Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1994-09-06SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/6/94 Page I IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1994, AT 7:00 PM Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor San Rafael City Council Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Barbara Heller, Councilmember Joan Thayer, Councilmember David J. Zappetini, Councilmember Absent: None Others Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager Gus Guinan, Assistant City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk OPEN SESSION - CITY COUNCIL Mayor Boro announced in Open Session that the City Council would be going into Closed Session to discuss the following Closed Session items: 1. CLOSED SESSION - CONFERENCE ROOM 201 a. Conference with Legal Counsel - Pending Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9b(2)) b. Conference with Labor Negotiator, Suzanne Golt/Daryl Chandler Employee Organizations: ■ San Rafael Police Association ■ San Rafael Firefighters' Association The City Council then met in Closed Session in Conference Room 201 to discuss the above- mentioned items. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1994, AT 8:00 PM OPEN SESSION RE: CLOSED SESSION ITEMS la.Conference with Legal Counsel Assistant City Attorney Guinan announced that no reportable action was taken. lb. Conference with Labor Negotiators Mayor Boro announced that Closed Session would be continued at the end of the Council meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE None CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Zappetini seconded, to approve the recommended action on the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 2. Approval of Minutes of Special Joint Budget Approved as submitted. Meeting of June 15, 1994, Special Meeting of July 5, 1994, Adjourned Regular Meeting of July 7, 1994 (CLOSED SESSION), and Regular Meetings of June 20, August 1 and August 15, 1994 (CC) 4. Report on Bid Opening and Award of Contract - RESOLUTION NO. 9194 - RESOLUTION OF Repainting of Third & A Parking Structure AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR REPAINTING OF (PW) - File 4-1-470 THIRD & A STREET PARKING STRUCTURE (To Clyde A. Mayfield Painting & Decorating, lowest responsible bidder, in amount of $38,890) 5. Resolution w/Findings Granting Appeal of RESOLUTION NO. 9195 - RESOLUTION OF Disabled Access Requirements - 977 Grand THE CITY COUNCIL (IN ITS CAPACITY AS SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/6/94 Page 1 2 7. E:] Avenue (Magnificent Cleaners) (PW) - File 13-1-1 x 1-6-1 Resolution Amending 1993/94 Budget (Fin) - File 8-5 Monthly Investment Report (Fin) - File 8-18 a -a Resolution Authorizing the Destruction of Certain Police Department Documents (PD) - File 9-13 x 9-3-30 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/6/94 Page THE BOARD OF APPEALS) GRANTING CON- DITIONED APPROVAL OF AN APPEAL FROM STATE ACCESS REQUIREMENTS - 977 GRAND AVENUE, SAN RAFAEL RESOLUTION NO. 9196 - AMENDING THE 1993/94 BUDGET Accepted report. RESOLUTION NO. 9197 - AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN POLICE DEPARTMENT DOCUMENTS 11. Resolution of Appreciation to Forrest Craig, RESOLUTION NO. 9198 - RESOLUTION OF Deputy Fire Marshal, Fire Department, Employee APPRECIATION TO FORREST CRAIG, of the Quarter Ending June 30, 1994 (CM) DEPUTY FIRE MARSHAL, FIRE DEPARTMENT - File 102 x 7-4 x 9-3-31 EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER ENDING JUNE 30, 1994 12. Resolution Approving Contract Agreement with RESOLUTION NO. 9199 - APPROVING County of Marin for $10,000 Contribution to the CONTRACT AGREEMENT WITH COUNTY OF Pickleweed Park Renovation Project (Rec) MARIN FOR $10,000 CONTRIBUTION TO - File 4-13-90 x 2-1-55 x 9-3-65 x 9-3-66 THE PICKLEWEED PARK RENOVATION PROJECT AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: DISQUALIFIED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro None None Heller & Mayor Boro (from minutes of Meeting of August 15, 1994 only, due to absence from meeting) Zappetini (from item No. 4, due to conflict of interest) The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion: 3.RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT WITH FORSHER + GUTHRIE FOR DESIGN OF DEL GANADO FIRE STATION (PW) - File 4-3-224 x 9-3-31 Councilmember Heller asked for background information, since it has been awhile since it was discussed. She asked if the plans would be all new, or if any of the previous plans would be incorporated into the new plans. Also, when would the building be completed and ready for use. City Manager Nicolai reported that Forsher + Guthrie have been working with us for several years. The design which is being brought forward at this time is not exactly the same as the previous design, but a lot of the principles are the same. The ability to have the second Paramedic unit is incorporated into the new plan. A lot of the groundwork which was done previously, such as the analysis of the site and what can be done are being utilized, and staff has been working with the Fire Associ-ation. She stated that at present it is anticipated that construction would start next Spring and be in operation a year from now. Fire Chief Marcucci reported that Forsher + Guthrie have indicated that if we can get out to bid and start construction sometime in the Spring, he is hoping there would be five months of construction, and we would be in there sometime in September or October of next year. Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the Resolution authorizing the signing of an agreement with Forsher + Guthrie as recommended. RESOLUTION NO. 9200 - AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF AN AGREEMENT WITH FORSHER + GUTHRIE FOR THE DESIGN OF THE DEL GANADO FIRE STATION RECONSTRUCTION AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 6.AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS - FALKIRK EXTERIOR PAINTING AND REPAIRS (PW) - File 4- 10-278 x 4-3-67 x 8-19 x 9-3-84 Councilmember Thayer noted that the staff report states that this project will replace the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/6/94 Page 2 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/6/94 Page main porch deck, back stairs and deck, prepare all surfaces for painting, repair loosened stucco, and repair window sashes and trim. She asked if this includes the painting itself. Public Works Director David Bernardi replied that it does. Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to authorize staff to call for bids for Falkirk painting and repairs. Councilmember Cohen added that he has worked as much as possible with the Falkirk staff on the fundraising campaign, and with Public Works, on what was the best approach to taking care of Falkirk. They have explored a number of alternatives seeking grant funding and volunteer projects. There is about a $700,000 plan for the restoration and renovation of Falkirk, and given the amount of money available, the best approach seemed to be to secure the outside of the building which has not been done in quite awhile, and once that is done, we will take another look at the balance of the fundraising. However, rather than letting the deterioration continue, they thought it best to go ahead and put this portion out to bid. Just painting it again would not be effective. There is some repair which should be done. Councilmember Thayer asked if this would be the painting of the entire exterior, and Councilmember Cohen replied the idea is to paint the entire exterior. If it takes another couple of years to do the renovation of the inside and improve the third floor, the building will not be deteriorating. Councilmember Thayer asked if we are mandated by law to paint it the same color that it was, the historical colors. City Manager Nicolai stated that there was a great deal of research done about the period in which the house was built, before it was painted the last time. Mayor Boro pointed out this would be reviewed by the Cultural Affairs Commission, and City Manager Nicolai agreed that all of this will be referred to the Commission. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 10.RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE GRANT APPLICATION FOR PERMANENT HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION FACILITY (FD) - File 13-2 x 115 Councilmember Cohen noted the last paragraph of the staff report, and stated that while he agrees in general with the philosophy, it left him wondering what he is missing. He noted the staff report states, "Cooperation and acceptance of shared responsibility and accountability is critical to the success of this type of partnership. No one party or agency should expect to shoulder the financial, administrative, operational or legal responsibility of a community -wide program alone". He asked what liability, if any, are we accepting by voting on this tonight? He stated that it is implied in the quoted paragraph that by entering into this partnership we are accepting some liability for hazardous waste, and he would like to know more about that issue. City Manager Nicolai responded that our entering into a relationship with a community regarding household hazardous waste is similar to that when the County sponsors the Household Hazardous Materials Day. Once the material is collected, that entity becomes the responsible party for making sure that it is transported appropriately to the correct facility and handled properly. The City will be jointly sharing in that with Marin Recycling. We would apply for the vari-ance as a City, to reduce the cost of the application and give us some control over the variance and its location, and tonight staff is asking for the ability to apply for grant money to help fund the start-up costs. We are trying to preserve the vari-ance and the opportunity for Marin Recycling as a physical facility to be used as a collection site for household hazardous materials. Ms. Nicolai added she hopes that at some point in time the Solid and Hazardous Waste Joint Powers Group all become parties to this and use this facility instead of their inefficient and very costly Household Hazardous Materials Collection Days which do not collect much. Ms. Nicolai explained the City is assuming some responsibility for the correct numbers and mater-ials. Although Marin Recycling will be doing it, the City has the variance in our name. Councilmember Cohen inquired, is there any liability exposure to the City of San Rafael so that when this goes into operation there is a problem in the future? He asked are we ultimately responsible for disposition of materials? Fire Chief Marcucci responded that by applying for the grant, we assume no liability. The liability which we will assume when the facility starts to function, will be as the generator of that household hazardous waste in perpetuity, so that no matter where that material ends up, it is always going to be the responsibility of the generator. The generator is the City, except that when other agencies come on board, such as Las Gallinas, they then have an agreement and they assume the liability for that portion of the material. The liability that the City assumes will be minuscule, in that household toxics can be paint, which Mr. Garbarino is already taking care of; it could be pesticides of some sort which will go through a recycling process and possibly be re -used by local agencies. The amount of material which will actually be SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/6/94 Page 3 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/6/94 Page transported to the disposal site will be of a very low order, and that is the portion for which we assume liability, when it comes from City of San Rafael. When Las Gallinas comes on board, they will enter into a Contribution Agreement, and they would assume their portion of that liability. Councilmember Thayer noted that for generation purposes, the liability would stop with the City rather than the Recycling and Recovery Center, and asked if that is correct. Ms. Nicolai responded that as the material which is collected in the City of San Rafael, in the southern part, comes through that facility it will have the City of San Rafael's name on it, as does the County for their Household Hazardous Material Days. Chief Marcucci explained that if people dispose of hazardous waste in the street, when the City picks it up it is the City's, and we are trying to get people to stop doing that and disposing of the waste in a responsible way. With this program, we would have less liability. Councilmember Thayer stated she is very happy with this program, because San Rafael has already taken the lead in the AB939 requirements. By looking for a permanent site, she hopes that in the future the other cities will join us. Ms. Nicolai stated there are risks involved, but there are very strong benefits for the people of the City of San Rafael. Hopefully, the entire County will have a system where you can dispose of these materials more conveniently and properly. She added it is an opportunity to recycle a higher volume of materials because there is a physical location where they can be stored and recycled. Transporting to that location will cost less, and the amount of material going to a dump with San Rafael's name on it will eventually be minimized. It will also make the dump at Novato safer because there will not be people disposing of their material improperly. She added that San Rafael is taking the lead on this issue. Councilmember Zappetini stated he presumes that the steel building which will be put up will be the property of Marin Recycling, and asked if the City will be a partner in that? Ms. Nicolai responded it will belong to Marin Recycling. Mr. Zappetini noted that we will be paying for it. Ms. Nicolai explained we are hoping to get the grant which will pay for it. Councilmember Zappetini inquired, how much is the grant, and Ms. Nicolai responded we are asking for $100,000. Chief Marcucci stated the request will be for $60,000 to $100,000. Ms. Nicolai explained that money will be to set up the physical plant. Councilmember Zappetini stated we would be sub-sidizing it, and Ms. Nicolai explained we are applying for the money for the plant, to get the program going, and in that way we