Belvedere Council Denies Mallard Point Bulkhead Appeal, Vows Floodplain Fix

Belvedere's largest housing project cleared a major legal challenge Nov. 9, 2026, when the City Council denied a residents' group's appeal of the Mallard Point lagoon bulkhead permit. Over a special meeting that ran more than four hours, the council first refused the appellant's request to delay the hearing until after the rainy season. It then upheld the permit by voice vote, while acknowledging that the city has not been following its own floodplain code.

---

• Appeal denied: The council upheld the Mallard Point bulkhead permit, with the resolution amended to correct staff errors.
• Floodplain gap exposed: The city has never issued the floodplain permit its code requires. Staff were told to fix the process.
• No rainy-season delay: The council rejected BRIG's continuance request, with Councilmember Jane Cooper opposed.
• Jurisdiction gray zone: The council said it likely lacks authority over two of the three appeal issues but ruled on them anyway.

---

Mallard Point Permit Survives BRIG Appeal

The basics: Belvedere Residents for Intelligent Growth (BRIG) appealed the building permit for replacing a 900-foot bulkhead along the Belvedere Lagoon next to the Mallard Point project. The appeal raised three issues: geotechnical plan Note 3, Note 4 and the lack of a separate floodplain permit.

Why it matters: The fight was over whether the city followed its own plan requirements before issuing permits for a lagoon wall beside Belvedere's largest development. The lagoon is also part of the city's storm drainage system.

Where things stand: Permits were issued Oct. 1. About 180 of the 900 feet of bulkhead have been replaced, and the Fish and Wildlife work window closes Nov. 13. "Staff recommends tonight denying this appeal and upholding the permits," said Planning and Building Director Rebecca Markwick.

• Note 3: Markwick said heavy drilling equipment could not reach the sites while the duplexes stood. Third-party geotechnical engineer Craig Herzog therefore reissued his Sept. 4 memo, which moved the lateral spreading and seismic analysis to before permit finalization rather than before issuance. The plan set's Note 3 text was never updated, which Markwick called a carryover error.
• Note 4: BKF stamped the plans, and Miller Pacific Engineering Group sent a confirming letter Oct. 9.

The city's building official said no other permits will issue until the geotechnical analysis is done. "This is much more scrutinized than any other similar project that we've had in my time here," he said.

The other side: Mark Wolf, attorney for BRIG, argued that the "shall" language in the notes required summary letters before issuance. "An engineering stamp is not letters," Wolf said. Pressed on whether he had an expert opinion contradicting the engineers, he conceded he did not: "The point of the study is to collect the evidence."

Jim Hartall, a public commenter, cited a 2023 analysis by Dr. Karp, commissioned by BRIG, warning about the weight of planned buildings on bay mud. Another commenter read from Karp's July 2023 memo calling multifamily projects on reclaimed Bay land environmentally problematic.

Riley Heard, representative for the Mallard Point applicant, said the appeal "especially at this point, elevates form over substance."

Decisions and stakeholder impacts: Each councilmember said they would deny. Vice Mayor Kevin Burke said of the appeal issues: "I would say they don't rise to the standard that I would need to see in order for me to say that they … are valid appeals, and I would deny it."

Mayor Sally Wilkinson said BRIG found wording discrepancies, but "it didn't demonstrate that required technical reviews were omitted or that the project was improperly permitted."

Councilmember Peter Mark moved to deny the appeal, and Burke seconded. The motion adopts the resolution with staff's amendments:
- Note that the corrected Note 3 reflects Herzog's recommendation.
- Credit BKF, rather than Miller Pacific, as the plan stamper.
- Strike "although this letter was not required."
- Add a finding that the building official reviewed the bulkhead under Chapter 16.20 before issuance.

The motion passed on a voice vote. Individual votes were not called, and no tally was announced.

For the developer, work continues under the existing permits. For BRIG and lagoon-adjacent residents, the geotechnical study remains a precondition before further permits or final approval.

---

A Floodplain Permit That Exists Only on Paper

Why it matters: Belvedere's Chapter 16.20 calls for a floodplain development permit, but the city has never issued one. Requiring it formally would add process and fees to every lagoon project.

