City Council - Regular Meeting

All right, okay, I will call to order this City Council meeting of Monday, September the 14th, 2026. Beth, can you take the roll?

Council Member Cooper.

Present.

Council Member Burke.

Here. Mayor Wilkinson. Present. Council Member Mark. Here. Council Member Carapiet.

Here.

Okay, we are going to be moving into closed session. Can I see whether there's any public comment on the closed session agenda items? Anybody online? There are no hands raised. And we have nobody in the room, in which case we will adjourn to our closed session. Okay, I will reconvene our city council meeting of Monday, September 14th, 2026. There is nothing to report out from the closed session. Beth, do I need to take a roll call again? No, we're good. Okay, perfect. In that case, we will move on to item four, which is city council reports. Does any council member have something? Pat, please.

I'd like to report on August 21st, the Be Ready Belvedere Task Force sponsored a block captain event to introduce the emergency response departments and to help define the role of a block captain in an emergency. Present were Chief Wu, Officer Joe Devine from our Belvedere Police Department and Laurie Nelson from the Tiburon Belvedere Emergency Response Coordinator and Tiburon Fire Department Fire Inspector McKenna Romero and Danny Eccleton was present. They did a short presentation. They had a question and answer period. And we received great suggestions from our block captains that we plan to incorporate into our Be Ready Belvedere plans and information. There were approximately about 30 block captains present. So it was a very well-attended, well-received event. And I also attended the last week, the Richardson Bay Regional Agency meeting, and they are currently processing the last voter into housing. And they accepted a grant of a little over 3 million for the EPA. and an additional 1.9 million grant from the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority for eel gas restoration. And also part of it will be removing debris from the seabed. And that's my report.

Anybody else? Jane.

Thank you.

There is the next... We're in county councils of council members and mayors or mayors and council members on September 30th. And everyone is invited to a special speech from Dr. Daniel Swain on the topic of preparing for a super El Nino. It will be at the College of Marin and information will be coming out about it for all council members. And then from our aging committee council, Marin County Council on Aging, I wanted to report for Larry Binkley, our representative, that the Marin Senior Fair will be held this Wednesday, September 16th, up at the Civic Center from 9 to 3 p.m. and there'll be 150 exhibit booths with a lot of information for seniors, caregivers, and their families. Unfortunately, it's happening before we can get that in the breeze and we didn't know before. Again, another item from this same group is that they will be working with the ranch to offer senior specific community event to discuss what seniors need and want from their community. I don't have a date for that. Hopefully when we have a date, we'll be able to get that out to everybody. But I feel like this committee is getting going and doing some great activities. They're also looking at how to serve, get Waymo and Zoox to be more available in Marin. for transportation. Anyway, so there's some exciting things coming out of that committee. And that's it for right now.

I have one thing I forgot. Sorry, I want to remind everyone that on October 9, prior to the film festival, be ready Belvedere is having an event to promote sheltering in place. And we invite everyone to come down between to the community park between five and six and we'll have information and items to help you get prepared to shelter in place. Thank you.

Anybody else? I'm going to give just a brief update on MCE. There's a lot of activity. Some of it, which may have been noted in the newspapers about various lawsuits, but on the other side, there is a lot of good news at MCE right now. The agency has completed its grand jury response, which I think will be made public very soon. There is a special ad hoc CEO search committee to find a new CEO to replace the acting CEO. The agency has held a series of procurement workshops, which have created a level of transparency that the board has never seen before, which has been very well received, will lead to the adoption of new policies, which will hopefully allow for rates to be lower. for consumers and the first round of the governance assessment is also going to be presented to the board this Thursday. And in addition, we just heard today that the staff are recommending an increase in the rate reduction for 2026 to help consumers with a high price of energy. Okay, with that, are there any questions from council members about any of the reports? No others. Is there any public comment on the city council reports? Seeing none in the room, is there anything online? There are no hands raised. Okay, great. Okay, next we're going to move to the city management report, but just to preface that, I forgot to mention at the beginning of the meeting that we will be moving the open forum directly after the city manager report. So if there are comments on Mal a point, that might be the appropriate time to make those comments. So Robert, I hand over to you.

Thank you, Mayor and Council. First, I'll start off by saying I'm happy to report that the construction on Beach Road is gaining real traction. Director Boyd let me know that the sheet piles for that project are scheduled to be delivered by the end of this week. And then shortly thereafter, the contractor will begin mobilizing the pile driver and also the other heavy equipment. So far, the contractor has done a good job managing resident access and vehicle traffic around the project. We've also been holding weekly progress meetings, which have included participation from a member of the project's ad hoc review subcommittee. For anyone passing by the site, I should mention that there are times when it may not appear there's much activity taking place. A lot of the work is tide dependent, and some of the construction has to occur during low tide windows, and those often don't necessarily align with normal working hours. But overall, the project does appear to be on schedule and on budget. In fact, Director Boyd has an item on tonight's consent calendar related to the gangway and some of the other associated project costs. Moving on from Beach Road to Belvedere's other significant construction project, Mallard Point, I'm happy to announce that the city has hired Foth engineers to serve as a project coordinator. Foth has done a good job managing the city's current seawall repair project and has also served as a special advisor during the 2019 emergency repair on Beach Road. They do understand the regulatory framework surrounding in-water construction and I think will be valuable during the initial phase for Mallard Point, particularly as the project moves into site demolition and bulkhead work. On the permitting side, the developer is currently working to respond to the city's comments on the applicants on the fifth submittal. We anticipate receiving another submittal this week. And once that comes in, staff and the city's consultants will review the plans for conformance with the conditions of approval, applicable building codes, and the most recent plan check comments. It is difficult to give an exact date for permit issuance at this point because a lot of that depends largely on the completeness of the applicant's response. But provided the outstanding issues are adequately addressed, the city should be able or should be in a position to issue the permit soon. For residents who would like to know more about the project and follow it more closely, we're now sending out detailed Mallard Point updates each week. You can sign up to receive those alerts through the Mallard Point section on the city's website. Moving on, as summer begins to wind down, we'll soon transition into cooler fall weather. While we still have some time before the winter season arrives, now's a good time for residents to begin making sure their properties are prepared for heavy rain, high winds, and the potential for flooding in some of the low-lying areas. This year, forecasters are closely monitoring conditions developing in the Pacific, including the potential for a strong El Nino pattern that could influence our winter weather. In anticipation of the upcoming storm season, Marin County is spearheading a collaborative preparedness effort involving local agencies throughout the county. That work includes coordinating emergency planning and providing residents with info and resources on how to protect their homes and remain safe during severe weather and extended power outages. Here in Belvedere, we're doing the same. Our operations staff, including the police department, are reviewing plans for additional staffing during significant storm events. Public Works has also began its seasonal storm preparedness, which includes winter maintenance activities and stockpiling materials like sandbags and traffic control equipment. This way, we'll be prepared to respond when needed. We'll also have more information to share with residents as these regional and local preparedness efforts continue. In the meantime, I do encourage anyone to keep an eye on the city's website. That's where we'll be posting helpful information and links on storm preparedness resources. And then that's a good time to transition to the final update, which involves the city's website and email system. We'll soon be transitioning from the current .org domain to a .gov domain. This change will improve the security and authenticity of the city's online communications. It was also one of the recommendations that came out of the previous Marin County grand jury report on cybersecurity. Staff, the city council, and the planning commission will receive an informational email tomorrow that outlines the transition and the schedule. We'll begin testing the new system with a limited number of staff next Monday on the 21st. And assuming all goes as planned, we'll expect to go live for everyone, including the public, on October 1st. Practically speaking, this means that the city's website address will simply change from cityofbelvedere.org to cityofbelvedere.gov. The same change will also apply to email addresses and digital forms. Over time, printed materials and signs will also end up being transitioned. We are going to have automatic forwarding in place for both the website and email, so residents won't have to worry about messages or website trafficking lost in that transition. The email addresses will continue to serve. I do want to give a shout out to Jules, Helga and Chen who have done a lot of behind the scenes work to prepare for this change and make sure that transition goes as smooth as possible. So thank you. That's all I have for now.

Thank you, Robert. Do council members have questions?

Yeah, thanks, Robert. I guess I had a question about Fath and you said he was hired, but when would they begin?

So we've selected Roth. Rebecca is currently getting an updated scope of work and pricing from them for this first stage, which, as I mentioned, would be demolition and bulkhead work oversight. We're expecting them to begin right away.

So once you have everything written down, what it is you're looking for for his position or they, whoever it is that would be our coordinator.

That's correct. Yes.

They would start soon after that.

Yeah. As soon as we have a contract that's signed. That's the idea.

Yeah. Does the contract have to come to the city council?

I don't believe so. I'll double check on that one. Again, there's thresholds that we would have to meet if it's over a certain dollar amount, it would, but I believe this is just under.

Okay. And then do you expect holding a community meeting like we did with the former person that we

I think that's TBD as of right now. We don't have a plan to do that, but we'll continue to listen to the residents and see if that's something that's warranted.

Okay. And you said you're waiting for a sixth submission from the developer. And that's based on all the things that we've read about in the past.

I can't go into the list because it was enormous. The incompleteness items that were identified in the fifth submittal. Correct. Okay.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from council members?

I do. Robert, real quick on the Beach Road Stabilization Project, you mentioned the hours of operation. Are they, I believe they are, but I'm wondering how we will communicate this beginning before or after our work, Monday through Friday and perhaps even Saturday. Could you be more specific about that or if Tony might?

I think Tony could probably answer that better than I could. We have had a few instances where they've had to work either on a weekend or extended hours. So yeah, he's...

I mean, I understand during the, even the inland work is tide dependent. So, and given the August, the September tides are bad for work, I'm sure there's some early and late work.

Yes, at this point, my understanding from the contractor is that they would like to schedule their work around the tides for the rest of the remaining part of the project, which will mean starting 7 a.m. and possibly ending at 6 p.m. Right now, it's just the 7 a.m. starts. And we've communicated that by email to the residents between 16 and 38 Beach Road because they're the most closely affected residents. And that's, yeah, that's the only communication we've put out at this point. But definitely open to suggestions.

I know we talked about that. I would think we should somehow post it somehow, you know, give a weekly schedule, you know, on the website at the very least, or make the current residents and maybe even from a newsletter perspective, we'll add something just that these times may shift. for the duration of the project and give people a resource online to see when those times might be if they're so inclined.

Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, that would be...

I mean, the tides are known, so this is something that I know both Foth as well as the contractor are...

well aware of and can probably keep this schedule um stick to it once they publish it for a week or two yeah and and i don't think it would hurt to um uh to let people know that they that they are with they have been given permission to start at that time whether they do or not um you know depending on their activities out there uh will depend on them but um Yep. Another thing that comes to mind is the electronic signboards that we have could have a time included in the message on there.

I think it's a good idea.

Thank you.

Tony, I'm curious, have you had any complaints at all?

We've definitely had some issues that we've had to iron out with the residents that are right on the construction zone, things like trash collection. There's been a couple of misunderstandings with Mill Valley Refuse coming to collect bins. And then, as you can imagine, being right at the front of the construction over there, noise and parking for them has been an issue. We've set up temporary parking areas for those residents, and that seems to be working quite well. Every time I've been by there, there's been spaces available and I haven't heard any other complaints about that. And at this point, traffic control, which would be the other main disruption out there, hasn't been a problem because there hasn't been any closures or single lane controls needed. But starting this Thursday and Friday with these deliveries, that will probably start to happen.

Thank you. Okay, unless there are other questions, I will open this for public comment on the city manager report.