will not be passing on the cost to the rate payers. Also, we will avoid the tipping fees. She noted it is money which is only available for this purpose. Councilmember Zappetini inquired how big will the building be, and Chief Marcucci replied it will be nothing more than storage sheds, to store the material coming in. Mr. Zappetini asked, are we asking for enough money? Ms. Nicolai replied we are asking for as much as they will give us. There is a limit to what this grant -giving group will give. Councilmember Zappetini asked is that based on the cost of the building? Chief Marcucci asked Deputy Fire Marshal Forrest Craig to respond. Deputy Fire Marshal Forrest Craig explained that currently we are asking for about $120,000, which is all of the up -front costs for the containers which Cal EPA has approved for the facility. It also includes all of the secondary containment sump required for the operational facility. The grant request is up to $120,000. The Integrated Waste Management Board will not give any more than that to any one facil- ity, and we are asking for the maximum. There will be a total of six containers of different sizes and capacities for storage of different classifications of waste. Mayor Boro inquired, what happens if you get the $120,000 and is costs more to build the facility? Who is going to pay for that? Ms. Nicolai responded that one of the things we are working on with the County at present, and hope we will achieve before this is operational, is a request to Dee Johnson of the JPA that we get the money for the San Rafael Day which is once a year, to be held to complement the money from the grant, approximately $65,000. Mayor Boro recalled the history of the program and stated that this would save the San Rafael rate payers. Hopefully, the other cities would join in once we have the program and, if not, we would be willing to go along on our own. Councilmember Thayer noted that we are under strict mandate to meet certain goals by 1995, and with this permanent facility, as small as it is going to be, it will help us to meet those goals. She noted that the Household Hazardous Waste Days cost the County in the range of about $1.5 million, while reaching only about 1 or 2% from the waste stream. She stated a permanent facility is needed, and she feels that this is a great idea. Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Zappetini seconded, to adopt the resolution SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/6/94 Page 4 km SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/6/94 Page authorizing the request for a grant application for a permanent household hazardous waste collection facility. RESOLUTION NO. 9201 - AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A GRANT APPLICATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR A PERMANENT HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION AND CONSOLIDATION FACILITY AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SPECIAL PRESENTATION 13.PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO FORREST CRAIG, DEPUTY FIRE MARSHAL, FIRE DEPARTMENT, EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER ENDING JUNE 30, 1994 (CM) - File 102 x 7-4 x 9- 3-31 Mayor Boro presented Deputy Fire Marshall Forrest Craig with a Resolution of Appreci-ation and congratulated him for his dedication and the excellent job he is doing. He noted that Mr. Craig has launched a new program for the City and has gone to other cities and jurisdictions to help them. Mr. Craig thanked Mayor Boro and the Council -members and stated this is a tremendous honor. PUBLIC HEARING 14.PUBLIC HEARING - RE PARKING DISTRICT NO. 1 (RA) - File 6-4 Mayor Boro opened the Public Hearing. Ms. Katie Korzun, Senior Planner, Redevelopment Agency, explained that staff is presenting two issues tonight. One is to establish annexation requirements and procedures for our existing Parking District, and secondly, to use those procedures and requirements to evaluate the request to annex. She explained we have one Parking District downtown which covers most of the core area. It was initially established in 1958. At that time, there were no annexation procedures put into the rules and regulations. Subsequently, since 1958, there have been no annexation requests for that District. She explained that Parking District No. 1 is actually a financing district, an assessment district where assessments can be levied against the proper -ties in the District. When it was first set up in 1958, there was a potential that they could have levied 75 cents on every $100 assessed evaluation; however, that was never done. She noted the City constructed quite a few parking lots and actually built 969 parking spaces, but never levied an assessment. Instead, they dedicated the fees from the parking meters and paid off various bond issuances on those. She stated it is the property owners' responsibility in the District to pay an assessment if one were levied. The benefit that those properties get is the ability to use any parking which is constructed in the District. She explained that the amount of parking you are allowed to use is not set by the District, but by the City Council in the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Korzun added that the Planning Department has been fine-tuning and trying to understand what that entitlement has been. Generally, it is one floor area in the building being given credit in the District. The other existing fact is that when the District was established, there were about 100 parking spaces, and we put almost 1 million square feet of building in that District, so there obviously were not enough parking spaces to serve the District then. She pointed out the fluctuation over the years in the relationship of retail to office space and noted that we have more office uses than in 1958 when the District was formed. It is difficult to figure how many parking spaces are needed at a given time because the requirement changes. She noted the core area has changed since 1958, and if the Parking District is supposed to cover the Downtown core area, perhaps the boundaries should be changed to make it reflect the core. Ms. Korzun then discussed criteria to be developed for the purpose of evaluating annexations. She noted there are five criteria in the proposed Resolution estab- lishing District annexation procedures and requirements, and described them briefly: 1. The properties to be annexed would have to be contiguous to the boundary of the District so the District remains closely associated with the existing parking facilities. 2. The properties would also have to have completed all required Planning Department permits and approvals. This would ensure that the type of development proposed was known and the parking impacts, if any, were completely evaluated in the environmental assessment and in the planning evaluation. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/6/94 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/6/94 Page 3. An assessment of whether the District would be substantially impacted by the additional development. Council would review information on the estimated parking demand of a proposal and on the availability of parking in the District. This could include parking surveys of the existing lots and parking demand calculations. 