Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mallard Point Demolition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge city to 'show its work' before Mallard Point demolition permit issued
Summary
Residents at public comment asked the council to pause a demolition permit that would remove 22 homes at Mallard Point until the city documents how each condition of approval is satisfied and provides a stabilization plan and sufficient bond to protect the lagoon and bulkheads.
Several residents told the Belvedere City Council at its July 13 meeting they fear the city is preparing to authorize an irreversible demolition without adequate documentation or protections. Robin Watson, speaking for Belvedere Residents for Intelligent Growth, said the group's attorney had asked the city to "show its work" and to place a July 9 letter asking six specific written confirmations in the administrative record rather than asking the council to deny the permit.
Randi Binstock, a Belvedere Lagoon resident since 1984, asked council members to "slow down and make sure the conditions of approval are truly met" before allowing demolition of 22 homes, calling that outcome irreversible if sequencing or financing stalls. Kathy Storer cautioned that aging bulkheads and an expired Army Corps authorization mean demolition equipment could destabilize waterfront structures, producing erosion or water‑quality impacts: "If those bulkheads are disturbed or destabilized during demolition, we could see erosion, sediment, and water quality impacts in the lagoon that this permit was never evaluated against." Jill Barnett also pressed staff on a code condition that requires "All demolition and site work ... be completed within 75 days of issuance of a demolition permit," asking how the 75‑day clock applies when bulkhead, roadway and utility permits remain unresolved.
City Manager Robert told the council staff believes most conditions of approval for the demolition permit have been met and that the city expects to issue the permit soon, while continuing a weekly working group and posting requested documents to the city's website. Residents said those steps are not enough: they asked the council to require a written, itemized response to the group's six requests, a realistic schedule that accounts for the full scope of required demolition and site work, and a stabilization plan and bond adequate to secure the site if subsequent phases stall. The council did not vote on the permit at the meeting and directed staff to continue outreach and record updates.