Thank you very much. Good evening. My name is Susan Clough and I live across the lagoon from Mallard Point. and coordinated Briggs review of the latest bulkhead submission. According to the IJ on Saturday, the developer says work could start as early as this week, but the city says that it is not its timetable and it is still waiting for a sixth bulkhead submission. So there seems to be a big gap between the developer's announced schedule and where the project actually stands today. That gap is why I'm here. I'm deeply concerned about demolition and bulkhead work starting before the plans are fully ready and the developer has shown that the work in this phase can be completed safely and properly. Our brig review asked a simple question. Did the developer provide what the city requested? In several important areas, the answer was no, not completely, or they proposed to defer it. And many of these were very practical issues. How temporary drainage would work, how erosion would be controlled, where exactly the bulkhead would go and how it would be built. Our review found those answers are still incomplete or unresolved. The city engineer asked for plans showing how this phase will work on its own. Even a future grading and site work are delayed or never proceed. Their submitted plans and reports also need to show how overlapping asbestos abatement, demolition and bulkhead work crews will all be coordinated, monitored, and inspected, and all the work will get done before the winter work window closes. So the city needs a complete sixth submission with a fully coordinated plan set. We should not have to piece them all together from scattered memos, notes, and revisions. And every outstanding comment from the city and its independent technical reviewers, who are doing a great job by the way, should have a clear, supported, defensible answer in the public record and a written sign off. The developers preferred schedule should not drive the city's approval process. The project needs to be ready, fully ready. And the public record needs to show it before work is allowed to begin. Thank you very much. Thank you, Susan.

Hi. I'm Jill Barnett and I am Briggs secretary and I live on the lagoon. I send community updates and I also receive neighbors letters and comments. I helped coordinate our recent letter to the city, which gathered almost a hundred signatures in one day. People here want to know that the city safeguards will be enforced. My background is in hospital administration. I learned that you cannot count on something happening unless it is written down and someone is made responsible for doing it. Here are three examples from the conditions of approval. Condition 16 requires BLPOA review of dock and bulkhead plants. Approval for dock encroachments and compliance with its recommendations on lagoon water quality and maintenance. Where are the documents showing that condition has been met? The city also requires written confirmation from the Army Corps, Fish and Wildlife, and Water Board that their earlier authorizations still apply to the current plans and sequence. Has that confirmation arrived? Are there requirements incorporated into the plans and schedule? Who checks compliance as work proceeds? Finally, let me read from condition 23. Demolition plans shall include an erosion control winterization plan. The plan must include an order of work and staging scheduling component indicating when facilities must be installed and when they may be removed. It also requires a rain event action plan. What crews must do before rain, especially heavy rain, to protect the lagoon and keep drainage working.

Where are those plans?

I understand the city can't deny a permit based on weather, as you mentioned in your update this afternoon at five o'clock, but you can and must deny permit if the condition of approval is not met. Before demolition and bulkhead work begin, please show, one, which documents have been met, which requirements have been met, two, who has verified them, and three, who will enforce them. The city adopted these safeguards. We're asking you to make sure they are carried out. Thank you.

Thank you, Joe.

Good evening. My name is Catherine Brawhut. I'm an environmental attorney. I retired from Lawrence Livermore National Lab as a deputy general counsel. I have tried and managed complex construction litigation sites. Something always happens. Looking across the lagoon, I'm trying to imagine the scene later this month if the city lets work begin on the developer's schedule. Asbestos crews and protective coveralls moving building to building, demolition crews following with bulldozers, breaking up buildings and loading debris onto trucks. Bulkhead crews working section by section along the shoreline. all as we head into the rainy season. What if something goes terribly wrong or work stops and can't be finished? Equipment breaks, crews find something unexpected and inspection uncovers a problem. There's little room in their timetable for delay. Bulkhead work must start within 14 days after demolition begins. In-water work must stop October 15th unless the agencies allow otherwise. So imagine that deadline arrives, buildings are mostly down, the bulkhead is partly installed, then wind picks up and heavy rains come. Could we be left with a big muddy hole? Pools of standing water, exposed soil and debris. What keeps asbestos and construction dust from blowing off site? Where does the storm runoff go? Into the lagoon or onto neighboring properties? And even if this work finishes, we can't assume construction will follow right away. What if the vacant site then sits for months or even years? We share this lagoon water with swimmers, paddlers, fish, otters, and birds. It flows into Richardson Bay, which is a protected marine area, a living ecosystem. Right across from the project site are city hall, our community center, and children playing in the park. There is a lot here that needs protecting, so we need an approved plan to keep the site stable, drained, and protected if work stops or the next phase never proceeds, and someone monitoring and maintaining those protections. Before you allow this work to begin, please make sure the people and places around it will be protected, even if something goes wrong. Thank you.

Thank you, Catherine. Okay, seeing no one else in the room, is there any public comment online? Mayor Wilkinson, there are no hands raised. Okay, thank you. In that case, we're going to move up the open forum, which was item nine. This is an opportunity for any member of the public to briefly address the city council on any matter that does not appear on this agenda, but that is within the city council's subject matter jurisdiction. Upon being recognized by the mayor, please limit your oral statement to no more than three minutes. Under the Brown Act, council members may not deliberate or take action on items not on tonight's agenda. Matters that may warrant a more lengthy presentation or council consideration may be placed on the agenda for further discussion at a later meeting. Is there anybody in the room that would like to speak? Please come to the mic.

Hello. Hello. How are you?

Good. If you don't mind, if you're happy to state your name and address, that would be great.

Yep. So Mike Ghaffari. I don't live in Belvedere. I live very nearby on Tiburon Boulevard, but I'm on the Reed Union School District Board. I was appointed this year and up for election coming up this year. And I just want to talk about the Measure O school bond. So as you're all probably aware, but just so everyone in the community knows, we have a school bond election coming up, Measure O. It is a critical part of school financing for the entire Belvedere, Tiburon, and East Court of their community. Even if you don't have students in our schools, I think everyone knows, but just a reminder, I think our schools are really a big value driver for the community. It really is the common bond that ties this community together. I know I, for one, when I moved to this area, we first bought our home seven years ago. That was the main driver bringing me here. I think many people come here. They raise their families here. They grow old here and they stay here. And these schools really are the fabric that kind of glues it together, not to mention our entire property values and a lot of the other benefits that we get as a community by having these excellent schools. Now, having had an inside look for a year on the board to see how our finances work, I can say it does look like passing this measure is pretty critical to making the math work out. So I do hope that everyone will just take a look, learn more about it if you haven't researched it yet, and kind of tell your friends after you've done your homework, if you think it's something that's important to you, you could kind of share that with everyone else. So that's for the city council and for the public. Just wanted to let everyone know. And I'm available to answer any questions. My name is Mike Ghaffari. You can Google my website and find my email if you want to email me to talk about any of this at all. Anybody in the public, happy to chat about it more. Thank you very much.

Mike, thanks for your comment.

Okay, thank you.

Is there anybody else?

Good evening, mayor and council members. I'm Krupa Antani. I live in neighboring Tiburon. I'm a parent of three children in the school district that Mike Khafari is so helpful in representing. And I'm running for the school board. I wanted to speak in support of pedestrian and bicycle safety in Belvedere. I know that many of our Reed Union School District students bike through Belveteer and walk to get to our three schools each day. And I just wanted to show my appreciation for the council members and the mayor for making sure that our streets are safe for these students that are commuting to school. I have a son that does come to lots of play dates in the lagoon and he bikes and safety is always like top priority also as a parent. I want to continue building on that partnership and looking for ways to make the routes even safer for the children who walk and bike through Belvedere. Thank you again for the work that you're doing. I appreciate it.

Thank you for your comment. Seeing no one else in the room, Beth, is there anybody online? There are no hands raised. Okay, great. In that case, we will close open forum and we will move. um, throw me off there okay now we're going to move to the consent calendar item five 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 do any council members wish to remove any items from the consent calendar

I don't wish to remove any items, but I do have a question about one. I think it's a very quick, yes, answer, easily answered question. Which one is it? C. 5C.

Anybody else? Okay, seeing none, do you want to ask your question quickly?

Sure. I think, Robert, you can probably answer this. This is last time we had a nice explanation of the 980 workweek, and this is about the 410 workweek. And I wondered who is eligible to get onto that schedule.

Oh, sorry. Sure, I can answer that, Mayor Cooper, Council Member Cooper. Former. Right now, it's just the public works crew that are eligible for the 410 schedule.

Okay. When you say right now, does that mean you anticipate other? No. No. It is reserved for public works.

Yes. And it's just the maintenance crew that do the 410 schedule.

Right. Okay. Thank you. That was it.

So now I have a follow-up question, her follow-up question. So in the policy, as it reads, it just defines the 980 or whatever it was, and the 410, is there a way to put in that? And you say in your report that it's for the maintenance workers, which is fine because they do a terrific job. Can we put that in that the 410 is for maintenance workers? And I mean, if at some point the city goes to a 410 that it would be revisited, but that it's very clear it's just for the maintenance workers and it's not for other workers to request a 410. Sure, we can put that in. I don't see why not. Yeah, I just, things that are clear just so there's no confusion would be great. We can make that amendment.

Thank you. Can I ask for all of them to be approved in one or that requires a separate?

If there's no other comments or questions about any other consent items, I think we can adopt the calendar as a whole.

Okay, perfect. In that case, can I get a motion?

I'm not sure if we've taken public comment, however.

Thank you very much. Is there any public comment? Seeing none in the room, is there any public comment on mine? No. Can I get a motion for approval of the consent calendar?

Absolutely. I can make a motion to approve the consent calendar with the notation that 5C should be amended as discussed.

Can I get a second? Second. Great. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? None. Motion passes. Okay. We're going to move on to our item six, which is our public hearings. 6A is a first reading of an ordinance amending the Belvedere Municipal Code to establish rules for commercial drone delivery in Belvedere. Who is giving the presentation?

Mayor, I'll go ahead and start. Now I'm going to turn it over to Andrew if he wants to add anything additional. So item 6A is the first reading of an ordinance regulating the ground level activity that's associated with commercial drone deliveries in Belvedere. Commercial drone delivery is moving beyond pilot programs and is into routine residential service. And some agencies have responded by developing local ordinances that have been written with that reality in mind. What makes Belvedere unique could also, I think, result in some serious safety concerns when it comes to drone deliveries. Belvedere is compact with narrow streets, steep hills, and constrained emergency access routes. All of these things make uncontrolled landing, staging, loading, and unloading a real concern for public safety, privacy, and the quiet enjoyment of neighborhoods. The ordinance is intended to set clear, logical ground rules on land use, private property consent, hours, privacy, and nuisance before delivery operations establish themselves in the city while leaving airspace and flight operations to the FAA where they naturally belong. You may recall the city council considered an early draft of the drone ordinance in July. Tonight's draft carries forward the same policy objectives that council previously reviewed. However, the structure of the ordinance and a few operational details in response to council's direction to simplify without losing substance have been implemented in the second revision. It's now organized into three plainly labeled parts. There's the residential use rules, the commercial use rules, and then the enforcement sections. These all have tightened definitions and other criteria that have been consolidated into a single facility definition. The staff report also walks through how existing MU zones use such areas like retail, bakeries, and eating and drinking establishments that could generate drone deliveries, which is why facilities are limited to the MU zone under the conditional use permit process that supplements Chapter 19.80. Hours of operation are also new, mirroring the inverse of the city's noise operations. So operation is only allowed between the hours of 7 a.m. and 9 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and 7 a.m. to 11 p.m., Friday through Saturday. I'll also highlight that this is an emerging market and both the underlying technology and FAA's rules are likely to evolve in time. So certain parts of the ordinance have therefore been drafted with that flexibility in mind. For example, Section 8.34. 030C requires a resident to give prior written consent before a delivery company may drop packages onto their property. In this case, staff recommends leaving the format of that consent open for now. A checked agreement box in an app or a text or an email would all qualify rather than locking into a specific method that is still being developed and we may have to modify in the future. So this evening, we are looking for your feedback and thoughts on the ordinance. Any changes can be made when we return to the second reading in October. And with that, I'll turn it to Andrew. If you'd like to add anything else, then back to you, Mayor.