4. A determination of whether adequate parking was available in the District. If adequate parking was not available, the annexation may not be appropriate. 5. Determination and payment of an annexation fee. State law allows the charging of an annexation fee which can be set by the City Council. Staff recommends that the fee include administrative processing costs for the application plus payment of whatever assessment fees would have been paid by the property if it had been in the District at its inception. In the case of Parking District No. 1, no fee or assessment has been charged up to now; all improvements have been financed through parking meter revenue or paid by the City and Redevelopment Agency. Therefore, there would be no back fees and assessments to be paid, unless new assessments were established in the future. Ms. Korzun stated staff had applied the proposed criteria to the applicant, owners of the property at 729 Fourth Street, The Koorhan Company. She noted the property is vacant and is generally known as the Chevron site. The Koorhan Company has entered into a purchase agreement with Chevron, USA, and submitted their development proposal for the site to the Planning Commission. She noted that on August 9, 1994, the Commission approved a Negative Declaration, Environmental and Design Review Permit and a Use Permit for 26 residential apartments and 28 residential parking spaces, with 5,850 sq. ft. of retail space. She explained that the residential units are a mix of studios, one bedrooms and one bedroom with lofts. Half of the units will be affordable to low income households at 50-80o of median income and will be regulated under a 40 -year Below Median Rent (BMR) Agreement. The retail area will face Fourth Street, with a small portion on Lincoln Avenue. Residential parking will be provided on the site at the rear of the parcel. Parking for the retail areas is proposed to be in the Parking District. Ms. Korzun reported that the project was reviewed by the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission and received very complimentary remarks. She noted that the property is immediately adjacent to the boundary of Parking District No. 1, and has all Planning approvals. Also, there are five parking lots fairly close to this area, and parking should not be a problem. She pointed out that the lot behind Marin Beauty School, at Fourth and Cijos, has been a problem with all -day parking because the meters are fed. There are two plans to alleviate this situation, one being to increase the parking enforcement. The other plan is to offer merchants free parking tickets for parking lots such as the PG&E lot at Lindaro Street which is under- utilized. There is considerable parking within three blocks of the project site. Ms. Korzun referred to charging an administrative fee, and noted that administrative costs were minimal, and recouping administrative costs would not be effective. She pointed out there have been no assessments in Parking District No. 1 since the District was formed in 1958. In conclusion, Ms. Korzun stated staff feels that this application meets the criteria and recommends that both the Resolution and the Ordinance be passed. Mayor Boro noted staff feels that the 28 parking spaces are adequate, and the staff report cites other similar projects. Ms. Korzun replied the other projects are 1 H Street, and also the two flats under construction now on D Street. It is also the criteria of the sub -group of DTAG, the Downtown Advisory Group, when they were work-ing on parking criteria for residential projects. She noted the applicants have also received a variance which has been processed. Mayor Boro inquired if the commercial area in the 1 H Street building has parking on-site, or are they in the District? Ms. Korzun replied they are not in a Parking District, and they do have some on-site parking. They also have dual use so at certain times during the day some of the parking is used for residential and some for the retail. She noted the guest parking has dual use. Mayor Boro inquired could there be dual use during the day in this project, since potentially some of the 28 on-site spaces could be vacant. He asked had there been any discussion with the owner on that issue? Ms. Korzun replied that the property owner is quite eager to do that, and there will be a provision to have that happen which would be in addition to District parking. Tenants could make a financial agreement with the landlord to allow dual use of the spaces. She stated she believes that is part of the Use Permit. Planning Director Robert Pendoley added that the Planning Commission required that the full amount of parking for residential be provided and then to give it the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/6/94 Page 6 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/6/94 Page traditional downtown break for the first floor retail. Within the conditions of approval, the developer may make the residential parking spaces also available to retail customers if he chooses. Mayor Boro inquired about the value of 23 parking spaces. He also recalled other businesses Downtown who had to go out and lease parking spaces at remote locations. He stated he is supportive of the project but is looking at it from an overall basis since we are setting policies. He noted that this particular parcel happens to be contiguous to the District, but there could be a project half a block away which had the same needs. Probably in that case we would suggest that they lease some spaces. He stated he is looking at the fairness, the equity and the consistency. He asked, what is a parking space worth if other businesses had to go out and rent spaces? He asked why would we not have some value accrued through the Parking District? He noted we have some lots half empty now, but there is the old Macy's building which is empty. That, hopefully, will be filled eventually, with a use which will generate traffic and parking. He noted this project is contiguous, but if it were not, we would suggest their leasing off-site parking, and has staff thought about the value to the City of these spaces? Ms. Korzun responded that staff did take a look at that. In terms of long-term usage and construction of new buildings, staff has not really supported leasing off-site spaces because it would have to be a lease for the life of the off-site property. We have allowed short-term for businesses, but not for actual construction. She noted we also have a parking in -lieu fee which we could have instituted. We were looking, however, at a project which was giving us affordable housing, and since we are already contributing to the affordable housing component, it did not seem logical to give them money for affordable housing and then take it back through required money for parking spaces. Ms. Korzun noted that in 1958, this site could easily have been part of the Parking District, but it was not. Also, when staff took a look at the value the spaces would have, it