Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2006-02-06 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/06/2006 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6 , 2006 AT 8:00 P.M. Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor San Rafael City Council Gary O. Phillips, Vice-Mayor Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Barbara Heller, Councilmember Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember Absent: None Also Present: Ken Nordhoff, Interim City Manager Gus Guinan, Assistant City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk OPEN SESSION – COUNCIL CHAMBER – 5:30 PM Mayor Boro announced Closed Session items. CLOSED SESSION – CONFERENCE ROOM 201 – 5:30 PM 1. a) Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation Government Code Section 54956.9(a) Case Name: MHC Financing, et al. v. City of San Rafael. et al. U.S. District Court, Northern Dist. of CA., Case No. C003785 and Case Name: MHC Financing, et al. v. City of San Rafael. et al. (MHC II) U.S. District Court, Northern Dist. of CA., Case No. C043325 b) Closed Session Item 1.b) held at 7:30 p.m. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation Government Code Section 54956.9(a) Case Name: Michael Tompkins v. City of San Rafael WCAB Case #SFO0442607 Assistant City Attorney Gus Guinan announced that no reportable action was taken on Closed Session Items 1.a) or 1.b). c) Closed Session Item 1.c) held at 9:50 p.m. Conference with Labor Negotiators – Government Code Section 54957.6 Negotiators: Ken Nordhoff, Lydia Romero, Adela Gonzalez, John Montenero, Bob Brown Employee Organization(s): San Rafael Firefighters’ Association San Rafael Fire Chief Officers’ Association SEIU Miscellaneous & Supervisory Mayor Boro announced at 10:45 p.m. that no reportable action was taken on Closed Session Item 1.c). ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:14 PM None CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar, as follows: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION Minutes approved as submitted. 2. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of Tuesday, January 17, 2006 (CC) RESOLUTION NO. 11883 – 3. Resolution Approving Agreement with Emanuels RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE Jones & Associates for Legislative Advocacy CITY OF SAN RAFAEL TO RENEW Services (CM) - File 4-3-354 x 113 x 9-3-11 THE CONTRACT WITH EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES FOR LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES ON BEHALF OF THE MARIN COUNTY COUNCIL OF MAYORS AND COUNCILMEMBERS FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 2006 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2006 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/06/2006 Page 1 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/06/2006 Page 2 Approved staff recommendation: 4. Summary of Legislation Affecting San Rafael SB 486. Local Government Finance. (CM) – File 116 x 9-1 Senator Migden - SUPPORT a) RESOLUTION NO. 11884 – 5. Pickleweed Park Community Center Use RESOLUTION TO APPROVE Policies: (CS) – File 12-15 x 4-10-164 x 254 x PICKLEWEED PARK 9-3-65 x 267 COMMUNITY CENTER USE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES a) Resolution to Approve Pickleweed Park Community Center Use Policies and Procedures b) RESOLUTION NO. 11885 – RESOLUTION TO DECLARE b) Resolution to Declare Notice of NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF Termination of the Third Amended THE THIRD AMENDED Agreement Between the City of San AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE Rafael and the Canal Community Alliance CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AND for Joint Use of Pickleweed Park THE CANAL COMMUNITY Community Center ALLIANCE FOR JOINT USE OF PICKLEWEED PARK COMMUNITY CENTER Item removed from agenda at the 6. Resolution Approving the Rental Agreement request of staff. Between the City of San Rafael and Pense Design, Inc. for the Use of the Falkirk Cultural Center for Administrative Office Space (CS) – File 9-3-84 RESOLUTION NO. 11886 – 7. Resolution Authorizing the Execution of the 2006 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE Agreement with Orca Swim Club for Use of the EXECUTION OF THE 2006 Terra Linda Community Center and Pool (CS) – AGREEMENT WITH ORCA SWIM File 4-10-172 x 9-3-65 CLUB FOR USE OF THE TERRA LINDA COMMUNITY CENTER AND POOL RESOLUTION NO. 11887 – 8. Resolution of Appreciation to Vern Doughty, RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO Parks Division Grounds Supervisor, Employee of VERN DOUGHTY, PARKS DIVISION the Quarter ending December, 2005 (PW) – GROUNDS SUPERVISOR, File 102 x 7-4 x 9-3-40 EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER ENDING DECEMBER, 2005 RESOLUTION NO. 11888 – 9. Resolution Approving Recordation of a RESOLUTION APPROVING Correctory Grant of Easement for the RECORDATION OF A CORRECTORY Construction and Maintenance of Storm Drain, GRANT OF EASEMENT FOR THE from Mark B. Bazalgette and Angela J. CONSTRUCTION AND Bazalgette at 31 Palm Avenue (PW) – MAINTENANCE OF STORM DRAIN File 2-4-22 FROM MARK B. BAZALGETTE AND ANGELA J. BAZALGETTE AT 31 PALM AVENUE (APN 15-201-27) RESOLUTION NO. 11889 – 10. Resolution Approving Recordation of a RESOLUTION APPROVING Correctory Grant of Easement for the RECORDATION OF A CORRECTORY Construction and Maintenance of Storm Drain, GRANT OF EASEMENT FOR THE from Richard R. Jenkins and Linda H. Jenkins at CONSTRUCTION AND 37 Palm Avenue (PW) – File 2-4-23 MAINTENANCE OF STORM DRAIN FROM RICHARD R. JENKINS AND LINDA H. JENKINS AT 37 PALM AVENUE (APN 15-201-09) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/06/2006 Page 2 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/06/2006 Page 3 SPECIAL PRESENTATION: PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO VERN DOUGHTY, PARKS 11. DIVISION GROUNDS SUPERVISOR, EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER ENDING DECEMBER, 2005 (PW) – FILE 102 x 7-4 x 9-3-40 For the benefit of the audience Mayor Boro explained that each quarter City of San Rafael employees select an employee of the quarter, and Vern Doughty was the recipient for the last quarter of 2005. He reported that Mr. Doughty was acknowledged at a ceremony held at City Hall last week when he received a gold star and $100. He will compete for the title of Employee of the Year with three other employees; the successful candidate receiving $500 and recognition at the Annual State of the City Dinner. Indicating he was impressed by the number of people who attended Vern’s recognition ceremony, Mayor Boro noted each department was represented which indicated the impact he had on his fellow employees. He commented that Andy Preston, Public Works Director, pointed out that Vern was the only Supervisor in the Parks Division, as opposed to three at one time. Vern was getting the work done in spite of that, carrying a terrific workload and doing a great job. Mayor Boro stated the Resolution of Appreciation spoke to the fact that Vern was conscientious in fulfilling all his responsibilities, from ensuring that the Terra Linda swimming pool operated with the highest standards for the health and safety of the community, to maintaining San Rafael’s 50,000 plus street trees. Reiterating how impressed he was with the spirit of cooperation Vern displayed in the community and the City itself, on behalf of all, Mayor Boro offered congratulations. Vern Doughty stated that each day he does the best job he can with no expectation of something nice like this happening. He stated that it was an honor to be selected Employee of the Quarter with so many other employees deserving similar recognition. He noted that those with whom he works on a daily basis were very supportive, including co-workers, managers, the City Council and in large part, the citizens of San Rafael, all of whom made it very easy to do a good job, and he expressed thanks for the recognition and support. Mr. Doughty also expressed thanks to his wife Shirley, who was in attendance. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Public Hearing - CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE BY 12. THE SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS IN AN APPROXIMATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF SIX MILLION DOLLARS ($6,000,000) RELATING TO MARTINELLI HOUSE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING PROJECT (1327 LINCOLN AVENUE) (RA) – FILE 13-16 x 229 Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened. Stephanie Lovette, Economic Development Coordinator, stated that this was an approval for the Redevelopment Agency to issue tax exempt bonds for the renovation and ownership change of Martinelli House. She explained that Martinelli House, located on Lincoln Avenue, contains 65 units affordable to senior citizens. It was built in 1974 and is owned and operated by Mercy Housing. Ms. Lovette stated that neither the Redevelopment Agency nor City provided any funding for the initial construction of the project. Ms. Lovette reported that Mercy Housing was proposing a transfer of ownership and would put approximately $3 million in renovations to the property, and was requesting the Redevelopment Agency to issue tax exempt bonds to allow this to occur. She indicated that similar bonds had been issued for Lone Palm and also for Bridge Housing at the Belvedere project. The payments on the bonds were solely the responsibility of the owner of the property and neither the Redevelopment Agency nor City was responsible for any of the bond payments. Ms. Lovette stated that pursuant to IRS regulations, the City Council must approve the Redevelopment Agency’s issuance of the bonds. As part of the bond issuance, Ms. Lovette reported that a new regulatory agreement would be placed on the property for an additional fifty-five years. The current regulatory agreement expires in 2014; therefore, there would be a new agreement extending an additional fifty-five years. Ms. Lovette noted that a representative from Mercy Housing was present tonight, together with Steve Melikian, Bond Counsel. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/06/2006 Page 3 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/06/2006 Page 4 For clarification, Councilmember Cohen inquired whether the fifty-five year affordability restriction extended from the 2014 date or the issuance of the bonds. Ms. Lovette confirmed it extended from the issuance of the bonds, i.e., fifty-five years from now. There being no comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 11890 – RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE BY THE SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS IN AN APPROXIMATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF SIX MILLION DOLLARS ($6,000,000) RELATING TO MARTINELLI HOUSE MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT (1327 LINCOLN AVENUE) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Public Hearing - 39 BAYWOOD TERRACE (LOT 11 OF BAYWOOD TERRACE 13. SUBDIVISION) CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT BY LEGALIZING ADDITIONAL UNDER FLOOR AREAS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 300 SQUARE-FEET, NOT APPROVED BY EITHER THE ORIGINAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED02-162) OR THE BUILDING PERMIT (B0408-031); APN: 013- 310-011; PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD 1476 & 1478) DISTRICT; BAYWOOD LLC, PROPERTY OWNER: IVAN LUKRICH OF IVAN LUKRICH ARCHITECT, APPLICANT; FILE NO.: EX05-014 (CD) – FILE 10-7 x 10-6 x 10-3 Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened. Community Development Director Bob Brown stated that Steve Stafford, Planning Technician, would make the presentation, and although he had been with the City for a couple of years, this was his first appearance before the City Council. He pointed out also that Council was in possession of a brief letter of support from the Bret Harte Neighborhood Association. Steve Stafford, Planning Technician, reported that the Planning Commission approved a previous design review permit for a new tri-level hillside single-family residence in the Baywood Terrace subdivision with a maximum allowable gross building square-footage. Building Permits were issued and various site inspections were conducted by the City’s building officials during the construction phase. Mr. Stafford stated that recently, Planning staff conducted a site inspection for the purpose of final Building Permit sign off. During that site inspection, staff discovered approximately 300 square-feet of new under-floor construction that was without building or planning permits. He indicated that these 300 square-feet of additional construction exceeded the maximum allowable gross building square-footage for the subject site. Reporting that the applicant/developer had filed an exception request to legalize these under- floor areas, Mr. Stafford explained that exception requests to the Hillside Property Development standards, including maximum allowable gross building square-footage, require Council approval with the recommendation of the Design Review Board and Planning Commission. Mr. Stafford reported that staff determined the project would have no real visual impacts to either the subject site or subdivision and, therefore, took the exception request directly to the Planning Commission with a recommendation of approval. He indicated that on January 10, 2006, subsequent to much discussion over wanting to approve the additional under-floor construction but not wanting the developer to benefit financially from his actions, the Planning Commission voted to deny the request on a 4:2 vote, unless some type of compensation could be arranged with the community where the developer disgorged the benefit. Mr. Stafford reported that further to discussion, the City Attorney instructed staff that there was no real nexus to justify the disgorgement of benefit conditions; therefore, the exception request must be based on sound findings, as found in the Zoning Ordinance. He indicated that essentially, staff continues to support the exception request in that the project as outlined in the Staff Report is consistent with the General Plan policies and carries out the objectives of the Hillside Residential Design Guidelines, including, but not limited to, that the project did not add visible bulk to the site or hillside subdivision because of its location underneath the existing structure, and also that the project actually improves the natural state. He noted that a patio was approved for the side yard that leads into the main floor of the kitchen area, and this required up to 9-feet high retaining walls on the side yard. These had since been removed and SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/06/2006 Page 4 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/06/2006 Page 5 replaced with a wooden stairway leading up to a small landing at the same location; therefore, improving the natural state. Using slides, Mr. Stafford identified the front elevation of the property and indicated that the side yard was of a considerably more natural state with the removal of the concrete patio. Further slides depicted visual impacts from Hazel Court and Irwin, etc. Mr. Stafford indicated that staff believed the project to be a superior design alternative and recommended that the City Council adopt the resolution approving the exception request legalizing the under-floor areas. Councilmember Miller reported having visited the site and clarified with Mr. Stafford that there was no change in the footprint of the building. Mr. Stafford also confirmed that the ceiling was already in existence, the flooring was put in and the mechanical equipment from the garage was moved to the main floor inside the house. Councilmember Miller noted that a bedroom and bathroom were removed from the top, placing the bedroom down below. Mr. Stafford confirmed that there had not been any additional bedrooms, rather a family room was added on the main