Thank you, Robert. Let's first start with any questions from city council members.

Just real quick, structurally, the recommendation says approval on ordinance and orders on first reading. It's a first reading. It's not approval, correct?

Yeah, so we, staff is looking for a vote by the council on the ordinance tonight, with or without further amendments.

So that's what we meant by approval. So this is approval. Can you approve an ordinance on a first reading? I guess you can.

Oh, we're asking for a motion to approve it on a first reading, but then it would come back on a second reading the next month.

So the second would be technically more administrative if in fact it's approved upon first reading.

Exactly. So typically a second reading often appears as a consent item on our agendas because this is usually routine because hopefully all the changes, if any, from council have already been made to that version. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other questions?

Jamie. Well, thank you. Thank you. Thank you for making this so much more clear, well-organized and concise. I really found it much easier to understand and read. I had a question about under residential deliveries, emergency access. I don't remember what number it is. Anyway, in there, it mentions blocking streets, fire lanes, and evacuation routes as the issue. And I was just curious, how would those things be blocked? I was under the impression that drones drop deliveries from the air onto either the drone commercial facility or an individual's private property. So I was just curious, are we anticipating there'll be dropping packages in the street?

Yeah.

So I will do my best to answer that question, Councilmember, not that I am a commercial drone delivery expert by any means. I imagine that there could be a situation where the package, as you mentioned, was dropped in the middle of the right-of-way. I imagine there could be a situation where a drone is malfunctioning and the drone landed and suddenly blocked the way. Or perhaps they're just hovering at a height that's too low that would not allow a vehicle through.

Right.

Obviously, this is emerging technology, so we shall see.

I know. I was just curious because it was an interesting concept for something that was flying to block the street. So I appreciate it. No problem. And then I wondered if the discussion about the hours of operation, if you had considered other ordinances, I think you mentioned the noise one. but we have construction hours of operation and we have other hours of operation. So I wondered if that was, if there was a reason you were choosing noise versus other ones.

Certainly, there could be a lot of data points that would be relevant for the decision. And that's certainly within the council's legislative discretion about which route you want to pick. But because I believe drones, we expect commercial drones to emit a certain amount of noise, we thought it made sense to look at the noise ordinance as one relevant baseline. But certainly, I think we're open to all other alternatives.

OK. And then my last question is, about the 8.34.080, which is privacy protections. And I was wondering if there was a legal reason that we had to write down on the very last phrase of this paragraph or comply with a government investigation. It says that the camera and sensor data may only collect certain, could potentially be used if you're avoiding collisions or landings, but I didn't understand why we had to say that collected camera and sensor data would need to comply with the government investigation. I think there's a lot of issues about the flock cameras going on right now. And so this reminded me of that. And I was concerned that we're opening another door that could be difficult to address.

So I think Council Member, you raised a very good question, obviously given other controversies out there with similar technology. I think we were thinking there about comply with the government investigation, like complying with the subpoena for that information that may have been captured on a drone. But I certainly understand what you're saying. And if you wish to delete that, I think that would be perfectly fine.

Okay, great. That's all for me.

Andrew, there's nothing that's specifically in that California Civil Code Section 17800.8 that cites that comply with a government investigation?

Yeah, I will look it up right now to confirm.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions?

So I just want to sort of go back to something Councilmember Cooper mentioned, the hours and how it relates to... uh some of our definitions and and what we're trying to avoid um i i feel like a start of 7 a.m seems awfully early pat is it a question because we're going to bring back for discussion afterwards oh well um okay so let me see if there's a question in there um No, I guess it's not a question. I guess it's to discuss what I think about that.

Okay. Okay. I just have one question for Andrew, which is you obviously discussed this fact on the mixed use zone that bakeries or retail could be a bit fuzzy about whether they could qualify. Can you expand on that? that meaning how do we avoid that? Meaning, would they have to get a commercial drone delivery facility permit or the fact that it could in some ways be claimed that they qualify for that by the fact that they are retail or bakeries or whatever that they how do you address that more?

Right, so this is just sort of in reaction to a question from actually council member Mark at our prior meeting about whether, you know, businesses employing commercial drones are currently allowed to operate within the mixed use zone. And so this is a little bit of, I guess, a extrapolation, you know, just looking at the business that could operate in the mixed use zone, could some of those businesses somehow, or uses, I should be more specific, could some of those uses incorporate commercial drone deliveries? And it's possible, but again, it's a sort of an extrapolation or hypothetical. And if they did want to employ or incorporate commercial drone deliveries as part of their services, then they would need to come back for a conditional use permit at that time.

Okay. Okay. Perfect. Okay. With that, let's open for public comment. Is there any comment in the room? Seeing none, let's go to online comment. There are no hands raised. Okay, great. So let's bring this back for discussion. And Pat, let's start with you.

Okay. So let's talk about the time. When we talk about not disturbing your neighbor, and we have in here about lights, not being able to use lights. It just seems the using 7 a.m. start time and going to 9 p.m. and 11 p.m. on the weekends seems that it's potentially going to cause a lot of, community members claiming that it's a nuisance to them. And I think the 7 a.m. start, I think most noise everyone expects to start around here around eight. So I think eight is a better time. I know this is evolving. I mean, we don't know how all this drone delivery is gonna come to fruition and how much it's gonna be used. And we can always change it once we know how it's going along. But 7 a.m. seems too early. And 9 p.m. during the week and 11 p.m. on the weekends, Friday and Saturday, also seems that it's a long, late time to allow deliveries that will cause problems. noise issuance, lights, because if it's dark during the summer, probably not so much, but during fall and winter, using the lights is definitely going to cause a nuisance. So I just feel like the hours we have here are too generous for something we don't know how it's going to be. And I think if we have it more restrictive, As it develops, we can look at it and make it more liberal. But at this point, I'd rather go with a more conservative approach and have the hours shorter. And I think that it'll alleviate some of the complaints that we could get. And that was... My point, the other was, let's see, in 8.34.020 definitions, if you go to the last one, public access areas, we list means any city-owned property, including public streets, sidewalks, yada, yada, yada. I think that it should say including, but not limited to, because we might, I mean, We all know about the strip, but a drone delivery person might not know that the strip is actually city property. It could go also along with other little areas that we have. They may not close to residential, that they may not understand it's public. So I just thought that if we added the word, but not limited to, it would include anything that we're not thinking of. And those were my comments.

Andrea, does that legally give it more teeth by saying, but not limited to?

I think if I understand council member Karapet's suggestion, I think it's just to make sure that nothing is missed. And we're just making sure that we're capturing everything that potentially is an issue. So I think that's a completely fine edit. And that's a phrase lawyers love anyway, so I have to incorporate it.

OK, perfect. Who wants to weigh in? Peter?

No, I think this is a very good edit. I didn't ask this question because I understood it, but I don't like the delivery-related ground activity definition as it relates to... Because it's not... I understand that commercial drone deliveries are applicable to... residential deliveries. And it talks about delivery related ground activities, which even within the definition, it's a little bit more than dropping and picking up. And that's where it gets a little weird to me, is like we made a point very well of, keeping commercial activity outside of just the broader delivery of a commercial action to a home in the mixed use zone. But if we're including loading, unloading, charging, package retrieval, it doesn't get too far from dropping off here and having something delivered to the next door neighbor or driving down the street or something else. That's a little bit broad for me. That was the only thing I really saw in there. And I wonder if that could be tightened up a bit, recognizing that all we're really trying to identify there is the dropping off retrieval aspect of it there. Why would we have charging there? Do we really wanna have drones go to someone's house and charge? Could a resident sort of set up a waste station to charge drones at that point? That becomes commercial if it's allowed in some way. So that's a bit weird. Otherwise, I think it breaks it out very well.

Do you have an opinion on ours?

I don't mind the change in the hours. I do like the fact that you found a metric, you found a basis for these rules being tied to our noise ordinance. I think that simplifies it significantly. it gives us a good basis and a good justification for those hours. And if this were separate, it's a different enforcement mechanism where I think you can rely on the noise ordinances and point to that with a good justification. So I would be fine leaving it. I don't mind changing it, but I think I appreciated the, I don't think, I know I appreciated the alignment with the broader noise ordinance strategy.

We could also align it to the construction ordinance.

You could. I think it's more relevant to the noise ordinance, but like I said, I don't have religion on this. I appreciated the work you put in to identify it with an existing structure that is similar to what people would be experiencing, i.e. noise.

How do you want that revised, the delivery-related ground activity? You just want to be removing charging?

Yeah, just keep it as simple as possible, if that's possible. Lending, staging, even staging. What does staging mean? I mean, does that mean so someone can come and pick it up? You know, a homeowner gives consent to putting three other deliveries there as well and for other neighbors to come and get it. or an Amazon delivery truck to come and get it and drive it down the road. That seems a little bit odd. I mean, loading, unloading makes sense. Charging seems odd. Package retrieval is the same thing as loading, unloading. So I guess just charging and staging are the two that seem peculiar to me in that definition.

Do you have any issues with those being removed?

No, those completely make sense to me. Thank you, Council Member. Thank you.

Kevin.

I think I agree with what has already been said. I had provided some feedback after the last meeting where I think we got some really constructive feedback to make this better, and it is much better. So thank you.

Yeah, thank you, Council Member, for your comments and feedback as well.

Again, Kevin, given that we're talking about hours, do you have any opinion on the hours question?

I agree with what's been said.

We've had two conflicting things being said, so which one is it?

I was going to leave that up to you to sort out, but... The noise ordinance is probably, you can align it either way, but I would probably align it with noise.

Okay.

Jane.

Well, I'm going to be opposite, obviously. I've actually heard from several residents who realized we were having this discussion. And I did hear concerns about lights coming into homes and looking at it of you and seeing these things flying all over the place. And, um, they're not quite as attractive as all our gorgeous Pelicans. So people were upset about that idea. And so, um, I think restricting the hours since we're just starting and, um, We've said that we're doing things that could be adjusted later on that this is I'd rather start on the side of keeping it a little bit tighter with able to loosen it rather than start these wide hours. and then try to rein it back in when we get a lot of complaint or if we were to get lots of complaints. And I think, I understand we have a noise ordinance, but I honestly believe that the construction ordinance is tied to noise. So I don't think that that goes so far away since we don't want noise before eight with construction or after. In fact, in that ordinance, it says, that part of the reasons we have those hours is so that there can only be quiet noise done on other hours. And a lot of the construction code has to do with noise. So I think that those hours of eight to five to begin with would be a great start. And that would be my choice. Then, and well, it wouldn't match construction as far as weekends. Deliveries would happen on weekend. And I would like to eliminate or comply with the government investigation, assuming you check that and it's okay to do.

Yes, I think that we can make that change. Okay.

Okay. So those were my two changes.

Okay so I think that leaves me as well to weigh in on the hours question. Again I don't have a strong religion on this but it does feel like we have a noise ordinance and I would imagine the most use that people will make for drone deliveries certainly in the early period is going to be their dinner and so if we restrict it at five o'clock that's going to be very restrictive. And we do have Amazon and FedEx trucks running around our community until 11 o'clock or midnight with all their lights going right now. So this will... to some degree, be substituting for some of that as well, hopefully. So understanding that this will be developed as the industry develops, I would tend to go to marry it with the noise ordinance right now. But again, I don't have a very strong religion on it, and I agree with all of the other amendments that have been suggested.