was hard to put a number on them, and it was ques- tionable as to whether or not that was a legal fee which could be charged. She stated staff was also trying to have parity with other projects already in the District, and it seems to not be treating them equally to charge them more to get in after the fact. She added there were a number of criteria which came up, but the bottom line was that unless the property was allowed in the District we would not have a project. Councilmember Cohen asked about the issue of not charging a fee at all. He noted we do charge fees for every other type of permit processing. He stated he understands that when adopting an annexation policy, the work should not be charged to this pro-ject, but some administrative work, staff time and preparation of reports which went into this should be considered. He stated he could understand waiving of fees because this is an affordable housing project, but it should not be setting a precedent for future applicants for annexation to the District. Ms. Korzun replied that we will charge a fee and will recoup costs which have to do with the processing. She added she had kept track of her time for processing this, and once she has the criteria approved, she will put the figures together. She noted that the main staff effort in pulling all of the information together, which was substantial, was done by the Planning Department in their planning fee. We do have a process which says we will recoup those costs and have already collected costs in the Planning Department fees. Councilmember Heller stated she agrees with Councilmember Cohen on the policy regard-ing fees. She clarified that the criteria is that we will charge an annexation fee; however, on this one project staff feels that the fees have already been collected through the Planning Department. Ms. Korzun stated that is correct. Mayor Boro noted staff stated we would not have the project unless we came up with this procedure. However, staff also said we had supported the housing component by making contributions. He asked were the contributions from Redevelopment money, and Ms. Korzun replied that they were. Mayor Boro noted this is not a nonprofit under- taking, but a for-profit project. He stated his concern about a "domino effect" with parcels in the vicinity, and eventually we will run out of parking and need to build something, and that is why he wonders why there is not some value added to the "commercial" stalls which support the retail. He does not understand why we would not try to collect something for it. Ms. Korzun responded that State law does not allow that. It says that if in 1958 we had charged something to let the people in then, we could charge the same amount in current dollars today. That is the State Parking District Act of 1951. Ms. Korzun pointed out that in 1958, we let in almost a million sq. ft. of property, and we had 101 parking spaces, so we were basically letting everyone in then, and then back - charging to build more. That is what we are doing on this property, letting them in now, and having them pay later if we come up with a charge. She admitted there is a possibility of a "domino effect" and that is why staff tried to address that in the criteria. Mayor Boro noted he did not say that was bad, but he was thinking of how SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/6/94 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/6/94 Page it would play out over the long term. Ms. Korzun stated that over the long term, if we had five or six more projects which came in and when they went before the Planning Commission they said that part of their application was in the District, the Planning Department and Planning Commission would be evaluating that request to see whether or not they thought it made sense. It would then come to the Council, and if the Council said there was not enough parking in the District to accommodate them, the annexation could be denied on those grounds, so the Council can close the door. That is set up in the criteria. Mr. Pendoley explained that the Vision says the Council needs to consider expanding the District. The material which is being prepared now for the General Plan Amend-ment which will implement the Vision, will also recommend expanding the District. One of the issues is the question of equitable treatment when you annex someone else. He noted that the property owners in the District pay for the benefit with parking meter fees, paid for by their customers. The attorneys have told staff that they must treat all properties the same, so if you allowed all previous members to do it, you will have to allow new members upon annexation. He noted that if some day the Council wishes to change that policy and decide the benefit should be paid for by some type of 'ad valorem' assessment, it can be applied to all of the new people who come in, and they can be made to pay retroactively. Councilmember Zappetini noted that this project is right across the street from the boundary line of the Parking District. He asked, if we have this criteria and another project comes up which is not on the boundary line will it be pushed aside? He inquired, if we wanted to expand the District in the future, will this stop us from doing that? Ms. Korzun responded that, on the block where this property is located, there are two properties on the corner which are not requesting to be annexed. Since they are adjacent to the new boundary they could request annexation. However, if someone on the other side of the Freeway said they would like to be annexed to the District and they are two blocks away, they do not meet the first criteria and they could not be annexed. Councilmember Zappetini stated his point is, if there is a project which is two blocks away, which is going to be good for the City and is an affordable housing project with Redevelopment funds being used, is this going to stop us from annexing? Ms. Korzun replied it would. Mayor Boro explained that if a project is not contiguous, there will be a different set of ground rules. He stated that by agreeing to this we are saying it is for the betterment of the City, and we have to draw the line somewhere. Ms. Korzun noted that is a criteria which is attached to most annexations. She noted that when you annex to a city, you have to be contiguous to the boundaries, and that is general annexation criteria. She agreed that we have to draw the line somewhere. She stated that if the Council feels that should be changed, staff would like to hear what it might be and will check and make sure there would be no problems. She added staff was being consistent with other annexation law. Councilmember Zappetini inquired, would we not want to try to expand this Parking District as part of the Vision, or have that as an ultimate goal eventually? Ms. Korzun replied that the Vision covers all of Downtown, and there is a distance difficulty here. If we were to take YardBirds for instance, and assume that people would walk to the parking lot behind San Rafael Joe's, it is not logical. She explained that is one of the reasons we did not include all of Downtown in it, because of the