floor. Councilmember Miller noted that a large window was added to meet Building Code requirements for emergency egress; therefore, externally, there had been little or no change, rather a betterment. Mr. Stafford confirmed the addition of two small windows for emergency egress. Councilmember Miller confirmed that the two areas of concern were really taking rough area and making it livable. Councilmember Heller noted from the Staff Report that Planning staff visited the site several times and she questioned why this was not noticed. Mr. Brown stated that these were inspections carried out by a member of the Building Inspection staff who was no longer with the City. He indicated he was aware the City Attorney had contacted this individual regarding allegations that he was aware of the change but did not require it be corrected at that time; however, that individual disagreed with that assertion and informed the City Attorney that the inspections were carried out correctly. Mr. Brown noted the area underneath the stairs was not caught and he could not explain the reason as it should have been noticed in the final framing, rather it was noticed in the final inspection by Planning. Regarding the staff recommendation, in light of the fact that it may be a superior design, Councilmember Cohen noted it was an after-the-fact expansion by 10% of the size of the house, and almost the entire 10% was above and beyond what was allowed. He stated it could be that if the design had been brought into the process at the beginning, perhaps it could have obtained approval; however, he was somewhat troubled by the after-the-fact situation. He noted the Planning Commission had spent a lot of time on this and questioned whether staff believed a precedent was being set to encourage people to do as-builts and return later indicating it was superior. Stating they hoped not, Mr. Brown stated the issue was the potential precedent of the additional space versus the difference in design. He believed that had it come in initially, staff probably would not have recommended it and would have required the house to come in at the correct size. The fact that it was built and not caught early on in the construction process, rather at the end, meant staff could evaluate the finished design versus the previous approval and believed they could make the findings that there had been an improvement in design. He agreed this was only the second exception for area, the first being a home built prior to the hillside requirements and subsequently modified, and it was allowed to be larger. Councilmember Cohen referred to the language from the exception at the bottom of page 5 (Report to Planning Commission dated January 10, 2006) and quoted: “Exceptions to the hillside property development standards may be approved by the City Council upon the recommendation of the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission..” and he inquired whether that encompassed both a positive and negative recommendation, or whether it implied a positive recommendation from the Planning Commission. Deputy City Attorney Eric Davis stated it was their opinion that the recommendation could be either way. Ultimately, the decision was for this Council and there having been a negative recommendation did not preclude the Council from taking the recommendation and reaching a different conclusion. Councilmember Cohen confirmed that the City Attorney’s interpretation was basically that it required consideration at the Design Review and Planning Commission levels. Mr. Davis confirmed that their recommendation did not bind the City Council’s decision. Council perhaps had a responsibility to consider their recommendation; however, ultimately, the decision was for Council to make. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/06/2006 Page 5 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/06/2006 Page 6 Noting the interesting choice of words “it was not caught” until after the fact, Councilmember Phillips inquired whether it was the City’s job to catch violations or whether it was incumbent upon the applicant to make certain that in applying, the project did comply with the requirements. Mr. Brown stated there was responsibility on both sides. He explained that the City in providing inspections and customer service for those inspections did try to identify any deviation as early as possible, noting staff favored saving the applicant time and money in that process also. In this case, he indicated it was simply missed; however, ultimately, the applicant was responsible for building the project as approved and being an experienced developer/contractor, they were aware they were bound to the approved set of plans. Councilmember Phillips indicated he understood the City Council did not have the choice the Planning Commission was suggesting, i.e., assess a fee for the disgorgement. Concurring, Mr. Brown stated he believed the applicant had provided some funds to the local homeowners association and this was outside of the City’s process. Should Council decide to disallow this and uphold the hillside standards, Councilmember Phillips inquired as to the outcome. Mr. Brown stated Code Enforcement would be initiated to require that the improvements be removed. Noting this was obviously not very palatable with the Planning Commission, Councilmember Phillips stated he was searching for another approach. He indicated that provided the improvement was not offensive, it made some sense; however, he was not happy with the violation, particularly if the only recourse was to tear it down, which was somewhat extreme in this case. Mr. Brown stated this was what made the issue so difficult. Should it be visible and as impactful a change as that that happened in the County on the ridge above Bret Harte, the outcome would be far different; however, staff’s evaluation was that these improvements were not very impactful, but there were ordinance limitations. Councilmember Phillips inquired whether in Mr. Brown’s view when the applicant applied there was any deceit regarding what the addition consisted of. Mr. Brown stated he could not state the applicant’s motivation. He reiterated that staff found it before the building was finaled, at which point they believed they either had to have the improvements removed or bring the issue through this process. Commenting that the staff report was difficult to read, Mayor Boro noted Mr. Stafford used the term “superior design.” He indicated he did not quite understand that apparently, at one time the applicant was planning to install a patio, with no window from that side of the building; therefore, not only did staff miss the fact that the room was framed, the fact was also missed that the applicant changed the patio and built a window on the building. Mr. Brown clarified that in the initial inspection the fact was missed that a floor was poured and at a subsequent inspection, the fact was missed that this area was walled in and framed for a window, etc. He believed that at least two inspections occurred where the change could have been identified. Neil Sorensen, attorney for the applicant, stated he was accompanied this evening by Patrick Coakley, Baywood LLC, architect Ivan Lukrich, and the structural engineer Diarmuid MacNeill, whom he believed could answer some of Council’s questions regarding some of the circumstances. Mr. Sorensen stated they were present this evening to request that the City Council accept the staff’s recommendation and approve the exception. He submitted a letter and requested that Council look at the exhibits, as he would refer to them in his presentation. Addressing the issue of how this situation occurred, Mr. Sorensen emphasized that there never was any attempt to hide the change/modification to the structure. He indicated that these builders did not take the project through the design review process, rather this was done by others who received an approved set of plans. The current builders purchased the lot with an approved set of plans and had the building permit plans prepared. The structural engineer designed a foundation that in effect created these spaces. Mr. Sorensen directed Council to Exhibit A attached to his letter and explained that the cross-section highlighted in yellow was the uphill retaining wall and floor to the mechanical room, and the uphill retaining wall and floor of the bedroom. He indicated this was on the structural plans submitted by the structural engineer for the building permit. He clarified that the floor, uphill wall, roof, and outside wall of these spaces were, in effect, created by the building permit and there was no plan to hide them. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/06/2006 Page 6 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/06/2006 Page 7 Councilmember Cohen referred Mr. Sorensen to the copy of the plans given to the City Council that indicated “Bedroom 1 – New Location” and he inquired whether this was on the plans submitted to the City or whether it was added for clarification for the City Council. Mr. Sorensen clarified that this was added, together with the notation “Mechanical Room.” He confirmed there was no question that on the building permit architectural plans, these were not identified as a mechanical room and bedroom. Referring to Exhibit B – Letter from Dolmen Structural Engineers, Inc. – Mr. Sorensen stated this indicated that should Council decide this evening that the exception should not be granted, the uphill wall and floor could not be removed, which meant these cubicle spaces would remain, as they were holding up the building. He stated that the wall in the mechanical room was holding up the garage, nor could the 24” concrete and rebar floors be removed, as they were an integral part of the foundation. Mr. Sorensen emphasized that as the building went through the construction process, again, there was no attempt to hide the change. Indicating that a letter from Mr. Coakley, Baywood LLC, was included – Exhibit D – Mr. Sorensen stated that during the construction process, at the first inspection, Mr. Coakley spoke to Mr. Curley, Building Inspector, indicating they wished to make these modifications and inquiring what needed to be done. Mr. Sorensen stated that Mr. Coakley insisted he was informed (Mr. Sorensen understood Mr. Curley had a different opinion) that all that was required was to submit as-built plans at the end, which they did. Looking at the empirical evidence, he stated it appeared that if the building inspector believed these to be a problem as he went through the three or four inspections – sheer wall, framing and certainly, the sheet rock – the project would have been red-tagged or a notation entered into the file. This did not happen, and he believed Mr. Coakley’s version of events was probably the more correct. Putting all of this aside, Mr. Sorensen stated Council’s job was really not to determine what happened, rather it was to look at the findings for the grant of an exception and decide whether it could be made. He believed it could, and noted City staff agreed and had gone through very detailed analyses to show that all the findings could be made to the effect that there was no visual effect from these changes, no additional grading, no more tree removal and, in fact, there were significant benefits, i.e., removal of a large retaining wall and at- grade patio, and an increase in the natural state of the site. As to precedent, Mr. Sorensen believed that as long as the findings could be made there was no precedent. He stated they were not requesting the City Council to approve the project because it was built, rather to approve it because the findings could be made. Mr. Sorensen stated the City Attorney had very adequately covered the issue of disgorging benefits to the effect that it could not be done, which he agreed with. He commented that his clients were good community-minded people and even prior to the Planning Commission they made a donation to the Bret Harte Community Association to assist in their rehabilitation of the local park and they intended to make a further equal donation on resolution of this matter. Mr. Sorensen stated they also paid double fees for the application and would have to pay double fees for the amended building permit, should the project be approved. In conclusion, Mr. Sorensen urged the City Council to accept staff’s recommendation and approve the exception, as the findings could be made, and there was no attempt to hide anything. On the argument of not setting precedent should the findings be made, Councilmember Cohen noted that some weight was given to the fact that a lot of improvements were already made; however, he questioned whether approving the project after the fact raised some issues, and he inquired how this could be addressed. He stated this went beyond whether Council could make the necessary findings, as these findings should be made going through design review rather than after the fact. Mr. Sorensen noted Mr. Brown’s remarks that in looking at a two dimensional plan at the beginning, staff might not have approved the project; however, in looking at the finished project, the findings could be made. He noted also the added benefit of increasing the natural state on the site by the removal of the patio and retaining walls. He believed this, together with the fact that the findings could be made, were adequate to overcome any fear of setting a precedent. Councilmember Phillips inquired when Mr. Sorensen’s client discovered they had gone beyond the limits and standards. Responding, Mr. Sorensen stated that subsequent to Mr. Stafford’s inspection of the property he wrote them a letter indicating there was a problem with the space as it exceeded the City’s hillside ordinance. He believed this was in October, 2005, when the house was completed. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/06/2006 Page 7 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/06/2006 Page 8 Councilmember Phillips inquired whether there were any concerns about meeting the standards or requirements. Mr. Sorensen stated it was his understanding that these builders do not build in Marin County typically; they are San Francisco builders and this was one of their first projects in Marin County. Councilmember Phillips commented that this was probably not a real solid excuse. Mr. Sorensen explained that hillside standards were not something that came into play frequently in San Francisco. He believed they did not have an understanding of that prior to Mr. Stafford writing to them in October. Mayor Boro stated he was somewhat surprised at Mr. Sorensen’s comment that the developer purchased the plans from someone else and they were approved. He believed that in pricing out a project, one of the items priced out was total square-footage. They were aware that this project had 3,033 square-feet approved; therefore, he assumed they should have known that the addition of 300 square-feet was a change. He noted, however, that Mr. Sorensen indicated they were not aware of the fact that there was a limit from the ordinance. Mr. Sorensen stated the builders were aware there was a change; however, they were not aware of the cap on the square-footage. Roger Roberts, San Rafael, stated that last year, the County of Marin had the unfortunate experience of a very large house on the Greenbrae ridge that was built without proper oversight by Planning and Building staff. This was very much larger than what was approved and it created a furor in the community, going before the Board of Supervisors. Although unaware of how the City Council would handle the issue before them this evening, Mr. Roberts stated it appeared that with events such as this, the City should have provisions in its ordinances for penalties, whether by design or accident, when a project exceeded what was approved. John Dickensen, Baywood Terrace, President Baywood Terrace Homeowners Association, stated this was a semi-private road, not maintained by the City. Mr. Dickensen reported that he and his wife had been