Can I ask one additional question or bring up a thought? Looking at the enforcement section, if in fact deliveries are too loud or outside the enforcement window, whatever that window might be, It's complaint driven, one, I see. And the second one, the city shall issue warnings, administrative citations, which are curable, right? But just by not doing it. So by definition, they stop and it's already cured. That seems odd. Usage abatement orders, I don't know what those are. But who are we issuing them to? The homeowner who receives the delivery or the company? That seems a little bit cumbersome. It would depend on the violation at issue. Okay. Let's say we make the ordinance to 8 p.m. or 7 p.m. or 10 a.m., whichever we do, or even construction hours. It's outside that window. I mean, is it to the individuals, to the company, based on complaints? The reason I'm saying that is because I don't see a clear enforcement process that has really... effective for the city to actually achieve any change. So based on that, I think the more we can ground it in a broader principle, and I don't mean make it lenient, but make it so that we don't have complaints, arguably, like I said, keep it to that noise ordinance would help us. If we make it too restrictive, we're putting ourselves in a position of under delivering on the violations of said ordinance.

Right, so the facility may or may not, the origin of the commercial drone delivery may not necessarily be within Belvedere, right? So we couldn't enforce it against a non-Belvedere. Nor would they care, necessarily. Right, so in some instances, you only may have the option of pursuing, subject to folks' discretion here, is maybe the recipient of the package. In what form, though?

In what form? I mean, which of those, I mean, what would it actually mean? So you give him a written warning? We could. To do what? Okay, I get a warning. What if I don't stop?

Well, then I imagine I don't want to speak too much for staff or I don't think we have anyone from the police department here. I imagine that there is going to be some escalation. I mean, imagine that.

But it's not it's not a civil. I don't think we're making a lot of this from a from a from a from a civil perspective. I think this is a it's an administrative citation, which is by definition curable. OK, I won't do it again. It's cured.

Right, and it could be elevated to a citation, which could be, obviously, institute a fine. And then it depends, I think, on the nature of the violation and whether it continues to occur.

Can it be elevated to a citation with this language?

I believe so, yeah.

I mean, it doesn't say that. Or other lawful remedy, I guess.

Yeah, I think we're just trying to keep our options open. Again, I imagine the general approach would be to educate the public, first instance. Maybe there's people who just weren't aware of some of the specific requirements. Maybe there's some people who need to be educated by it. And I imagine there'll be some sort of, I guess, progressive discipline, if that's the right phrase.

Okay. My thought about this, and like I said, I don't think either of us, all three of us have a strong feeling about it. The only thing I would say about it is, I think we're sending an odd message to the community if we limit it beyond sort of a structure like a noise ordinance. Because it actually might be a little bit fear-mongering that this is something to be afraid of. Uh, that's, it's going to be concerning and you have to limit the hours beyond what we've already established for broader noise ordinance that relates to cars, you know, respect for your neighbors, things like that. So I would probably err on leaning on something that doesn't already exist. And the community has been comfortable with for 30 plus years, X number of years, how long, however long it's been in place. But like I said, if, if, if I could go either way on it completely.

Well, I hear what Sally says that some, I mean, I don't know, but anyway, in the future, some people may use it more for dinner delivery, food delivery. And so the five o'clock construction probably is too early for something like that, but it just seems that, you know, having the delivery the same Monday through Friday, I think makes more sense than trying to break it up into the weekends. I mean, I don't think people are ordering dinner at 10 or 11 unless they're from Spain or something. And even Spain is changing their dinner hour earlier. I read in the New York Times. So I just think that you haven't met many teenagers recently. No, no teenagers. Exactly.

Okay, are we comfortable moving forward, but with marrying it to the noise ordinance and starting that way and then see how things develop?

I probably won't vote for that, but that's okay. You'll have enough votes and you can move it forward.

Okay, can I ask for a motion?

Excuse me, Mayor, I think we may also want to ask for public comment.

It's my day today. Is there anybody in the room who wishes to make public comment? Seeing none, is there anybody online? I see no hands. Okay. Didn't we already have public comment earlier?

Not on this. Not, I believe, so on this item. I believe we did on the consent calendar. Okay. I can make a motion to approve on first reading the 8.34 ordinance as discussed with the change to 8.34080, we're removing or comply with government investigations, which I believe is the only edit that we've talked about.

No, my edit too.

No, so I think we have at least two more, if you don't mind, council members. So we had the suggestion from council member Carapiet to include the definition of including but unlimited to and to the definition of public access area. Then I believe the third is your suggestion. Exactly.

I forgot my own. With those three edits as discussed tonight.

Can I get a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All against? No. Okay, motion passes. It's rare that we're not having unanimous votes, so that's good. Okay, we're now moving on to item seven, which is other schedule item seven, a is a general general plan 2030. Initial review and updates. And I guess seeing this is Rebecca giving this offer.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council. Tonight, we are reviewing our general plan to ensure it aligns with modern California state laws, while respecting Belvedere's unique character as a built out community with limited land use changes. Our current general plan was adopted in 2010. Since then, state law has introduced critical mandates. Specifically, we are required to integrate climate adaptation and thorough evacuation route analysis into our safety element and update our open space element to address climate resilience. We will also run a screening analysis to see if we need to do the environmental justice requirements. Rather than a disruptive and expensive comprehensive rewrite, staff recommends a phased, module-based approach. Each module, such as safety or open space, will be scoped, reviewed, and adopted independently over the next two to three years. This keeps the workload manageable for staff and gives the public and council ample time to review each piece thoroughly. Our strategy is leveraging work we've already done, including our climate action plan, which contains extensive data on sea level rise, wildfire risks, and wildfire risks, meaning we can incorporate it by reference rather than reinventing the wheel. Because staff and volunteers will lead this in-house using consultants only for highly specialized technical validation and CEQA documentation, we can accomplish this for roughly $50,000 as opposed to a full-scale $1.5 million rewrite, which would also include the CEQA analysis and the seventh cycle housing element per May 2020. 2026 quote that I received. Tonight we're looking for approval on this phase approach and I am available for questions.

Knowing that Kevin and Peter have been involved in this, do you want to make any comments up front? Okay, so let's open it for questions for Rebecca. Pat.

So I get the idea that, you know, we're going to go over this stuff and eventually we're going to have to use a consultant probably to oversee, make sure we're hitting all the check marks and everything else. Are you aware that consultants will be willing to work with this process style?

Yes, I am.

Okay. And yeah, Can you tell us when the last time the city had an EIR?

For the general, I don't know. Was it done with the 2010 one or the seawall? Yeah.

No, a general EIR for the city.

For the general plan.

Not for the project, but for the general plan, yeah.

I don't know. I don't know.

Pat, can you answer that question?

That answer is good. I take that answer. Yeah, because that is the correct answer.

It was not done. You're saying it was not done in 2010.

Anybody else with questions?

My question is, in making the statement it would be done for $50,000, is that, are you saying... I know you said, first of all, I love the module idea, the phased idea, but is that for the entire process or is that maybe for two or three modules at a time and then another 50,000 for the next?

If I'm remembering how I did my estimate appropriate, how I did it, I think I did 15 hours at the consultant's rate of 295 an hour and there's six modules. I can do that again.

No, I think it's actually like per module almost. Really? I don't.

I just sort of came up with that when I was writing the report. It could be more. OK.

It seems a little bit on the low side for something this major. So I just wanted to clarify, but we can discuss that later.

OK. It looks like I did 30 hours per module at their rate. And this was a rate from May at $2.95 an hour.

So this isn't set in stone. You're just giving us an idea of what you think it's going to work.

This was an estimate that I got, yeah.

Yeah. And I think, I mean, if we could do it for 10% of what we would spend otherwise, I mean, I think you estimated it could be as high as 1.5. I mean, there's huge savings, I think, is the net here. So, yeah.

Any other questions? I don't have any, so we'll open it for public comment. Is there any public comment in the room? Seeing none, we'll open it to public comment online. I see none. Okay, let's bring this back for discussion. Who would like to go first?

I'll go first. I've been a strong proponent of taking a much more measured approach to this and doing things in a phased approach to really manage the work required, the investment required, and I think that's approach does very nicely balance, um, effort in with benefit out. So I'm a very strong supporter of this approach and, and I think, yes, the estimate might be a little bit low, but I think it's going to be, um, significantly lower than anything we would have spent if we tried to boil the ocean and do this sort of, um, as one holistic project.

Oh, sorry. She looked at me.

Oh, I'll go. Um, I, as I said, I think this is great. I know we talked about it at the annual retreat, and I thought it sounded great then. So I hope that this would also allow us to update other elements as well, and not just the list that you have, if it seems like there's a reason. And I also think it's important to include volunteers, I would say earlier than where it seems to be in this consistent in the process of the list of six items it I'm not sure where the public comes in. perhaps it's at number five, but I think one thing that's great about this is not to have that enormous number of volunteers that we had in 2010. Although I wasn't involved, it gave me a headache looking at how many people there were. But I do think that there was a really a lot of good buy-in by the community for the construction impact committee that did have several of us who were on there as volunteers right from the beginning. And it was still directed by staff or directed by a consultant or by the city council members, but you had several three or four volunteers resident volunteers that were there right at the start and could really help and get things going. I also think it's, great to have it in this phase module because you could get more volunteers that way. It's not the same group. So you could have four people for one or two and then others could get involved and no one would have burnout for only the three or six months for that module. So I would like to suggest in this workflow vision that we bring volunteers in earlier.

Okay, I also agree. I like this approach. I think as you look at our general plan, taking it in modules and updating it over a period of time versus all at once and is a much more thoughtful and if not economical approach to it. And the one thing I do say is that I think we do have to budget for an EIR. I think the city's long overdue for general EIR for development. And so I would say that we should include that in whatever phase step we go, whether it's tied more to the next housing element. But I think it's an important thing for this city to have that they can reference to. But otherwise, I thought this was a great idea. And I think we should definitely do it. Thank you.

Rebecca or Robert, did you have in mind the idea of doing a full EIRM when you're thinking about doing that?

so okay i believe some of that's addressing the staff report and you can answer yeah so just just briefly So even though we are tackling the project on a substantive basis, piece by piece or module by module, just to be clear, the SQL requirements or whatever SQL documents we're going to adopt is going to be assessed at the end. So once we have a full picture of all the changes, once we have a full picture of the update, then a full SQL analysis and assessment will be done. And then at that point, we can decide whether EIR is appropriate, certainly could be a possibility, or something short of an EIR. We'll just have to see. Okay.

I question that one bit in that depending on the scale of each individual segment, there has to be a SQL analysis with those adopted findings, I would imagine. So based on the scale of them, based on the interpretation, most of them will be handled as an exception or a mitigated declaration of some sort. But there might be a scenario where it might lead to something else, which might lead to non-adoption at that point in time and kicking it down the road until you get an accumulation of more things.

So just to be clear, whatever CEQA needs to be done for the project of this general plan update has to be done before any final approval, of course, of the general plan update. Likewise, CEQA has to be done the whole of the project. It's just piece by piece by piece. So, for example, if there were a project that involved five separate buildings, you want to do SQL building by building by building. We'll look at all five buildings together and decide what SQL is appropriate.

All right. And just being devil's advocate on this, much like we did for the housing element, we could prepare a safety element, update all the mandated requirements and prepared for adoption and adopt it because we're out of compliance. So that adoption would require some SQL evaluation, I would imagine.

Which part?

The adoption of that particular chapter. If we wanted to update and adopt, not just hold in reserve for a cumulative adoption down the road, but adopt that safety element so we're not more years out of compliance, I imagine that adoption would require some secret determination and evaluation.

Yeah, like we did for the housing element. So obviously we did a separate CEQA determination for our housing element or CEQA document that was not an EIR.

Oh, absolutely. I'm not suggesting it requires that, but I imagine many of these phases, if we're getting to an adoption phase, it's going to require some determination.