proximity questions. Mr. Pendoley stated that one of the implementation projects coming out of the Vision is to do a study of new boundaries for the Parking District. He stated they need to be significantly larger than they are. He noted that one of the things which makes that study difficult is that you have to address the need to build more garages, because if you are going to extend the boundaries, there is a question of how far people are going to walk. We do not have the resources to do that. Councilmember Zappetini stated he was thinking in terms of a future developer. Ms. Nicolai stated she sees this as a timing issue. This project is in hand, and the annexation is being recommended, but one of the implementation measures will be to look at it and eventually to re -do the District boundaries. However, at any point in time, it is highly unlikely that you will create islands which are not contiguous. Once that study is done and the extension of the District comes forward as a full- blown project, it is not likely that we will be dealing with small requests for annexation on a regular basis. This project came forward, it is contiguous, the District will be re -done as an implementation measure to the Downtown Plan, but once that is accomplished, you will not likely have requests for small islands out there. Mayor Boro noted that in this case, the property is contiguous to the boundary, and it is a gain for the City because of the housing. If we have another request and the parcel is a few blocks away and we have not changed our criteria, they will be out of luck. Ms. Nicolai added that would be at least for a period of time. She added that such a request would be a different type because it would involve more than one piece SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/6/94 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/6/94 Page of property if it was not contiguous. Councilmember Thayer stated there is a larger issue involved, especially the area toward Highway 101. Of all the sections of the City, that is the one with the least amount of parking. She noted that Lots 5 and 6 are not very big compared to some of the others, and we must look at the parking situation on a long-term basis because she does not feel that parking is going to be adequate in the future. Councilmember Cohen expressed concern about impacting future City Councils. He noted this Council is considering adopting a Resolution tonight which lays out the proce-dure for annexation to the Parking District. If for some good and compelling reason, a future City Council wanted to change this policy they could, by adoption of a Resolution, strike the word "contiguous" from this Resolution. He stated he is not advocating that, but pointing out that it could be amended by a future Council. He stated there is a need for a serious look at the whole Parking District and what the needs are and what the long-term strategy should be. He recommended a study of the available parking which is not based on the narrow window which this one was, and recommended a better methodology in determining the parking availability. He stated he does not have a problem with this project at all, but he is not entirely comforta- ble with the way the analysis was done. Mr. Pendoley explained that in preparing the Negative Declaration for this project, which includes annexation, in addition to the very focused study which was done for this project staff also had available to them the studies which were done as part of the Vision. We found that throughout the District we had a consistently high vacancy rate, and that is one reason for the policy which has been in the Zoning Ordinance for many years, which allows for one floor of a development with no parking required. He stated staff felt very competent about issuing this Negative Declaration. He agreed there needs to be a comprehensive parking strategy developed, which looks at the long-range and gives us a basis for making a recommendation on new boundaries for the District as well as giving us context for evaluating individual proposals which may come up from time to time. Mayor Boro inquired, assuming we wanted to expand the Parking District to Grand Avenue, how would you fund a new structure? Would you tax everyone in the whole District, would you tax the people in the new area, would you put meters in that area? He explained the reason he asked is because of the reference to in -lieu fees in case we had to build something, and he wanted to know how we are going to pay for the facilities if we expand the District, and why staff did not want to charge an in -lieu fee for the commercial site on this project. Ms. Korzun replied that if you charge an in -lieu fee then you do not have to be in the District. You pay the fee, and then you are forgiven the parking. That is an alternative to being in a District. She pointed out that if we were to go as far as Grand Avenue, we would probably set up a new Assessment District, and it would have its own boundaries. She explained that in order to be an Assessment District, there would have to be an agreement with the property owners. The City could not just put one in. The funding mechanism would be set up in accordance with State law. She pointed out we could charge an assessment, we could dedicate meters, we could sell bonds, or other funding mechanisms. We could pick the appropriate one for a given situation. Mayor Boro asked Mr. Glenn Koorhan if he would like to address the Council. Mr. Glenn Koorhan, developer, stated he has with him the project architect, Mr. Christian Oakes of Craiker & Associates. He explained the background of the project with regard to the parking. He stated that ideally he would like to get all of the parking needs on site. He explained they had a parking structure consultant come in to see about parking in the air, in order to have more spaces, but because of the soils condition with the ground water being so high, the footings required would be so substantial that the cost of the structure would be in excess of $1 million, and would basically render the project infeasible. Also, ground level parking on Fourth Street would not be desirable in lieu of the proposed retail shops. He discussed the parking survey of the nearest five lots in the Parking District, and found that 49% to 74% of the spaces throughout the day were vacant. He noted that he is actually creating 29 spaces on-site, and with 26 units, there is an excess of 3 spaces for the retail on-site, and added to that the complimentary spaces referred to by Ms. Korzun which will probably be from 8 to 13 spaces, there will be only about 15 spaces in the Parking District. Mr. Koorhan stated he is aware of the Vision process, and has met the requirements to the highest possible extent. He stated that in -lieu fees would make the project impossible and, although it is a for-profit project, the profit margins are indeed slim. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/6/94 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/6/94 Page 10 Councilmember Heller asked is Mr. Koorhan adding one or two parking spaces on Fourth Street, and he replied that he is. Mr. Jake Ours, Assistant Executive Director, Redevelopment, stated that regarding management of the Parking District, they have identified a number of users in the parking lots which are full all of the time, and the intent - as Ms. Korzun said - is to lure them with the offer of free parking at the PG&E site. He has talked to several merchants, and the idea has a lot of appeal and he feels will free up those lots. Councilmember Zappetini noted that Mr. Koorhan had said the in -lieu fees would make the project infeasible, and asked what numbers are we talking about. Mr. Koorhan replied, he is not sure what the in -lieu fees are, but he has heard figures like $10,000 per space. If it is of that order of magnitude for 15 to 23 spaces required by the retail, it would be between $150,000 and $230,000, and they could not afford that. Mr. Pendoley pointed out there are a couple of ways to provide parking in San Rafael - build it on-site or have a property nearby which could be leased if approved. If you are within the Parking District and, even after you get the one -floor break, you still cannot provide parking spaces, then you have the option of leasing property which is what the Centertown project did, or you could pay the in -lieu fee which goes toward the construction of new spaces. The only place that the in -lieu fee applies is within the Parking District, and it goes toward creating new spaces in the District. He added he does not think it has ever been applied. There being no further public input, the Public Hearing was closed. Mayor Boro stated that Councilmember Cohen made a good point regarding the parking survey, and recommended the lots be monitored on a regular basis, once a month or every two months, to have an ongoing count over all of the different seasons of the year, so we could start to develop some trends, and build up some data. Mayor Boro asked, in the existing Parking District, were there bonds issued? Ms. Korzun replied it was done twice. Mayor Boro asked, were the people who owned property there taxed? City Manager Nicolai replied they were not, it was paid by the parking meters. Mayor Boro confirmed that they had never imposed an assessment, but that it was always supported by parking meters. Councilmember Heller stated that this is an excellent project, and she supports it. She agreed that we need to look at our future parking needs, and we will be looking at that through our Vision process. She stated that in the criteria discussed tonight, she does not feel we will be bombarded with requests to come into the District since this is the first in over 30 years. She stated she is comfortable voting for the project and the annexation. Councilmember Cohen stated there are some properties contiguous to, or quite near, the District, on which it will have a significant impact, and they could be developed in the next few years, so we should be prepared. He stated he can support both of the staff recommendations tonight, contingent upon the more detailed parking assess-ment including the monitoring. However, we should look to the future and the possibility of a project coming up with greater requirements. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Zappetini seconded, to adopt the Resolu-tion establishing annexation requirements and procedures. Councilmember Thayer stated she would also like to see in the future some sort of support with regard to the whole Irwin Street area, because once you get beyond Lincoln Avenue, there is no parking in San Rafael, and she feels there will be an annexation problem in the future. RESOLUTION NO. 9202 - ESTABLISHING REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES FOR THE ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY TO PARKING DISTRICT NO. 1 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING THE BOUNDARIES OF PARKING DISTRICT NO. 1 ESTABLISHED BY CHARTER ORDINANCE NO. 659 SO AS TO INCLUDE 729 FOURTH STREET, THE SOUTH EASTERLY CORNER OF LINCOLN AVENUE AND FOURTH STREET, APN 11-275- SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/6/94 Page 10 11 01." SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/6/94 Page Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1667 to print by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None OLD BUSINESS 15.REPORT ON BID OPENING AND AWARD OF CONTRACT - MERRYDALE ROAD OVERCROSSING PROJECT (PW) - File 4-1-468 x 9-3-40 Public Works Director Bernardi briefed the Council, stating that this item is being brought back after the Council rejected the previous bids for this project. The bids were opened on July 15, 1994, and the results of those bids are attached to the staff report. He explained that by re -bidding this project we have saved approximately $279,000 over what was originally bid by Benco Contracting, the previous low bidder. Mr. Bernardi explained that as a result of receiving of the bids, Benco Contracting & Engineering filed a protest on the low bid proposal on a number of issues: 1) Not having an authenticated signature approving corrections in the bid documents; 2) Discrepancies between a percentage of work of a subcontractor; and 3) the value of work claimed for a subcontractor. He noted there was a fourth item which was subsequently withdrawn by Benco, revolving around the issue of Ghilotti Bros. submitting a bid to more than one of the proposers, but that was subsequently found not to be the case and Benco withdrew its protest on that issue. Mr. Bernardi addressed the unauthenticated signatures, stating the issue is whether Ghilotti Bros. initialed each of the changes to the bid proposal rather than physi- cally signing them. Ghilotti Bros. initialed the changes and Benco signed the name in full of the person submitting the bid. The other bidders initialed them. Mr. Bernardi explained the specifications stated that they be full signatures, but after discussing it with our attorney, we felt that the primary reason for having any signature, whether it was a full signature or an initial, was to have some acknowl- edgement that the person who was making the changes in the proposal was the same person who signed the bid documents and ultimately had authorization to make those changes. As a matter of information, Mr. Bernardi noted that in a project such as this, before the bid is submitted and ultimately opened, many of the bidders are out in the parking lot with their cellular phones talking to the subcontractors, getting last minute prices. He noted prices do change momentarily, and they are fine-tuning their bid as the deadline approaches. As a result of that, there are some changes and corrections to the bid proposal, and the contractor then is required to submit the bid at the appropriate time. When they do "cross outs", we want to make sure that the person who submitted the bid is the one who made the cross -out. Mr. Bernardi stated staff feels that issue is insignificant, because the person who initialled the changes was authorized to do so and, in fact, had signed the bid document itself as the person submitting the bid. Mr. Bernardi stated that another issue was the percentage of work, and explained that our