Belvedere council approves first reading to shrink planning commission, directs staff to refine policy manual changes

The Belvedere City Council on Feb. 10 approved the first reading of Ordinance No. 2502, which reduces the city’s Planning Commission from seven members to five and clarifies quorum and alternate-member procedures.

Councilors debated details of the draft ordinance and companion changes to the Administrative Policy Manual (APM), focusing on attendance expectations for commissioners, who may serve as voting alternates, and the qualifications for alternates. Staff will return with a revised APM and a second reading of the ordinance for final adoption.

Why it matters: The change shortens the commission to five members with a quorum set at three, and allows up to two alternates to be appointed to vote when needed. Council members said the change aims to address recruitment challenges in a small jurisdiction while preserving institutional knowledge and meeting continuity.

Staff summarized the draft ordinance and APM changes at the start of the hearing. The ordinance as drafted: reduces the Planning Commission membership from seven to five; clarifies that three members constitute a quorum; allows the council to appoint up to two voting alternates; and includes language intended to encourage attendance by commissioners. Council members objected to placing attendance language in the ordinance itself, saying it is inconsistent with expectations for other advisory bodies; they asked that attendance expectations instead be clarified in the APM so the rule would apply uniformly across committees.

Council discussion centered on three main points: 1) the attendance expectation language (many members preferred removing that sentence from the ordinance and addressing attendance in the APM); 2) the qualifications for alternates (members debated whether alternates should be restricted to former planning commissioners or whether one alternate could serve as a training position); and 3) term-limit language (current draft includes no lifetime limit; several councilors said they prefer flexibility while encouraging turnover).

Staff and council clarified operational details: the planning commission chair will have primary responsibility for deciding whether to call an alternate for a meeting when needed; alternates will serve only as voting members in the absence or recusal of a regular commissioner; and any APM changes will come back to council for approval alongside final ordinance adoption. Council members also asked staff to consider geographic diversity and a range of relevant professional backgrounds (land use, landscape design, architecture, engineering and similar community development experience) when making appointments.

Action and next steps: Councilmember Mark moved and a colleague seconded approval of the ordinance’s first reading as amended; the motion passed on a voice vote. Staff will prepare revised APM language incorporating the council’s feedback (including moving attendance expectations into the APM, clarifying alternate qualification language, and adding an intent paragraph for alternates that balances experience and training opportunities). The ordinance will return for a second reading and final vote.

Council members and staff stressed that the APM revisions are intended to preserve flexibility while ensuring a working, experienced Planning Commission that can meet quorum and handle the city’s specialized review work.