Right, I think I imagine that we're going to keep that in mind as we move module by module. But again, I think when we look at the whole of the project or the whole of the update, that's when we'll make our final decision on SQL. And then again, final approval that must occur after the SQL is completed. Sure.

No, no, no, no. I think we will adopt them if there's a if there's a circumstance where the changes are such that it goes beyond the intermediate levels of of of secret determination. It requires either a full study or even a significant negative mitigated declaration. We may put off adoption of that element until we can accumulate accumulate a few more.

Right. So I, I mean, you know, maybe this will help. So I think, you know, as we go step by step, I think we can, I'm sure people come with different phrases, provisionally adopt, preliminarily adopt, and sort of recognize that we're ready to move on to the next phase. But in terms of final adoption and final approval of the entire update, that'll have to wait to the end. After we do whatever.

If you keep it, I mean, but if, if, I mean, that's not been our practice to date. I mean, we've, we've adopted elements of a general plan, a climate action plan, as well as a housing element fully and completely without a full review of all the rest of that general plan.

Right. But we weren't touching the other parts of the general plan. And here we are, we're visiting the entire general plan.

Not necessarily. I mean, first phase, if it's, if the safety element, we could, it could be only touching that element.

Yeah, there's certainly, if you, let's say, get through three of the modules and decide we don't need to go to the last couple, and the project that we are undertaking ends at that point, then we can certainly assess SQL at that point. But my understanding is the project that's currently envisioned is more of a, I know not complete update, I know that we want to be streamlined here, but looking at more than one element, more than one module.

to be sure, but I think the goal was to, I think we're, we're splitting hairs here, but I think the goal is, is, is to have it be compliant step-by-step as we go. Sure. And if that, if that can include adoption short of a full, a full EIR, we would do that. We would do so much like the housing L and the climate action plan we've done in previous years.

Right. I understand where you're coming from council member and I believe we will get there.

Thank you. We don't need to finish that. I have a couple of quick questions. I agree completely with some sort of community or residential review committee. And we've got good practice with that so far with some of our subcommittees. They've worked well. And just to ride shotgun to it, see what's going on, and then be a part of the initial planning and then the preparation of the work being done. And then taking on, as Jane talked about, this fifth public review spot, taking on a greater emphasis there with the broader community. But I think that's an important aspect of it. The other... pushback I would have a little bit is your approach to managing entirely through volunteers and staff, you know, council members and staff. Just for our sanity and yours and the time crunch associated with something like this, I really do think you need to sort of at least examine and look further to have some outside services running shotgun on this, running the management of it, just because you may have the expertise. I'm not questioning that. I'm questioning the time, focus, and ability to achieve the schedule we'd like to achieve. Whereas it probably is good money spent to have a consultant, as Pat brought up, if they're willing to do so, which you said they were, to run a coordinated approach. And if it becomes systematized one module to the next, to the third, to the fourth, it might be an attractive engagement to someone.

And that way, Rebecca, you could work on some of the municipal codes because you'd have help on the other thing. Your favorite topic. Sorry, I couldn't.

Rebecca, when do you imagine beginning this whole process? During this fiscal year or next fiscal year? And can someone remind me what we budgeted for in this year's budget for any general plan update? Sorry, that's probably complicated.

I can't remember what we budgeted for.

But in your mind, I know you have a lot on your plate right now, when do you see this process beginning?

I mean, beginning, I think I can reach out to consultants and, you know, sort of wrap my brain around it within the next month or two. I think it, in all honesty, it's really Mallard dependent for me.

Okay. But if we wanted to set up a small working group, would you be looking at the spring or when would we be looking at?

I think in two months is realistic.

Okay. Kevin, do you have any thoughts, comments? Yeah.

Uh, nothing more than I already shared.

Okay, and I don't think I do either. So Rebecca, do you feel like you have enough direction in terms of where we're going from here?

Yes, thank you.

Okay, thank you. In that case, we will close the item and we will move on to 7B, which is discussion and possible action on revocable licenses for new and existing private improvements in the city tied lot for the properties at 310 and 312 Beach Road. Is this Rebecca or Sammy? Sammy.

Thank you, Mayor Wilkinson and council members for your consideration. This evening is a revocable license application to construct a new elevator and wood landing on the city-owned parcel commonly referred to as the strip for the properties at 310 and 312 Beach Road. Both properties are steeply sloped parcels in the R15 zoning district. In 2022, 310 Beach obtained a revocable license to construct new stairs to access the dock. It shares with 312 Beach Road. The new stairs were never constructed. Also in 2022, 312 Beach Road obtained a revocable license to install new landscaping within the strip. That same year, 312 Beach removed a dilapidated staircase that led to the dock. Currently, neither property has safe access to the dock. Any improvement within the city-owned tidelock shown shaded here require that a property owner obtain a revocable license. On March 17th of this year, the Planning Commission granted design review and variance approval to construct a shared elevator along the property line between 310 and 312 Beach Road. The elevator would originate below an existing six inch tall retaining wall located within the rear yard of both properties and would extend approximately 85 feet down slope terminating near the shoreline at a proposed wood landing. The woodlanding would be set on concrete piers at an average height of 18 inches above the existing grade. Because 75 feet of the elevator track and woodlanding would be located on city property, a new revocable license is required. The Planning Commission recommended approval to city council of a revocable license subject to the Parks, Open Space and Lanes Committee being satisfied with the continuation of access to the strip. On March 23rd of this year, city staff, two of the parks and open space members and one property owner conducted a site visit and evaluated public access during the high tide. During that meeting, the parks and open space members and property owners agreed on a design that maintained pedestrian access across the strip. To address the pedestrian access the property owner would modify the height of the existing stairs leading to the dock this adjustment, along with the removal of one existing post at the base of the dock but create a pathway beneath the stairs. During the low tide public access across the area would continue along the beach beneath the dock. This draft revocable license exhibit shows the existing and proposed improvements within the right-of-way shaded. These include loose informal clusters of natural vegetation, dilapidated wood stairs and landings, and a new wood landing and elevator. The relocable license also includes provisions requiring the property owner of 310 Beach Road to maintain the entire shaded portion of the strip below their property, including an obligation to remove any debris and materials in the designated maintenance area. The same provisions would be required of 312 Beach Road for the portions of the strip below their property. Staff recommends the council approve the requested revocable license as a project provides certain public benefits. First, the new concrete piers will stabilize the hillside, which was subject to severe slides in 2006. Second, as mentioned, the revocable license includes provisions requiring the property owner to maintain the portions of the strip directly below the property. staff have added a separate provision in the attached license agreement regarding these maintenance obligations, including a duty to indemnify the city from any claims damages fines or penalties stemming from any debris or material in the maintenance area and Rebecca and I are happy to answer any questions.

Okay, and I know that we have Mark Conroe in the room, who's the owner of 310. Andrew, just confirm for me if and when Mark should be given the opportunity to speak or answer questions.

I think it would be after questions from council, then we can invite Mr. Conroe to come speak.

Okay, perfect. Okay, Jane, let's start with you. Any questions for staff?

Um, So we're talking about an area that's referred to as the strip, but the strip is owned by the city and Belvedere Cove is also owned by the city. So that all of it is considered Belvedere city property, at least the land, not the water. I'm curious where you believe, I feel like there's a little bit of terminology mix up listening to Sammy. I would not refer to the walkway out to the docks as the dock. Traditionally, that would be called the pier where you're walking along a walkway. So I would like to know where the planning department considers the revocable license in relationship to the pier. and where the dock lease in quotes would begin in this scenario.

Jane, do you mind explaining sort of how it's relevant to the question at hand?

I understand the question. Well, I mean, I did some research. So it seems to me that the strip has been used as the end of the RL for other homes and with peers that have an RL and a doc lease so that it's where the strip ends. seems to be where the RL ends. And then the lease begins at that line of RL and the strip, I mean, the strip and the tide lots. Is that something that you agree with? I agree with the first part, but I lost you. I'm talking about the strip and the tide lots. Forget the pier, dock, any of that.

I think we use the strip and the tide lots synonymously.

Okay. So I meant where the strip ends and then Belvedere lands still.

Right. So it's right at the, I don't have the language of the dock lease in front of me, but I would, I'm confident in saying that the strip ends at that dashed line where it says existing stairs.

So where the, and I'm confident it doesn't, but okay. Okay.

Jane, do you mind just elaborating on why this is important for the question at hand tonight?

Well, I think it's important because there's been a lot of statements made about the strip being 80 feet long there, width there, and that therefore The RL ends just at the hill evader. And my question is, wouldn't it also include the stairs? It does. And the landing? It does. So you're saying it would include all the way to the end of the stairs of where it meets the pier? Yes. Okay. Okay.

This image doesn't show that. No, it does. You have to look at the shaded part of 312, right? Because we're looking at the ones in 310 right now. The 312 has everything shaded. There you go. Okay. So the shaded area is what we're looking at in terms of the revocable license. Okay. For 312. Okay, back up one second.

Jane, you made a reference to, I think I understand what you're saying, that the RL covers improvements up to the end of the RL technically, and the lease takes care of improvements from that point forward into the broader property of Belvedere, whether it's recreation or open zone. I know there's an issue about that too, but I'll leave that outstanding for now. But if I'm not mistaken, Our RLs are very specific to design review approved improvements in that RL. Our doc leases identify a structure. They don't identify a specific feet height reference structure. They're not specific to that point. So I'm correct about that, right?

That's correct. They would be subject to design review.

They would be subject to design review, but it's not a particular place or location. The leases don't do that. So I don't know that that paradigm that you're identifying matters here because the lease talks about the broader use of builder property for a dock, period. So it doesn't really care where it starts or stops.

And it's usually a definition to the RL.

It's a definition to the RL. And I think what Sally's point was, where it's relevant here is if there's a structure or if there's an identified improvement that would violate said Roper license. And if there's some structure that would violate it, whether it's outside of or inside of it, yes, we need to define that line very carefully. I don't know that there is in this circumstance, I'm commenting, which I shouldn't comment on.

But so I'd say even with 312, that the stairs are not included, there are stairs that are not included, according to this. And I think my concern is that there seem to have been changes all the way along. In fact, we all got an email with additional changes that didn't go through the planning commission. And I do have a concern that even if we don't capture the entire strip area in the RL, that just as you said, the lease doesn't cover changes that could then go into it where the RL could cover that. So I think that's where my struggle is.

We've also had that question asked for a survey. We don't have a survey. A survey will be required at the time of building permit. If that survey comes back and shows a different circumstance and shows improvements in what the strip or the tide lot, then the project will not get a building permit and it will come back to the city council.

Where is that requirement? Is it in the DR? Is it in the resolution from the design review?

No, but I can't imagine issuing a building firm without a survey for the elevator. We don't have... We don't have a survey, so we will need one for the building permit.

So can I ask one follow-up question on this particular? Of course, so we don't go back and forth. So the strip, I will say the strip, because I know this, is in the VE zone in FEMA. So I believe with the DR, we didn't require them to find out what their nav was. So we don't know where the hill evader sits in relationship to floodplain requirements in the VE zone, which is, I believe, 13 feet. So Is that also going to be addressed when they get their survey, that they're going to have to provide their NAV? And then the elevator will have to meet all of FEMA requirements for a elevator in the flood zone? Yes.

Okay, any other questions? No, I think Pat's got more questions.

Okay, so... All right, staff. So in Sammy, in your staff report, you say, um, applications versus it's on a page for the last paragraph applications for substantial, potentially permanent and or obstructive structures within the city, blah, blah, blah. So substantial. I, I, I feel that's a very undefined definition. So how, I mean, in FEMA, we have a definition of what substantial is, more than 50% of the value of the project, but in this, does substantial need to be there? Shouldn't it be just any, not even potentially, but any permanent and or obstructive structure within the city right away needs to come back to city council so that any quote unquote construction or modification of the RL would have to come back to city council. And I guess that's not for you to decide, but might be.