Where things stand: The building official, who also serves as floodplain administrator, said the city has no separate form and treats the building permit as the floodplain permit. He argued that a bulkhead at grade is not a structure and does not meet the code's definition of "development." Councilmember Jane Cooper pressed him on that definition.

Wilkinson asked whether siding with BRIG would require separate permits and fees for every lagoon project. The building official said yes. Taken literally, he warned, the code would mean that "if you wanted to change your hydrangea bush into a rose bush, you would need to come see me."

The other side: Wolf said the ordinance is mandatory and that bulkheads fall within its "including but not limited to" language. "I think the far worse precedent would be you don't have to comply with mandatory provisions of the ordinance," he said.

Dr. Rothman, a public commenter, said "the question is whether the procedures are being followed as they are written down in your code."

Who decides — and whether they can: Heard argued the appeal should never have been accepted because plan notes are not building code. The city attorney said the appeals provision covers building standards, state Housing and Community Development (HCD) rules or city ordinances. Because issue 3 invokes a city ordinance, the council had to decide it. He recommended ruling on issues 1 and 2 "in the alternative," meaning the council would decide them on the merits while also finding it likely lacks jurisdiction.

Attorney Barbara Kautz cited Government Code 65913.3, part of state housing law limiting appeals of post-entitlement permits: "An applicant shall not be subject to appeals of post-development permits, nor to a hearing." The city attorney said no court case has yet addressed the statute in this context.

Decisions and stakeholder impacts: Councilmember Pat Carapiet was blunt: "yes, we're not following our code." Mark proposed adding a line to building permits stating that they serve as the floodplain permit. "My recommendation is to deny the appeal and direct our city staff to make our processing conform with our code," he said.

The city attorney clarified that this direction is separate from the resolution. The council stated on the record that it likely lacks jurisdiction over issues 1 and 2. Staff said they had never before seen an appeal of a building permit, and they will return with recommendations for an appeals process.

---

Council Refuses Rainy-Season Delay

Why it matters: The vote made clear that continuances are discretionary and must connect to the issues actually on appeal, especially when the applicant objects.

Where things stand: Wolf asked the council to continue the hearing until late winter or early spring. BRIG had withdrawn its stay request, so he argued the delay would add no cost and stop no work. "The rainy season will test the adequacy of the measures intended to protect the water quality of the lagoon and the integrity of the lands around it," he said.

The city attorney advised that "whether to grant the continuance or not is completely within the discretion of the City Council." Heard called the request an abuse of process that leaves uncertainty hanging over investors. "Let's let the city run the process, not a small vocal minority," he said.

Organized turnout: Residents aligned with BRIG lined up behind a delay:
- Jill Barnett argued the permit issued before required work was done.
- Randy Pinstock cited unfinished backfill and drainage work.
- Robin Watson questioned permit documents posted after issuance.
- Stephanie Hornsall said the appeal was filed before demolition but could not be heard in time.
- Hartall called BRIG a positive "thorn" and urged elected oversight rather than delegation to staff.

The other side: Carmela Davis, housing specialist with Cal Marin Home, a coalition of 40 Marin organizations, cited six resubmittals of the project. "An appellant should not control when its own appeal is heard, particularly after calling for urgency," she said.

Burke said a delay "that objective has nothing to do with these three points in the appeal."

Cooper disagreed: "I don't see a downside for the city or the developer in granting this continuance." She added that she recalled no prior council vote on a continuance and that late requests are normally honored administratively. Staff noted that earlier continuances had been agreed to by both appellant and applicant. Carapiet said "I have flip-flopped on this" and floated a continuance with a defined date as a compromise.

Decisions and stakeholder impacts: "I haven't heard anything that would persuade me that we should not hear those today," Wilkinson said. Mark moved to deny the continuance, and Burke seconded. The motion passed on a voice vote with Cooper opposed. No other individual votes were called, and Carapiet's vote was not stated. Burke and Mark thanked residents as a useful forcing function, while noting that the three appeal issues could not address stormwater or erosion-control risks.

---

Looking Ahead

The city attorney will finalize the amended resolution with the mayor or vice mayor. Staff will return with recommendations on a building permit appeals process and conform floodplain processing to Chapter 16.20. The geotechnical study, which applicant counsel said will come in several months, must be completed before further permits issue. The Fish and Wildlife work window closes Nov. 13.