because you said you can't do the demolition without the bulkhead. So effectively, it's one thing. The only impact of separating them is that the tenants can get kicked out in advance. And presumably, I don't know, but presumably that might make it easier for Thompson Dorfman to secure financing because now they don't have tenants there that they have to. I have no idea. But if in fact, from day one, they were required to be done together, why did you even agree to consider them as separate things?

I believe the condition of approval states that the demolition application shall be accompanied by the bulkhead application. That's the wording in the condition. Again, in terms of legalities, there is no prohibition between separating out a scope of work from another. The code does allow for that. In no way, shape, or form did the city recommend this. We were asked and we provided the legal answer to it, which is you can do this if you so wish. you will need a separate application to be submitted in order to do that. And that's when they submit it.

Could you have conditioned that the two have to come? Because again, they are together. You've made it very clear that they can't do a permission to demo without... is not really a permission because it's requiring that you have the bulkhead. So these really are one thing. How did they get separated? And again, were you legally required to do that? And are you legally allowed to tie them together now?

When you say we're legally tithing them together, we are interpreting condition 12, which was in the demolition resolution, which says the bulkhead shall be replaced as soon as reasonably possible in conjunction with demolition of the existing buildings. based on the recommendations from the city building official and city engineer. Our city engineer has interpreted that condition as meaning that as soon as reasonably possible means that it needs to start within 14 days of demolition. and that they can't begin demolition until they have the bulkhead permit in place. That is a reasonable interpretation. So it's not a new condition. It's just a note which is clarifying that condition.

You're allowing them to take the action of evicting tenants with really only half of their requirements fulfilled. And the big uncertainty and, you know, Dorfman was involved or is still involved in a large project by San Quentin that effectively is dead because they can't get financing. OK, so nothing's been demoed there, but we understand that this is a developer who pushes projects without having finances in place. And are you going to require that he have a completion bond on the bulkhead before you approve the bulkhead? I mean, you know, again, these are the kind of things that should be on the website that should be transparent, that we were promised would be by Rebecca. She said within two weeks we will have it on on on the website. That was your statement. We still don't have it. So, again, there's this veil of uncertainty of what's going on here and you're not being transparent. You're expecting us to say, well, you know, we're going to get it done. It's going to happen. If the developer begins his project of demolition and he has 15 days to complete the bulkhead, what do we know that he has the finances to it? Yeah, I mean, so again, this is the uncertainty which has created a tremendous amount of mistrust in the community on the officials who are supposed to be working on our behalf.

Sorry, Sasan, I will, I mean, Kevin's comments are absolutely valid that we will go back and review everything that's said today. We will review again with our attorneys, whether we're following the right path, the legally bound path. Sorry. we need to review everything that's been discussed. And on the financing issue, as far as I'm aware, and Barbara will correct me if I'm wrong, we cannot obligate a developer to provide us with proof of their financing. We can ask, we can request, but we certainly can't legally require them to provide that. Sure, and Barbara, do you want to comment on that or Rebecca?

Well, a completion bond can be required for subdivision improvement agreements and the city will require that for the infrastructure improvements, but there was no condition of approval that requires a completion bond. And typically cities really, anyway, there's no condition of approval that requires a completion bond.

I appreciate that you're gonna reflect on this. When you do, and when you get back to the community, can you please cite the law that says not just that you required to issue the demolition permit when all the conditions are met, but the timeframe for that, the deadline for that. I can't believe that the law says you have to do it in 30 seconds. I would like to see the law that says once it's completed, how long does a city have to then issue the permit? If I came in with all my things ready to do a permit, you're not going to do it immediately. So I really want to see the law that says that. That's the part that I think really doesn't make sense to everybody in the room, especially anyone that ever has gotten a building permit. So could you please give us that law with the deadline that says it has to be in 30 seconds? Thank you.

We need to wrap this up. We're at noon. I'm going to take one more comment.

You already said, which is that the website will be updated with all the materials that you have. Right now, it's a very difficult process, and I feel that the BLPOA got to review some documents where they had one week to review them, and they did not get everything the city engineer got. on his list. And so they noted that in their letter, and it's very awkward. We're reviewing things at a lightning speed with not the technical know-how that we should have, and certainly having things on the record that say this was found, that was the code, here's whatever. I believe the code says that you need to have some reasonable assurance that the buildings will be built. And that you need to have a timetable for when the construction starts. There's three different timetables in the packages you've got. But I wanted to just check this one thing with you to review. And that the status report we got last night said that these conditions were complete. I believe they have been submitted. I do not believe they have been reviewed completely and that they have been looked at and reviewed in that fashion or have been gone to peer reviews or for other reviews. but they're not necessarily complete, especially for the agencies and the other things. Those are a big deal and can take a lot of time talking about your timetable. So I just want to confirm that those documents will be available, please, and that you will look specifically as complete as opposed to reviewed and approved. Thank you.

Thank you. We need to wrap this up. We could be here for another three hours. This is literally the last comment and then we will be saying thank you for everybody's.

It appears to me that the town or the city of Belvedere has let itself be blackmailed. You've gotten yourself into a position where you cannot reverse things once you've issued the demolition permit because once houses are demolished, What are you going to do? Change the project then? Abandon it? So I think that anything that happens that is irreversible at this stage is irresponsible. We have to be able to stop what we're starting or continue and finish it. And that's not happening.

Thank you for everybody's attendance today. We appreciate this is a very important issue for the community and we will try our best to continue to be transparent and communicate. Thank you again.