Yeah, Council Member, that's a good catch. Any new structure would go to planning first and then come back to Council for review.

Okay.

So that would include... Any new structure is by definition substantial. But I don't know that's accurate.

Not every structure would come back based on how this is written.

Well, I think that, I mean, we're talking that, you know... um,

But do we want it to come back?

I think that's in the staff report. I think if there's language that needs to be amended, it should actually go on the license agreement.

Well, I know it should go into the RL. I haven't gotten there yet. But that's where I'm getting to is that in the RL. I mean, I think we need to have that. I mean, you know, OK, so they're not going to build another elevator or stairs or whatever. But I mean, we could start looking at additional platforms or landings or retaining walls that create new usable space for a one or the other or both of the homeowners. So I think that when we're looking at the strip and they're taking responsibility for the strip, we have to be very careful that we're not expanding the use. And I think we need to be very clear in the language that we use so that it's not interpreted in another way.

If you look at number seven in the license agreement, the last sentence says no other uses permitted in the premises without further city council approval. So I think it has what you're asking for. I think it's covered in the actual agreement. Or I know it's covered.

Yeah, and just for context for the council, staff did, given the unique setting of this revocable license, we did endeavor to really strengthen the language in the revocable license agreement to make sure that what is allowed is very specific and also what comes back to city council is also very specific. So hopefully we address some of your concerns council member.

So one of my concerns is, is that we got a lot as commissioner Cooper mentioned, we got a last minute revision for the elevator to go down further. And unfortunately there was not good elevations in order to be able to interpret that or whatever. And if we approve what's before us tonight, I wouldn't want the applicants to be able to make those revisions without us knowing that they're changing the location.

Yeah, I'm sorry, council member. I'm not familiar with what was submitted.

Late last week. Applicants submitted to all the city council another design where they extended the elevator down further, made the stairs shorter. And I think the landing was kind of the same. It's not before it was presented to us. I don't know if that's on the.

Yeah, I'm sorry. I just haven't seen this. I'm just catching up.

No, Sammy, do you want to mention that? I mean, I asked you directly. It's like that hasn't been reviewed or approved by planning. That was just forwarded. That was just a correspondence from the applicant.

But the applicant asked that staff be able to approve that after we approve this revocable license. And I don't think something like that should take place. Again, this is an opinion, not a question. But my question is related to allowing construction and things after we approve.

I think on that point, council member and council, perhaps we can ask Mr. Conroe what his intention was in sharing that revision. And we can see what his plans are about moving forward with that. I honestly don't know.

And actually in seven, I did have, I did catch that's where it was, where it says no other use is permitted. And I, well, that's an opinion. So I guess I shouldn't say that now. Okay. And then I think, oh, my next question is, I believe that we have a new policy that we're not recording the revocable licenses until the building permit is pulled. That we're not recording the revocable licenses until the building permit is pulled.

We require revocable licenses to be recorded before we issue a building permit. Is that what you're saying? Sorry.

Well, no, the question is, I thought we were not going to allow revocable licenses to be pulled until they were ready to pull their building permit. So we didn't have revocable licenses approved and then no, not specifically related to them, but then no project gets built, but they have this revocable license that...

I see like 135 over there.

And several others. So I thought it was a policy. Maybe Robert could chime in on that. I thought it was going to be like, that's what we were going to do going forward is not requiring this record it within 30 day clause.

Okay, well, then we'll have to change our conditions, but our standard public works conditions, but I'm fine with that.

Robert, can you comment on that?

I think given, you know, a couple of instances where it has been a problem in the past, we approve something, record it, and it doesn't get constructed. I think that'd be an easy way to clean that up.

But so this isn't an adopted policy yet. It's just a discussion.

It's yeah. There's sounds like there's still some work we have to do on it.

Okay. Pat, do you have more questions?

So my last question was on number six. I think it's, well, maybe it's number seven. I'm not looking at the revised one. So let me look at the revised one. No, it's number six still. So number six says that the city manager at his or her sole discretion may immediately terminate and revoke the license by yada yada. And then in, now this is gonna change here. It was number nine. Well, in the old one, it was number nine. It says it's still number nine. Okay. Not withstanding any other provisions, the license can be revoked by city council at their pleasure. So my question was, is does number six and number nine conflict with each other? Or is it that number six city manager is able to do something quicker? And if it was a more, I don't want to say life-threatening, but.

So council member, I believe number six and number nine have slightly different mechanisms or slightly different scopes is what I should say. So number six allows the city manager to revoke if there's a failure to comply with a term of the license agreement. And then number nine is much more discretionary to city council about whether they want to revoke the revocable license, whether or not anything has been violated, but for any other public policy reason.

Great. Perfect. Thank you for explaining that. That's it. Okay, any other questions?

Yeah. Sorry, I just need a clarification. So what Jane had raised in terms of that small piece of the stairway that is outside of the strip that the RL covers. So what covers that? Well, but it's shaded. So you're saying what's shaded is what we're approving.

The RL covers what's shaded and there's a small portion outside of that shaded area.

So what covers that?

not the revocable license.

Okay.

If, if in the cert, I guess what my question was, sorry, Kevin, that was it. I was just confused as to, so I guess my, my concern is that it seems to me that in other revocable licenses on the strip, they include the entire strip in the RL. And then the dock lease goes beyond whatever is in the water beyond that. Okay. So to me, the discrepancy is that the way it's drawn, it's incorrect where the strip ends. And so it's showing the stairs outside the strip or the shaded area. But in fact, the strip, given the original documents way back in the last time a survey was done, it shows that the strip actually goes almost all the way to the dock along the pier. So it would capture the stairs if you use the correct dimensions of the strip. So you're saying in the survey, they will do the correct dimensions of the strip and then the strip will be in the, all of it will be in the RL with the lease covering the next part. Is that correct?

Partially. If the survey comes back and shows other improvements in the strip, then the RL will come back to council for review again.

However, let me just, but let's back up a sec. The structures loosely defined in contemplated by the RL and the lease are governed by this property's design review approval. The specific dimensions, specific heights, specific references to the structure is its design review approval independent of where it lies.

But we're in charge of the RL.

As a use, not as the structure. The design review takes care, correct me if I'm wrong, the design review takes care of the structure in wherever it lies. our approval of a revocable license is for this use in this space defined by what's been approved in design review. As is the lease, wherever it begins or ends, it allows for that use in this space as a lease, referencing the design review approved for the entire structure, no matter where it lies. So what we're being asked to approve tonight, I believe, is to certainly, from a de novo perspective, I imagine, re-examine the design review approval of that, but to approve the design review that was, and the specific use in the revocable license area. which in my opinion, relative to the lease, whether it exists or not, I don't know, doesn't really matter where that line is. Because unless we have a problem with the design review of that structure, whether it's in the lease area or whether it's in the license area, it doesn't really matter because we're approving this revocable license area specific to this use.

Andrew, can you just confirm whether that's your understanding as well?

Yeah, that's my understanding as well. Although I think I may have, I just did want to clarify one other thing in what you shared, council member. And I completely appreciate your distinction between use and structure. So just to be clear, design review approval is not before you tonight on appeal. It's just the revocable license, which as you mentioned is the use, not the structure. The structure is subject to design review approval at the planning commission level, which could it be appealed to its council, but it's just the use that is before you tonight.

So are the stairs a use or not?

I mean, the stairs technically are both, but the component of the stairs that are before you tonight are the use of the property, use of that portion of the strip for stairs.

And I'm saying that the stairs should be in the RL therefore, because that's what covers use.

Right. So the stairs are, but I guess you're focusing on to what extent the entire stairs.

Correct.

All stairs. Not just part of the stairs. Right. So, and I believe what council member Mark's comment was, it's not really the structure that is not some of the stairs, there's all the stairs. That's not what before council in consideration of this RL, it's just the stairs period. Correct. Right. The use of the revocable license area for stairs. but the structures, a piece, half, the entire thing, that's not really before council. Okay. If I understood your comments, Council Member.

Okay. Andrew, should we have Mr. Conroe come up and speak first, or would you rather I do public comment first?

I think we should let Mr. I would suggest letting Mr. Conroe speak. All right, Mark, please come to the mic.

Thank you.

Good evening, honorable mayor, vice mayor, city council members, staff. Thank you for letting me come before you tonight. It's been a long time coming. About a year ago, we started the elevator approval process. Six months ago, we got approval through city council, and here we are tonight. I wanted to make three points, and I do want to touch upon trying to answer the questions because I think I can disentangle the misinformation, and it's much simpler than that. we're all giving it credit for. But let me make my three points first. First of all, we worked with staff over the last year to minimize our use of the strip. We're reducing our use of the strip by over 50% or what's been used the last 50 years, 50%. Related to over the last, recently in the last week or two, we've continued to figure out and look at ways to reduce our use of the strip further. The stairs that are being referred to repeatedly have been there for 50 years. There's no new stairs being built. The only thing that I put before you was in an effort to further reduce our use of the strip, we could extend the elevator a few feet, maybe seven feet down and cut the stairs down that had been there for 50 years. This would remove an eyesore. It's up to you whether you want to defer this to staff or have us come back to move the stairs or the elevator down the hill a few feet. but that was the intent is just to preview that with you. It's true that that was presented to you and staff just a few days ago, because that's when the idea came up. But again, all it is is extending a hill elevator that's going about 80 feet, maybe 84 feet, and recutting the stairs down that had been there for 50 or 60 years. I hope that clarifies the stair question. Second point, we've confirmed with staff and this was covered in the comments made by staff that public access is provided along the beach at both high and low tide. Third, we're providing the public benefit taking responsibility for 100% of the strip that abuts our property versus the 5% or 2% that we're actually using of the strip. So basically we're taking 100% of the responsibility. And what I hear people saying is you can't really use it, but you have to maintain it. So that'll be an interesting trick. How do you maintain it when you can't touch it? But, and I guess in the bottom line is responsible if anything bad happens. Regarding the whole question of the strip, I would just have you look at two documents. First of all, it's the 1896 deed. If you read that, as I have, and I've spent many, many hours looking into this, the definition of the strip, or whatever you want to call this piece of land that was deeded in 1896, says you go to the the lines that were established by the tide lots in 1871, 20 years, about 20 years before, 25 years before 1896. They mapped out and formed a boundary on the tide lots. The 1896 deed says take that tide lot line, then go and take the line that was mapped by Belvedere Land Company for all the lots in Beach Road. And the land between that tide lot line, which is presumably up against land and the houses, that is the strip. It's true that no one, including ourselves, has gone to the trouble of surveying this city land, but that is the definition of the strip. It's between the tide lots that abut the island and our backyards. So I would just refer you, and again, I shared with I think you guys in my email that legal description of 1871 tide lots, which show that we're abutting one of the tide lots. So I think the only little piece to do on this to put this whole thing to bed is to survey and show where the heck the tide lot line is at the bottom of the hill. Is it just above the rip raft? Is it just below the rip raft? I'll bet dinner for the council that's not 50 feet in the water. Reference was made to a survey. No survey was done that shows the Marin Maps line. That's just an error showing that the strip extends 50 or 60 feet into the water. I would be, like I said, I'll... I'm not sure what the bet is, but I can imagine that as correct. Everything I've looked at shows it's the bottom of the hill. But again, a survey would put that to bed. I think that's all I have to say. But again, I'm happy to answer any questions. And I appreciate the time coming before you this evening. And hopefully we can get... move forward and as we have been for at least a year to try to get access to the dock so we can maintain the dock. The one last thing actually I will say, cause there was a question about the relationship of the lease to the revocable license. Revocable license is for the strip. I believe that's the hillside. The lease, if you read the lease legal description, it'll say, it'll refer you to the tide lot that abuts the strip. So these two pieces fit together. So the lease refers to basically the water and then the including the uh some of these stairs some of the stairs connect to the the walkway on the dock so those are outside the strip as was pointed out and some of these 50 year old stairs are in in the strip i'm not sure if that's determinative or anything or important but that's how that i think these two pieces fit together thanks and i'm happy to answer any questions

Does anybody have questions for Mark? So I have one question for you and I think it could have been by staff, but I didn't ask it. So in the RL, you're doing a new landing and a existing landing. So I guess I just want to clarify that when you come off the hill evader, you come down the hill evader, There's a square here. You're considering that one landing. Is that the new landing?