following this project from its inception. They were the second residents on Baywood Terrace, purchasing their house from the developer who did submit those plans to the Planning Commission. Observing construction of the house at 39 Baywood Terrace, he stated nothing had changed about it that in any way damaged their neighborhood, rather it was well built. They wished to have the neighborhood completed and residents move in to have a community. Mr. Dickensen stated they wished to support approval of the exception as in the grand scheme of things, it was a fairly minor issue. The appearance of the house did not damage the hillside in any environmental way as the footprint on the ground had not changed by a square inch. He presented a petition to the City Council containing signatures of people, not just on Baywood Terrace but on Irwin Street and around the neighborhood, who wished to have the project completed. Mr. Dickensen stated that Mr. O’Driscoll and Mr. Coakley, who built the houses, were very honest people and good developers, and were the type of people the City Council, Planning Commission and Planning and Building departments should want to have building homes in San Rafael in the future. He noted Mr. O’Driscoll was honest and good and was a very strong contributor to the Baywood Terrace community, serving on the governing board, even though he did not reside there, and he encouraged a special assessment on houses under construction to pay more money into road improvements. Mr. Dickensen commented that if Mr. O’Driscoll stated that the Building Department of the City of San Rafael approved the changes he was making, he believed him and would like the City Council to do so also. Encouraging the City Council to approve the project, Mr. Dickensen noted that these were infill developments and getting people to build quality homes on such lots was difficult, and they should be encouraged. Shirley McClung, stated she lived just below Baywood Terrace. She had two concerns about Baywood Terrace – she wanted it to be very stable as she lived directly below, and she did not want anyone to go outside the footprint, which would set a precedent. Having been shown through the house on Saturday morning, Ms. McClung stated it was far better without the patio and remained within the footprint. She believed the builders should not be held responsible for a transgression she did not consider their fault and requested that the City Council grant the exception. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/06/2006 Page 8 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/06/2006 Page 9 Oisin O’Crowley stated he was in contract to purchase the house and having attended to observe proceedings, he indicated he was very impressed by this piece of democracy in action. Commenting that he and his wife were expecting their third child in April, Mr. O’Crowley stated it was rare to find a house with four bedrooms on one level. They had sold their existing home and not having a backup plan, he expressed the hope the project would receive approval. There being no further comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. Indicating he had some misgivings about doing this from the back end, Councilmember Cohen noted the reminders this evening of the County’s experience, and he believed there was some comparison to be made. He stated he did not favor creating an impression with anybody that the process to go through was to get an approval, build something not consistent with the approval and subsequently, after the fact, request it be substituted. Councilmember Cohen stated it did appear, the sequence of events aside, that the findings could be made and an exception was reasonable in this situation. He noted the house under discussion was not substantially larger than that approved, at least not from the outside. It appeared the design was better and the impact was reduced because of the loss of a 9-foot high retaining wall. Commenting on some information received this evening and not disputed by staff, Councilmember Cohen explained that plans were submitted for issuance of the building permit which clearly indicated the change in design that put these spaces in place, and should the City not have a procedure to compare this to what was approved, he suggested that perhaps this should be done. He noted there was a dispute concerning what may or may not have been stated on site; however, the record appeared clear that City employees inspected the project five times during its construction and did not once question the space which did not appear on their copy of the plans. Believing the City bore some responsibility in this situation, Councilmember Cohen suggested that internal procedures and communications needed to be rectified to avoid missing a 10% increase in the size of a building under construction. Given that the findings could be made and the fact that the City bore some responsibility for not discovering this earlier, Councilmember Cohen stated he could support the staff recommendation. Concurring substantially with Councilmember Cohen, Councilmember Heller, having visited the home yesterday, stated that the changes had greatly improved the floor plan. She believed removing the room would be impossible as the surrounding wall was a basic structural wall and the space would still remain. She believed the City should accept responsibility for a portion of the problem and she would vote to approve the project. Councilmember Phillips stated that regardless of whether the owner/builder/contractor mainly did construction in San Francisco, this project was in San Rafael and therefore, subject to the terms and conditions of development. He stated he was not thrilled at the County’s approach with regard to the monstrous home that ultimately was approved, which he believed was not the correct thing to do. He noted San Rafael had a clear set of guidelines and rules which were available to anyone and it “bugged” him that the City was addressing this. He understood the argument that it improved the living quarters, and had it been brought before Council in advance, perhaps a different judgment might have been made; however, given the opportunity at that juncture, he would have felt much better about the process. Councilmember Phillips stated he would vote against the exception simply because he did not believe there should be unanimous approval for something as blatant as a 10% variance, which was huge in his book. Councilmember Miller stated he did not believe there was any comparability whatsoever with this project and the County project, which he believed was very intentional and expanded significantly beyond the footprint of the building. Regarding the current project, he believed there was no intention to violate anything, and noting it had been inspected five times by staff, nothing was conveyed to Mr. O’Driscoll. Regarding the 300 additional square-feet, Councilmember Miller clarified that this was not additional, rather it was within the existing structure and was the difference between having a rough area or a finished area, the finishing of which made the building much better and more attractive. He suggested that Mr. Brown address with the City Council this evening what the building permit component of Community Development was doing to avoid a recurrence of such a situation. Councilmember Miller stated he would vote in favor of the project. Mayor Boro suggested that rather than requesting Mr. Brown to explain the situation this evening, that it be agendized for a future meeting. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/06/2006 Page 9 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/06/2006 Page 10 Noting Councilmember Cohen made the comment regarding the fact that plans were submitted for approval prior to construction showing the change, Mayor Boro inquired whether this was a factor. Indicating he was unsure of that, Mr. Brown inquired whether Mr. Stafford had spoken with Mr. Ahrens, Chief Building Official, regarding the plan check process, noting this was done under a previous building official and plan checker. Mr. Stafford stated that the building permit plans appeared to indicate exactly what the applicants suggested and he was unsure as to how it was not caught. Regardless of what Mr. Curley (retired Chief Building Official) did or did not do, Mayor Boro suggested there was another chance for the City to detect this; however, it was not caught. Mr. Stafford confirmed it could have been detected during the building permit plan check; however, the areas were never identified as being finished areas. Mr. Brown clarified that the structural drawings showed an enclosure of this area which the planning approval did not. Mayor Boro stated he concurred with Councilmember Cohen in that he did not favor a back-end approval. He believed the process had failed in this situation and at this point to penalize the applicant would not make sense. Whether or not it was deliberate could be debated; however, whether or not the applicant had tentative approval from a prior building permit was another issue. Mayor Boro stated that to him the key finding was that the hillside had not been jeopardized by allowing this to happen; therefore, the ordinance had not been challenged. The outward appearance of the building had not been changed and in fact, based on what had been done, it apparently was a better project than had it been built according to the original intentions. He believed all on the City Council who were in support of the exception did not consider it setting a precedent, rather supporting it was based on the facts and findings made. Mayor Boro invited Mr. Brown to address the issue with the City Council in the near future, noting Building and Planning were in the same department to ensure consistency, a streamlined process and accountability, and he looked for Mr. Brown’s creative solutions to achieve that goal. Mr. Brown stated he would be happy to make a presentation to the City Council. He noted the Building Division was truly light years from where it was a year ago and staff would be happy to familiarize the City Council with the changes. Councilmember Cohen stated that the after the fact nature of this consideration was offset by the City’s failure to capture what was on the plans submitted for building permit issuance, and in the inspection process while this area was being closed in and turned into living space. He noted the entire language for the findings was on page 5 of the Report to the Planning Commission, included in tonight’s packet. He indicated he felt comfortable based on the staff report, plans and slides presented, he could make the findings that the design alternative met the stated objectives of the hillside design guidelines, that it minimized grading, retained more of the project site in its natural state and minimized visual impacts. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 11891 – RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EXCEPTION (EX05-014) TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE GROSS BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY HILLSIDE RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 39 BAYWOOD TERRACE (LOT 11 OF BAYWOOD TERRACE SUBDIVISION) BY APPROXIMATELY 300 SQUARE-FEET AND LEGALIZE AS- BUILT UNDER FLOOR AREAS; APN: 013-310-11 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Public Hearing - CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST BY MARIN SANITARY SERVICE FOR A 14. RATE INCREASE FOR REFUSE COLLECTION AND RECYCLING SERVICES AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION AMENDING AGREEMENT SETTING RATES FOR THE YEAR 2006 (MS) – FILE 4-3-32 VI x 13-2 Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened. Interim City Manager Ken Nordhoff stated staff was seeking approval of establishing rates for Marin Sanitary Service. He noted that this year there was an unusual circumstance which he SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/06/2006 Page 10 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/06/2006 Page 11 would expand on. Mr. Nordhoff recalled that for several years the City was working through a process of trying to get the contract for Marin Sanitary Service for refuse and recycling services for the entire City under one agreement, and this finally came to fruition in March 2005. He stated it was important to note that staff received Council approval in January 2005 for the rate increase as part of the normal process. st Mr. Nordhoff reported that when the March 1 agreement took effect there were franchise fee obligations of the company for taking the northern part of the Las Gallinas Valley District in the City limits and bringing it into the City’s contract. Staff made a conscious choice at that time not to return to Council immediately after having done one, rather it would be dealt with in this present hearing. As part of the transition of those accounts, Mr. Nordhoff stated there were three components, which he had outlined in the rates. Mr. Nordhoff explained that there was an overall rate application in excess of 10%. Staff went through the usual process of contracting with Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC and Marva Sheehan from that firm, who had spent extensive time working on the audit of the application, was in attendance this evening. He indicated that the basic cost increases were expected to be 3.8%, as identified on page 1 of the staff report. Referring to page 7 of the Hilton Farnkopf report, he noted a series of adjustments and audit findings with an overall base increase of 2.3%. Mr. Nordhoff stated this would be evident in the City’s rate structure and in the rate structures of the agencies San Rafael works along side. Noting the franchise fee impact had two components, Mr. Nordhoff explained that it had a 2.4% rate effect for the ten months in 2005 that the rates did not reflect the franchise fees owned to the City and were not collected by the customer. This was a one time adjustment which needed to be made up, and it would fall off the rate structure when staff returned to the City Council next year. He indicated that to build the franchise fees going forward required a further 3.6%. Mr. Nordhoff recalled numerous budget discussions over the last couple of years which reminded Council that was one of the reasons they made this decision was that it was adding approximately $350,000 annually to the General Fund, which was an important both business and financial decision made by Council going through the various budget options. Indicating that this was the final report, Mr. Nordhoff noted some modifications: The company was no longer able to purchase the types of trucks, due to clean air standards, that accommodate the current curbside recycling program with the yellow buckets; therefore, they proposed to move to a dual-sort cart system. Mr. Nordhoff stated there were opportunities last year to evaluate the implementation of rate structures that dealt with trying to serve lower income residents in the community. Staff went through a process of aligning a program with Marin Sanitary Service that was consistent with the PG&E process. He indicated there was fairly low participation; therefore, Mr. Roger Roberts, who was very interested in this, worked with the company and some modifications had been made to the program in the proposed rate structure this year. Mr. Nordhoff stated the suggestion was to tie some rates for lower-income residents to HUD standards and staff had worked with the Housing Authority to select sites in the City that could be targeted to benefit people who needed the most help in terms of their garbage rates. He noted that Patty Garbarino, Marin Sanitary Service, was present and could elaborate. Mr. Nordhoff stated that the sub-committee appointed to help work on this, Councilmembers Cohen and Phillips, completed their work within one meeting and were satisfied with the proposed rates – Exhibit C of the Staff Report. Referring to page 4 – Exhibit C – Mr. Nordhoff stated that as he discussed the rate structure with the Chamber of Commerce and Business Improvement District (BID), the rates for Commercial Can customers were not quite clear. He proposed amending the approved rates to include language that identified these Can rates at the top of page 4 as per pick up, i.e., someone using a 32-gallon can which was picked up four times per week would pay the monthly $20.63 x 4. Mr. Nordhoff stated he informed the Chamber of Commerce and BID that he would make that amendment as the report had been finalized. He also checked this with Ray Holmes, Chief Financial Officer, Marin Sanitary Service. Mr. Nordhoff noted that the overall 8.3% increase was not done across the board; however, staff spent a lot of time working with the Hilton Farnkopf staff and Marin Sanitary Service to determine how these rates could be better aligned. Extensive surveying of rates throughout the Bay Area was conducted, which was contained in the Hilton Farnkopf report; therefore, the residential rate increase was 4.3%. He noted 5% - 8% common rate increases on most SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/06/2006 Page 11 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/06/2006 Page 12 commercial accounts which were some of the smaller scale and more frequent pickups, with higher rate increases in areas where it made sense, particularly relating to heavy loads and roll- off service and large operators of businesses, i.e., hotels, large construction, stores, etc. Indicating that a number of scenarios were modeled to arrive at the conclusions, Mr. Nordhoff stated staff believed the rates proposed represented a good way of stabilizing the rates across the various accounts and appeared to be supported by the consultant, City staff, the company and the two sub-committee members. Noting residential rates would increase by 4.3%, Mayor Boro stated there was an issue concerning the franchise fee causing the rates to be higher in North San Rafael, and he inquired whether the rates were now comparable. Mr. Nordhoff confirmed that the rates were now standardized across the City, regardless of residence. He further confirmed for Mayor Boro that residents in North San Rafael began paying the rates approved in January 2005 in March 2005; therefore, most of the residential / apartments saw a rate increase when many of the commercial accounts in North San Rafael saw a rate decrease. He confirmed that the 4.3% was consistent North and South and all accounts were paying the same rates regardless of residence or business location. In looking at the Bay Area rate survey sheets, Councilmember Heller inquired as to why Novato was not listed. Mr. Nordhoff stated he could look into that. Patty Garbarino, President, Marin Sanitary Service, accompanied by Ray Holmes, Chief Financial Officer, Steve Rosa and Joe Garbarino, stated she was proud of the fact that Marin Sanitary Service was below the average of other Bay Area jurisdictions with similar services. She noted their track record and partnership with the Fire Department on hazardous waste, which many communities did not have, and which was very successful. She also noted the City had extensively used the program for elimination of what they found on the streets. As discussed in the explanation of the increase, Ms. Garbarino stated that at the base of that was their 2.3% request which, essentially, covered increases in fuel, benefits and the new dual- sort cart. She explained that the three-sort trucks and carts were no longer available and they were converting the entire fleet to clean diesel, as a result of the necessity to replace 20-year old trucks and wanting to ensure the trucks were as clean and healthful as possible. She reported they also had been working extensively with CARB (California Air Resources Board) to ensure they received the correct technology as with the original law, the traps that retrofitted the trucks voided the warranty on the trucks. Ms. Garbarino stated they would be converting all of their trucks in a six-year period and purchasing new ones. She indicated that recycling trucks were no longer available in three-sort, they were firmly convinced that dual-sort was the way to go and she explained the recycling process. Steve Rosa, Marin Sanitary Service, explained this was a two-part program. Going to a dual- sort stream meant paper and all fiber products were all one stream, with bottles, cans, plastic, aluminum, and tin the second, and Marin Sanitary was converting to a dual-stream approach. As part of the dual-stream approach they had a split cart – a 64-gallon cart with a divider in the center, brown in color, with brown and blue lids to identify paper and fiber on one side and plastic, etc., on the other. Having observed the program in two cities in the South Bay, Mr. Rosa stated it did work and was very popular with residents and drivers. He reported that 7,500 of these cans would be delivered in April, together with three new trucks, and they had selected certain areas to begin. They anticipated a further 7,000 cans and three trucks in September and hoped to have completed all by the Spring of 2007. Mr. Rosa explained that a benefit of the dual system was that people could continue to use buckets if they had small amounts, together with extra material such as cardboard, etc. Ms. Garbarino stated they planned on working closely with staff in the roll-out, ensuring Lydia Romero, Assistant to the City Manager, had time to read over the communication. She thanked Roger Roberts for his assistance on the low-income rate. Mr. Rosa confirmed for Councilmember Cohen that one side would be used for paper and fiber, including small cardboard. It would not be necessary to bundle large cardboard as this could go alongside the can. Roger Roberts, stated that he and Patty Garbarino had been trying to find a way to reach further than was possible with the low-income program last year, which only received 15-20 applications. He explained that if an applicant was already receiving the CARE program from PG&E, they automatically would receive the low discount program available with Marin Sanitary Service. He indicated that the question was how to reach more low-income people and having discussed this with the Marin Housing Authority, he reported they were willing to vet applicants for those people declaring themselves as beneficiaries of Marin Housing Authority assistance SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/06/2006 Page 12 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/06/2006 Page 13 programs. Mr. Roberts reported that when that assertion is made, the form would be sent to the Marin Housing Authority who would approve the party in question without Marin Sanitary Service having to duplicate the effort. As a result, Mr. Roberts believed more low-income people could be reached than heretofore. He stated they still had not solved the problem of how to reach low-income people in the multi-family setting; however, they would continue to work to find a solution. There being no further comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. Noting the sub-committee completed their work in one meeting, Councilmember Cohen stated this spoke to the hard work and efficiency of this dedicated committee. Councilmember Phillips noted that Mr. Nordhoff had done a good job in his presentation which enabled them to complete the work in one session. He noted Mr. Nordhoff’s outreach with the BID and Chamber of Commerce was good as there were adjustments which would be one-time, and his presentation went a long way to satisfying their concerns. Councilmember Miller thanked Marin Sanitary Service for their great contribution to the City in protecting and caring for the environment. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 11892 – RESOLUTION TO SET MAXIMUM RATES AND FEES FOR MARIN SANITARY SERVICE REFUSE AND RECYCLABLE MATERIAL COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES, TO BE EFFECTIVE RETROACTIVELY TO JANUARY 1, 2006 (Exhibit C – Page 4 – amended to clarify that the Commercial Can Rates are per individual pick up) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None RESOLUTION ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL BUDGET FOR 15. FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 (MS) – FILE 8-5 Interim City Manager Ken Nordhoff stated he had the pleasure of making this presentation many times before the City Council and he now had the distinct pleasure of passing the torch to the capable hands of Cindy Mosser, Finance Manager. Finance Manager Cindy Mosser stated that annually, the Management Services Department conducts a mid-period review of the City’s financial status. Past practice was to adopt budgets in two-year cycles; however, given the uncertainty of the fiscal position, a one-year budget was adopted in June 2005 for financial forecasts. She indicated that this budget did establish performance measurements and objectives through June 2007. Indicating that the budget adopted in June 2005 projected a General Fund deficit for fiscal year 2005-2006 in excess of $3.4 million, Ms. Mosser stated that as of December 31, 2005, the projected deficit had been reduced slightly to $3.3 million. She noted that the staff report defined the rapidly changing budget picture and presented a series of amendments necessary to meet the City’s obligations to keep the budget in balance. Ms. Mosser reported that staff presented highlights of the changes to the budget during the five- year outlook Study Session in November 2005, and most recently, during the City Council Study Session in January 2006. As an overview of operating costs, Ms. Mosser reported that at the end of December, all of the departments’ General Fund operating expenditures were at or slightly below the 50% target. Ms. Mosser reported that highlights of the General Fund revenue changes included:  Property tax increase of $310,000, based on December collections  Property Transfer Tax increase of $225,700, due to greater assessed values  Vehicle License Fee backfill increase totaling $486,000, due to the better formula used  Fee revenues, which included building permits, plan check fees – an increase of $237,000. This was based on the year-to-date activity plus updating the Master Fee Schedule in December 2005  Inspection fee decrease of $77,000 based on December’s collections  Sales Tax backfill decrease of $523,000 – previously reserved $730,000 to offset this difference  Court Fine and Traffic School revenues decrease of $240,000, due to the distribution SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/06/2006 Page 13 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/06/2006 Page 14 change discovered in the County Court revenue audit. A reserve of $757,000 will also be set aside in fiscal year 2005-2006 for the settlement of previously received funds. Ms. Mosser reported that some of the highlights of the General Fund expenditures included:  The accurate staffing costs of $415,000, which included insurance cash back costs, interim administrative costs, and previously approved positions Ms. Mosser reported that as part of the budget process, Department Goals and Objectives are reviewed and monitored with the City’s long term goals in mind, and a summary of each department’s highlights had been presented in this evening’s packet to the City Council. She stated that the departments updated their individual program goals, which were provided as an attachment; however, they were available on request. In conclusion, Ms. Mosser stated that this report was generated with the assistance of all departments, and especially with the help of Van Bach, Accounting Supervisor, and Carl Tregner, Accountant. Regarding the $240,000 for Fine and Traffic School revenues, Councilmember Heller inquired whether this was a one-time loss or ongoing loss. Ms. Mosser stated this was the calculation for this year and would be ongoing because of the change in the method of collecting revenue. The $757,000 would be a one-time hit. Mayor Boro noted the approximate figure of 50% expenses versus actual at the half-year stage, and he inquired whether all departments were close. Responding, Ms. Mosser stated that all departments were either at 50% or less. Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 11893 – RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 2005-2006 BUDGET AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Mayor Boro expressed thanks to Mr. Nordhoff and Ms. Mosser. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: a) CDBG (Community Development Block Grant): - File 147 16. Having participated in the CDBG budget and grant giving meeting on Monday last, which established approximately $80,000 in grants, Councilmember Miller reported that recipients of funds included the Canal Alliance, Pickleweed Childcare Center, Marin Head Start and Community Action Marin Head Start. Noting a reduction of 10% this year, he indicated it appeared there would be a further diminution of 10% next year, which he believed would jeopardize this part of the program. b) League of California Cities: - File 9-11-1 As a delegate from MCCMC (Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers) to the League of California Cities, Councilmember Heller reported having attended the North Bay Division meeting on January 26 where the speaker was Max Neiman from the Public Policy Institute of California. Councilmember Heller reported having attended the League of California Cities meeting of the Transportation, Communication and Public Works Policy Committee. She noted that a Councilmember from Rohnert Park expressed interest in changing the State Speed Limit Laws for cities. She believed this had been tried before without success; however, she would report any further information to Andy Preston, Public Works Director. Councilmember Heller reported on the League of California Cities coalition initiative to permanently protect Proposition 42 funds. She stated that Mike Madrid, Director of Public Affairs, commented that the initiative had just received title and summary. Polling results indicated that in many regions, transportation was an even more important issue than education, by 15 - 20%; therefore, perhaps the funds could be protected so they were returned to the cities. Regarding Infrastructure, Councilmember Heller believed more information would be forthcoming on the different bills in process as the year progressed. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/06/2006 Page 14 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/06/2006 Page 15 Councilmember Heller reported that the California Transportation Commission met and was looking at funding measures, project delivery, performance measures and goods movement - developing special truck lanes. She stated it appeared as though things were somewhat better in the transportation world of Sacramento, and hopefully, the money would trickle down to the local areas. c) Corporate Center Sub-Committee: - File 9-1 Indicating that the sub-committee on the Corporate Center held a meeting with the new owners, Councilmember Cohen reported they had a proposal, that had moved beyond the conceptual stage, for a redesign that involved mixed-use, i.e., hotel, commercial use and a fairly significant residential project. He indicated that they needed a little more time to finalize their side; subsequently, the sub-committee would discuss with them the appropriate way to introduce the proposal, whether it be a study session with the City Council or, perhaps more appropriately, hold a community meeting to introduce it themselves and answer the inevitable questions that accompany any proposed change in use. There being no further business, Mayor Boro adjourned the City Council meeting at 9:50 p.m. to Closed Session, Item 1.c). ____________________________ JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS ______ DAY OF __________, 2006 ___________________________________ MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/06/2006 Page 15