specifications require that the percentage of work for all subcontractors be listed. In this particular case, a subcontractor's work was listed as 0.06% in the bid proposal, but in the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Report that same contrac-tor was listed as 0.10%. However, Ghilotti Bros. indicated in their response to that protest item that Bayline Construction, which was the subcontractor, is also perform- ing work as a second tier subcontractor, and they are not required to be listed. When you add the two together, they are consistent with one another. Staff feels that issue, also, is minor and insignificant. Regarding the value of subcontractor work, Mr. Bernardi stated that Benco had indica-ted that without the trucking participation, Ghilotti Bros. disadvantaged participa-tion falls short of the goal of 20% set in the specifications as well as the good faith efforts required of all the bidders. Mr. Bernardi explained that the space on the form was too small for the contractor to list all of the items of work that this trucking subcontractor was to do, so when Ghilotti Bros. submitted the detail of the work, the $200,000 amount did not change, but he just did not list all of the work in the proposal. He stated that if the numbers had changed, it would have been different, but with the dollar amount the same, staff felt it was insignificant. Mr. Bernardi explained that this information was sent to all of the bidders regarding the bid protest, staff's recommendation to reject the protest and award the contract to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder, and of the date and time of this SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/6/94 Page 11 12 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/6/94 Page Council meeting in case anyone wanted to submit any additional comments to the Council. He stated that CalTrans has reviewed all of this, and they feel it is appropriate to award the contract to the low bidder, and we have received verbal authorization from CalTrans to award the contract. He added staff has worked closely with the City Attorney's Office in preparing this report to Council. He noted that Assistant City Attorney Guinan is present, and could answer any questions by the Council. In addition, there is a Resolution, should the Council find it is appro- priate to award the contract to the low bidder. There are findings in the Resolution. Councilmember Zappetini asked for confirmation that the Assistant City Attorney has gone over everything and we are not at risk with this project, and that is backed up by CalTrans. Assistant City Attorney Guinan responded that if Councilmember is asking for a 100% guarantee, he is not sure he can give that, but can come close. He added he has talked with several city attorneys who are known Statewide in the area of bid pro- tests and this sort of litigation, and has also talked with the head of the CalTrans Legal Contract Division in Sacramento, and they basically concur with the recommenda- tions which are made in the staff report. He stated he feels quite comfortable, specifically with the issue of signatures versus initials, which seems to be the final focus of Benco's protest, that even if it is an irregularity at all, it is minor and can be waived and the contract awarded. Councilmember Thayer inquired, how did the so-called irregularities listed compare with the irregularities from the previous bidding process? Mr. Bernardi responded that one of the most significant irregularities in the previous bid was that three of the eight contractors did not list the percentage of the subcontractors' work. Benco, then the low bidder, did not list the percentage of subcontractor work so, in essence, we did not know how much work was going to be subbed out and how much Benco itself was going to do. The specifications require that the contractor do 51% of the work in-house and not sub it out. Staff had no idea what Benco or the other bidders were going to do. He stated that in staff's opinion that is significant. Mayor Boro stated that reading the letter from Benco's attorney, Pettit & Martin, he talked about San Rafael's compliance with its unique bidding requirements and then mentioned "why is the last minute bidding effort diverted, why cannot the compliance occur earlier". He apparently felt they were diverted from cutting their prices further because they had to sign their full name rather than initial. Mr. Bernardi stated the issue is that Ghilotti Bros. had an unfair business advantage because they initialed it rather than having to sign their full name, and if Benco had initialed it, they could have sharpened their pencil a little more and become low bidder. Councilmember Heller inquired of Mr. Guinan, can we perhaps be sued for these irregu- larities, and will CalTrans give us a signoff in writing, to what they consider the minor irregularities? Mr. Guinan asked is Councilmember Heller asking if CalTrans would indemnify the City for awarding the bid, and he seriously doubts they would do SO. Councilmember Heller noted they had approved the bid verbally. Mr. Guinan stated it is his considered opinion that since he does not see anyone present tonight from Benco to make a protest, he suspects that is as far as it will go. Mayor Boro stated that sometimes you have a formal protest and you reject the protest, but the Council is not being asked to reject the protest and award the bid, but simply to award the bid, so he is assuming this letter is not being taken as a formal protest. Mr. Guinan responded that it was taken as a formal protest. He noted that the Resolution rejects the protest. Mr. Bernardi commented on Councilmember Heller's concern about CalTrans' indemnifica-tion. CalTrans has told staff that if this were their project, they would award the contract. If the second bidder chose some sort of action, they would have to defend it just like we would if it was filed against us for awarding the contract. He stated he feels we would prevail. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to adopt the Resolution awarding the contract to Ghilotti Bros. for construction of the Merrydale Overcross- ing and Northbound Freeway Onramp. Included in the Resolution is the overruling of any written or verbal protest to this bid award, based on the findings presented by staff tonight. RESOLUTION NO. 9203 - RESOLUTION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR MERRYDALE OVERCROSSING (To Ghilotti Bros. Construction, Inc., lowest responsible bidder, in amount of $4,884,737, waiving all irregularities) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/6/94 Page 12 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/6/94 Page 13 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None NEW BUSINESS None. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS 16.None. The Council adjourned at 10:00 PM and reconvened to continue Closed Session to discuss Labor Negotiations. Mayor Boro then announced in Open Session that no reportable action was taken. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 1994 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/6/94 Page 13