Yes. Basically, it's maybe a three by three or four by four pad that you step off the cart onto some land that's a wood platform not there and it immediately connects to the wood platform that is there.

Okay, so there is a wood platform because the stairs from, sorry, Peter, the stairs that had been existing were on 310, went down the far side of 310, and they came over.

And they connected to a wood platform, exactly. And you can go out there and see this wood platform. It's out there still. So that's the one that goes to- And that's the one we connect to. So let's say that's a four by four square, and then we have a three by three square, and these two squares will attach to each other. That's why we ended the elevator there is because that's where the historic stairs- ended and the landing was to connect to. That's the logic of why the elevator ends there, because that's where the former stairs ended.

Okay. Okay. And I think when we talk about the strip, I don't think we're saying you can't touch things. I think we're just saying that we don't want development and improvements going on. So, I mean, you can touch all your plants and you can touch your stairs and everything else, but... We don't want you to start doing other construction and things like that. So that's what we're talking about. We're not talking about creating new uses.

I hear you. And that there is no plans to... build a tennis court out there or anything or any improvements or any structures. We do need to figure out how to access because it's a 45 degree slope. So walking along 45 degree slope to plant things is the thing you have to kind of make some trails to try to access that hill. So that'll be something we'll come back to staff and discuss and maybe that'll pop up on your guys' radar too.

We're always here. Any other questions from council members?

No, but I think since Mark raised the issue about where the lines actually are, I'd wonder what the city's response to that is just because now that's entered into the public record. So he's asserting that we don't know where the strip begins and ends.

I was under the impression that Mark's He thinks he knows where it begins and ends. But again- No, no, no.

It's the cities to determine, not the applicants. So I just want to be clear.

He will be required to have a survey for his building permit, which will- Which will define where the strip begins and ends.

Yes. Okay. And then one other question, just based on the staff report on page four under future improvements, I don't think that is actually conveyed to staff in the RL and I don't think it's in the APM either. And so I just wanted to note that. So what it says is these revocable licenses cover any future improvements within the revocable license area that receives staff or commission design review approval. and meet once or more, one or more of the criteria for approval. But if you look in the RL, that language isn't included. And if you also look in the APM, that language is not included. So I don't think just by including it in the staff report conveys that authority. That's it.

That's correct council member. In this instance, the language and the revocable license agreement itself would control and going forward, we'll certainly keep an eye on that kind of language in future staff reports.

But what that would say is that if there's any future improvements, therefore, if there is a contemplation of changing the improvements, then what is the process that needs to follow since that's not now been defined?

Well, it depends on the nature of the user structure at hand. It could require further planning commission approval for design review, or if it's another use in the real equal licensure, it could require further city council approval in addition to that.

Okay. And I mean, that's not just about 310 and 312. I think that seems like it might be an issue for RLs in general.

Yeah, I think that's very fair. We'll make sure that we clarify that. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, Mark, thank you. I don't leave you standing up there. So take a seat. We'll let you know we have further questions at all. Okay, let's open this for public comment. Is there any public comment in the room? Seeing none, is there any public comment online? No. Great. Okay, let's bring this back for discussion. Peter, let's start with you.

I actually have a question for staff, quick question.

Sure, go ahead before he starts. So my question was, is that in the past when we've had a few other docs, well, recently on Cliff and then some along Beach, When they did, and I guess West Shore we can throw into, when they modified their docks, they had to modify their lease in that way. you know, there's a new exhibit to show what actually is there. I mean, the lease has actually been rewritten. I mean, it's the same, you know, lease terms and everything, but it's rewritten. So my question is, should we be requiring a modified, I'll call it, lease agreement?

That one's to me... I think it's a good suggestion. That's something that I want to say we've looked at initially and we had an action item on it, but that is part of our review for this particular project is to determine whether or not a new dock lease is required based on the new construction terms. Okay.

So that comes with what building permit or, I mean, I know there's one on beach. I don't know if it was 270 or if it was one a little bit down from there that has a was, oh, I don't know, maybe now eight, nine, 10 years ago, it was completely redone with the new date.

Yeah. And this particular dock lease, it's not separate for each property. I believe it's a shared single dock lease that applies to both properties, 310 and 312. So we'll look at that again. Oh, okay. Yeah.

All right. That was the question. And okay. That was it. That was my last question. And I forgot.

Andrew, did you look like you wanted to comment?

Yeah, I would just say at this point, I'm not aware of any need to amend the dock lease. And I don't believe that's necessary based on the revocable license, but happy to take another look as a city manager explains.

Well, I think we need to update the exhibit to show what their lease covers. I mean, they're going to have a new dock. I mean, there's exhibits that are attached to the lease so you know what they have permission for.

There is a exhibit. It's a pretty... Well, it's old. Basic diagram, I would say. I apologize, you don't have a copy, but it's really just a couple boxes.

I would think it would be something the city will look into because there are newer... We've modified leases that follow the lease. that have new exhibits and there's one on beach. I don't know if it was 270 or one a couple doors down and I can find it and I can forward it. But I think that it's important when we're modifying what we're modifying that it's clear in the lease exactly what the lease includes. and exhibit and not the old chicken scratch thing that you have from the 70s or 60s.

Sure, we can certainly take a look to see if any changes are necessary.

Okay.

Thank you, Council Member.

Thank you. Okay, comments. I just wanted to start off sort of at 30,000 feet, which is, I wanna be careful or caution us not to sort of establish policy on the fly here that I think we need to look at this application for what they're asking and specifically reference what is before us tonight. The... As I said before, just a quick comment on where the line lands. There's a design review that covers from the top of the hill all the way down to the end of the dock. Specifically, where that line lies, realistically speaking, it doesn't really matter for these purposes. It may matter from a policy perspective later on. It may matter from a public use later on, but the structure is what the structure is, and that's been reviewed unless we choose to change that for specific reasons. But where that line exists, and I don't believe that Mr. Conroe's comments establish that line on the public record, nor do ours, it needs to be validated with a certified survey. So I'm not totally concerned about where that line is at this point in time, because what we're looking to do is approve the use within the RL area and the lease, whether it get amended or not, should it be needed to be amended, we'll take care of that use beyond that point, whether that line is up the stairs or out in the middle of the walkway towards the dock, the pier as Pat called it. So, and then another point about improvements in this area, again, under the heading of establishing policy on the fly, we have a longstanding, either a policy, broadly speaking, or an approach that should someone wish to change an improvement in an RL area, if it meets design view exception or exemption statuses, that doesn't require a change in revocal license. So we don't want to change that here and require any modification whatsoever to come back to us and change the license because that's establishing policy where we have not had that circumstance before. So I would just caution against that. And I think the language in the in the amended. local license is fine the way that is. It makes it clear what the use is and how that is going. I think this boils down to sort of the three points that we've heard tonight, that the planning commission, the staff and the applicant have worked hard over a number of months to come up with a design that is minimal on the property, achieves the goals of accessing their improvements at the water side. And again, produces the smallest impact on the city's property as possible. There's a clearly defined public access down there at low and high tide. And as our parks open space has increased, attested to, and that I think there's a clear public benefit, not only for this applicant to reach their improvements, which is part of a RL requirement or the reason for it, and the public benefit of obviously deferring liability for the city and securing a better founded and better maintained RL area. So I can make the findings to approve this as stipulated.

Kevin. Sure. Let me, I'll get to the answer first and then I'll give a preamble. But I mean, I agree with Peter in terms of, I think this is a very thoughtful use of the space and I don't have any issue with the proposed plan. I do want to make sure if there is any adjustment made that the public access is maintained as was intended. Again, there isn't a side elevation. I know you haven't approved that, submission. But again, I would just encourage you to do it. I do think if we are, you said we're going to have a survey, a survey is required. I think that will be helpful. And so my thoughts are conditional on that as well. I don't agree with Peter in terms of, we shouldn't refer to it as a policy in terms of how we've been approaching RLs in the past, because it's not technically a policy as we just discussed. It's not in our APM or our code. It's a practice. And those are different things. I think, and again, this has nothing to do with 310, 312. I mean, RLs have certainly become much more popular. There's a lot of debate and discussion around RLs recently for many different reasons. And I think that's something that we're going to discuss at our retreat next year. However, I think given, you know, the city couldn't necessarily say we've got a really good governance practice in place to monitor what happens in RLs. I think we should err on the side of being very conservative. I mean, if we look just further down the strip, I mean, there's a small home that was built in the strip and we didn't know about it. And so I think my advice would be for us to be more cautious and conservative and at least in the near term, not give more authority than the policy or the code provides until we have the time to step back and really reassess things. But again, going back to the question at hand in terms of 310 and 312, I can certainly support approval of the RL.

Okay. Thank you. I can also support it based on Kevin's criteria or comment about the survey occurring. And I would like to thank the applicant for lifting the stairs so that passageway can occur along the strip area. That was a really nice change. And I'll also, whether this is a policy or not, I think what I'm suggesting is that we actually follow what we've been doing in the past and the RLs for the other homes, have included the entire strip. The lease starts after it. So I think not paying attention to where the dimensions of the strip are would be changing the way we've been doing it historically. So I'm suggesting we continue doing it the way we've been doing it and not change it. So I think it is important to know that the entire strip will be in the RL.

So I want to thank the applicant applicants for going through this process. We take our city property very seriously and I too can support the RL. I think that I don't know if we need to put the survey into subject to a survey or something like that in the RL to make sure that this is done. I don't know how that process is, but I definitely want to have the survey. I think it would be good to establish exactly where the strip is legally with a survey. Also replying to Peter's comment is that the strip is very unique. And I don't, and I, it is governed by a revocable license, but I think the considerations that go into the revocable license for the strip is a little bit different than a revocable license for driveway or for landscaping. along the city roads. And I think it needs specific consideration, language, and conditions when we do look at the revocable license. And And I agree. I mean, there's nothing written anywhere. And so it's not really policy. It's just been the attitude. And it's just been probably within the last 10 years that revocable licenses just weren't cookie stamped. So with that being said, I can't approve this. I would like to see in number eight, the elimination of the revocable license being recorded within 30 days because we have for several reasons one we have the survey we're going to deal with to establish exactly where the revocable license know where it starts, but where it ends and have it recorded prior to the building permit, or at least maybe to confirmation with the survey, that might be a good way to get the survey in there. And then in number seven, where it says no other use. I'd like to have folks consider adding no other use, alteration or construction, No, wait a minute, where are we? Gotta look at this one here. No other use alteration or construction is permitted in the premise, yada, yada, yada. So I would like to have those just added just for additional clarity and specifically because it is in the strip and it is, I think needs to be handled different. than someone coming in and saying, I wanna add a tree or I wanna do this. I think it needs a little more definition to it. So I can make those with those modifications. And if everybody else agrees, that would be good.

Can I just touch on one thing? Rebecca, correct me if I'm wrong, but I would imagine that in our design review provisions, in the municipal code, there's a very specific time and place and description of a design review exemption and exception. And I don't know that it distinguishes between RL areas or non-RL areas, and it's related to design review. So if this applicant... this property owner or either of the property owners wanted to do something substantive, anything that desires designer view above four feet landscaping or something like that, it would follow those designer view exception and an exemption municipal codes written as code, not necessarily policy. So, I don't know that we want to or can add additional restraints on their already existing right to further develop this property within the guidelines of design review provisions. So we will be adding an additional constraint on this property beyond what's already in our code, if we were to say what Pat just described.

But if he changes the RL, this has only to do with the changes in the RL. This doesn't have to do with construction up at his house.

This is just for- But all those RL structures require design review. They're all subject to the same thing, whether it's in the RL or on private property. Because the chapter 19 and 20 don't differentiate between where the structures are located.

So clarify for me then, please, that- We approve this tonight and next month they get their survey and they come in and they say, okay, we wanna extend what was five feet, 10 inches now to maybe seven feet down the hillside. That would be able to come in as a design review exception. And that extension in a different area, For the actual construction of the elevator would not come back to city council.

For a two foot extension of elevator track. That's what you're asking. Would it come back to council? Most likely.

No, I didn't say two feet. I said five feet, 10 inches to seven feet. I didn't say two feet. I said five feet.

From five to seven feet. Say seven feet. What is seven feet of foot extension?

No, it would not come back. Even at the waterfront.

If it's in the same area of the RL and they're shortening the staircase to get five feet or seven feet of elevator as opposed to stairs, it most likely would not come back to council.

I mean, take this out of the RL. This is some property on Edgewater and they have a dock. proposed or a waterfront improvement, and they want to extend it by two feet to the left, but they're well outside of their setbacks. And they come to planning and say, we want to make this change to our design review. First thing Sammy and Rebecca do is determine whether it's exempt or whether it's an exception or whether it should be elevated to the planning commission. Based on the significance of that improvement, they would make that determination, run it by the planning chair and get sign off on it. It's no different in the RL. It's the exact same process as stipulated by our municipal code.

But it is, there is a nuance though that's different than just standard is that the RL only conveys their right to the specific structure. So let's say if they decided to, a future improvement was halfway down the hill. And again, sorry, Scott, you're now getting caught up. If they wanted to have a rest stop because they just did or whatever, and they wanted to add something, well, that's not actually in the RL. That would be a new, they would need a new RL because that's a different- No, they wouldn't.

They would need a new design review.

No, they wouldn't. They would also need an amended RL.

They're adding a different type of improvement than the stairs or the elevator or the landscaping or the landing. We would determine what level of design review, and it would take a new RL. It would take a new RL, correct. If it's a new improvement. Back to the improvement.

Otherwise... Because it's specifically noted what they are being given right to build.

Right. Because that extension, to Kevin's point, that extension, for instance, of that hillivator, don't do it, goes down. It's not in the RL anymore.

No, that is in the RL because the RL doesn't specify the length of the hillivator. It says they are allowed a hillivator. So I think, no, that is discretionary review by the city.

And should we be defining the length of the hillivator?

Not the RL gives him the right to have.

I mean, you're really looking at the use in the RL area. You're looking at the elevator, the landing, the existing landing, the new landing and the stairs.

We're conveying the use of the elevator.

But then it would be two new landings because he wouldn't be using the old landing. Sorry.

If it was a new improvement, it would come back to council. A different improvement than what has been approved. Different use.

Okay. Let's try and put this to bed. I can also make the findings to improve the RL. Staff, is it clear the changes that are necessary within the RL, which I think is just the elimination of this 30 days based on the conversation that we've just had? Are there any further changes? The RL as currently described other than eliminating this 30 day requirement, it is as it stands is fine, correct? Yes. Okay. Can I get a motion from somebody?

I'm sorry, I missed that. So the 30 days standing?

Removed. Okay.

Council member. Okay.

can i get a motion to approve i move to approve can i get a second second all in favor aye aye thank you to the applicant for their time um and we will close the item okay Okay, we're moving on to our last substantive item of the night, which is item 7C, which will hopefully move quicker, which is the discussion and possible action on a revocable license for new and existing private improvements in the public right-of-way along 180 Beach. Rebecca, is this yours?

Yes, thank you, Mayor Wilkinson and council members. For your consideration, this evening is a revocable license for an existing and new driveway, existing carport roof, stone curve and landscaping. On July 11, the city granted design review exception for small addition deck extension elevator and window and door changes. The city council reviewed a revocable license application for a curb and new driveway pavers at the July, 2026 meeting. There were discussions about the pavers encroaching into the right-of-way, the curb location, the existing driveway and the parking space. The applicant has revised the revocable license application so that only the new improvements in the right-of-way, the only new improvement in the right-of-way is the driveway. Here, the license shows the existing curb, planting, carport, roof, and existing and new driveways. Staff received an email this morning from the homeowners and would like to clarify that the homeowners are okay with the application as is presented to council tonight. And tonight staff is recommending the findings for the RL can be made as the project benefits the public. Without use of the public right away, the property owners would need to park along the adjacent beach road, which has been recognized by the Traffic and Safety Committee to be a pinch point on the island. This roadway segment often backs up with multiple vehicles and has minimal places to maneuver. The project would improve traffic flow, resulting in better access and egress for first responders and residents. and I can answer any questions should you have any.

Okay, do council members have questions?

I just have one question and I think it's a clarity question. Sure. On the actual revocable license, it says within the Beach Road right-of-way existing include a curve which should remain and new pavers. I think the new pavers is maybe supposed to change to driveway.

In the language of the license? Is that what you're...

It's in the revocable license. Yeah. In the revocable license, in the beginning, it says existing, and then it goes on to driveway. And then it talks about existing include a curb, which would remain in new pavers. I thought the material was concrete.

Thank you for catching that. Yes. That is not correct. Thank you.

Peter, nothing. Anybody else? Okay, let's open this for public comment. Is there anybody in the room that wishes to make comment? Please identify yourself.

Council members, Alec Wilson, the architect for 180. Hold on. Alec Wilson, the architect for 180 Peach Road. I just wanted to add clarity to that, which is this is a driveway, which will allow our clients to park their car off of the street and the private parking space will be completely off of the public right of way, allowing much easier pathway, which I have been stuck in many times myself. So basically we're creating more space to allow the city to remove a public parking space on the street and give potential for two cars to pass each other at this location. So it's just a triangle of access.

Great. Thank you very much. Do you mind, Alec, just hold on for a second. I think Peter has a question.

Alec, just real quick. That triangle that we're referencing and then the spot where the car is itself, is that all asphalt?

Right now, that's the design reprocess we'll review with the design application. Okay.

I asked staff and they told me it was concrete.

That's where we're proposing, which we will propose that.

Thank you so much. Claire McCullough, come on up.

My name is Claire McAuliffe. I live at 229 Beach Road and I am here to speak in favor of the approval for the design review or for the RL for this project at 180 Beach Road. For a number of years now, I've been directing traffic myself with the big trucks going by and this design seems to be the best that we can have for keeping more and more trucks moving smoothly along Beach Road. I hope you'll approve the access to this. And I understand it's now design review for whatever the materials will be. Is that correct? That's not before you tonight.

There won't be design review for concrete driveway.

It's just the RL who will decide what the material is for the final

It will be through a design review exemption.

Oh, design review exemption. Okay. I used to know these things. I don't anymore. Anyway, I'm in favor of it. Thank you very much. Thank you, Claire.

Okay, let's bring this back for discussion if there is any or for a motion.

There's no one on Zoom.

Oh, sorry.

Thank you, Rebecca.

Well, I just want to thank the applicants for listening to us last month and responding to us. I think that instead of having pavers that is concrete, it will make people feel like they could duck over a little bit and get out of the way for a car to pass. And I definitely can improve the... application. And I'm willing to make the motion while somebody else wants to.

Okay, Jane, I had one comment about the revocable license itself. And that is, we're all thrilled with the design, and very happy to get a parking space off of Beach Road. I'm concerned that someone might be tempted to park in the RL area. Do you think that's a concern? Should we add no parking is allowed in the RL area?

We've had this come up at other properties. And since the RL is not for parking, then their homeowners are not permitted. Oh, okay. So it's understood. Yes.

Okay. That was my only comment. Otherwise, I can agree to the RL and make a motion.

I think Pat made the motion. Do you want to second? Oh, second. I'll second. OK, great. All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Motion passes. OK. Too bad you weren't in the beginning.

There's future agenda item.

I know.

Thank you very much for sitting through that very long discussion. Okay, we are moving to item number eight, which is a future agenda items. Does any, sorry, this is an item where city council can propose items for future meetings. Does a council member have a suggestion that we can discuss?

I think I've been doing an awful lot of reading and about the flock cameras. And I would like to suggest that we bring that up at a meeting. We've heard from other residents too.

Specifically, what were you suggesting, I guess, in terms of framing the discussion?

Well, I think it would be important for us to pay attention to the research and to what the discussion is and determine if we believe flock cameras are the appropriate camera here. I know we're tied in with Tiburon, which is an aspect that we'd have to figure out. But I also know that Stanford University has changed their cameras. away from flock and they seem to be having success with the type of camera it is. I don't have it at my fingertips, but I can find, I think I sent you that article. Anyway, it's along those lines.

I would like to see just kind of almost there, October, but I'd like to have a progress report. I mean, it's kind of late this year to get a progress report on how we're doing on our housing. with new homes, ADUs, that type of thing. Just kind of where we're at. I mean, just so that we have a feel for where we might end by the end of the year. You know, just a brief update on that. Like we got... you know, X ADUs, we have, you know, X, Y in process and that type of thing, just so we can kind of see where we're at as we go forward into next year. Because I think we have to give an update to HCD. So it'd be nice to kind of just have a brief idea.

January, 2026 to present. Is that what you're asking? No. Well, yeah.

For this year. Yeah. This year. Well, yeah, this year.

calendar year the calendar year January 1 I mean how many have we produced this planning approval as well as building permits issued I assume yeah okay thank you simple do you want to just put that on consent for next month ideally

That's never that easy, though, as Rebecca and I can attest to. It's a reconciliation hell.

Well, right, because then you get into planning projects that were approved in 2023, but the building permit was issued in February of 2026.

I just want to know how many new projects have come to fruition in 2026.

New projects.

Yeah, so somebody came in and says, I want to build an ADU. Uh-huh. And they pulled the permit. So we have one, two.

I mean, how many people planning plus building? I mean, I think it'll be really limited.

So we're getting into a lot of discussion here, Rebecca. Can you just bring what you think is appropriate on consent and we can discuss it if we need more detail.

I'll talk to you later. I don't want a big thing. I don't want the whole HCD thing. I just kind of want to know what we've done this year.

Going back to Jane's suggestion in terms of the discussion of flock cameras, do others feel an urgency for that, knowing that we might have somewhat busy agendas in coming months or whether that can wait to the new year?

I think there is a lot of community concern about, I mean, Chief Wu has made the statement very clear before that no federal agency has access to our flock cameras. And I think other communities have learned that that's not actually the case. So... Sorry?

No, no, that's- How do you learn that it's not the case?

Because there's been bigger cities to be sure, I'm saying, but there's been federal use of this data without the city's inherent approval because they have the agreement through the organization itself. Or at least that's the hearsay, or that's the rhetoric or the perception. So at least a better understanding of what protections we have for privacy of residents and visitors and so forth, and whether that's something that we can be comfortable with, or whether there's some more draconian, a more cessation of service in order.

Robert, when is the next quarterly review by the police department due? Could you maybe talk to Jason and see whether he can wrap something into that initial discussion and if council members want more after that, we can... Would that be a good starting point or do you think there needs to be more than that? Okay, so let's start with that and then let's see whether we need more after that. Okay, thank you very much. I guess I have to take public comment on this item.

No hands on Zoom. No hands on Zoom.

Okay, in that case, we will close the item. And I think with that, we are adjourned. Thank you.