Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1996-11-18SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/96 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1996 AT 8:00 PM Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor San Rafael City Council Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Barbara Heller, Councilmember Cyr Miller, Councilmember Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember Absent: None Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk OPEN SESSION - 7:00 PM - COUNCIL CHAMBER Mayor Boro announced Closed Session item. CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 PM - CONFERENCE ROOM 201 1. 0 Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation Government Code Section 54956.9(a) a. Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco v. The City of San Mateo, California First Appellate District, Division Four. (Request for City of San Rafael participation as amicus party). OPEN SESSION - 8:00 PM - COUNCIL CHAMBER City Attorney Ragghianti announced the Council unanimously approved request for City participation as amicus party. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:00 PM None CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to approve the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 2. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of Approved as submitted. Monday, October 21, 1996 and Special Meeting of November 4, 1996 (CC) 3. Resolution Authorizing Expenditure of Funds RESOLUTION NO. 9738 - to Publish Quarterly City Newsletter and RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE Authorizing Execution of Agreement Between EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS AND THE City and Joe Leisek (CM) - File 4-3-322 SIGNING OF AN AGREEMENT WITH JOE LEISEK TO PUBLISH QUARTERLY CITY NEWSLETTER. 4. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1703 - An Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.55 of the San Rafael Municipal Code, to Add Subsection "E" to Section 2.55.070, to Amend Section 2.55.010, and to Amend Section 2.55.170, "Purchasing Policy" (Re: Preference for Local Vendors, Suppliers, and Businesses) (CM) - File 9-3-12 5. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1704 - An Ordinance Amending Section 5.40.140 of the San Rafael Municipal Code - Parking, Commercial Vehicles and Semi - Trailers (PW) - File 11-8 x 9-3-40 x 11-1 Approved final adoption of Ordinance No. 1703. Approved final adoption of Ordinance No. 1704. 7. Consideration of Adoption of a Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 9739 - Increasing the Allocation from the Equipment RESOLUTION INCREASING THE Replacement Fund (009 Account) from $12,500/ ALLOCATION FROM THE EQUIPMENT Vehicle to $16,500/Vehicle to Replace Two REPLACEMENT FUND (009 ACCOUNT) Inspector Station Wagons With Used Utility FROM $12,500/VEHICLE TO Vehicles (PW) - File 8-5 x 9-3-40 $16,500/VEHICLE TO REPLACE TWO (2) INSPECTOR STATION WAGONS WITH USED TWO -WHEEL DRIVE UTILITY VEHICLES. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/96 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/96 Page 2 9. Approval of Street Closure for the 17th Approved staff recommendation. Annual Parade of Lights Winter Wonderland November 29 and 30, 1996 (RA) - File 11-19 10. Report on Parking Lot Closure at Lootens Approved staff recommendation. Lot (Holiday Fleatique) December 15, 1996 from 6:00 AM to 5:00 PM (RA) - File 2-1-18 x 11-19 12. Resolution Approving and Authorizing the RESOLUTION NO. 9740 - City Manager to Take Steps Necessary to RESOLUTION APPROVING AND Delegate the Responsibility for Household AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER Waste Management to the Joint Powers TO TAKE STEPS NECESSARY TO Authority (FD) - File 4-13-96 x 13-2 x 115 DELEGATE THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR HOUSEHOLD WASTE MANAGEMENT TO THE JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY. 13. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to RESOLUTION NO. 9741 - Execute Household Hazardous Waste Agreement RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE with the Marin County Solid and CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A Hazardous Waste Joint Powers Authority (FD) HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE - File 4-13-96 x 13-2 x 115 AGREEMENT WITH THE MARIN COUNTY SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY. 14. Resolution Approving Grant Contract with RESOLUTION NO. 9742 - State Department of Education for $15,691 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE for Child Care Scholarship Expansion SIGNING OF A CONTRACT WITH Funds (Rec) - File 4-10-238 x 9-3-65 CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FOR $15,691 IN EXPANSION FUNDS FOR CHILD CARE SCHOLARSHIPS (Contract GSAC-6034). 15. Monthly Investment Report (Admin. Svc.) Accepted report. - File 8-18 x 8-9 16. Resolution Pertaining to Compensation and RESOLUTION NO. 9743 - Working Conditions of the San Rafael Fire RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO THE Chief Officers' Association (Per) COMPENSATION AND WORKING - File 7-8-2 CONDITIONS FOR THE SAN RAFAEL FIRE CHIEF OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION 30, 1997). (One year agreement from July 1, 1996 through June The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar for further discussion: 6. AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION NO. 9533 ADOPTING AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AND PACIFIC/WEST COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, INC. RE: (MCSTOPPP) (PW) - File 4-4-6b Mayor Boro proposed additional wording to be included in the Resolution, as follows: Paragraph 5 to read, "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Council of the City of San Rafael does hereby adopt the amendment to the agreement from PACIFIC/WEST COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, INC. for professional services between the City of San Rafael, acting as the Contracting Agent and Treasurer for BASMAA, and PACIFIC/WEST COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, INC. not to exceed the total of $362,000.00." Mayor Boro stated he wanted to make very clear, in the Resolution, that the City was doing this as an agent, and not as the City. Councilmember Phillips asked how much the City was contributing to this program? Public Works Director Bernardi reported Marin County's share, as a whole, was $35,000, and San Rafael's share was approximately 25% of that, or a little less than $10,000. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution amending Resolution No. 9533 adopting agreement for professional services between the City of San Rafael and Pacific/West Communications Group, Inc., as amended. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/96 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/96 Page 3 RESOLUTION NO. 9744 -RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 9533 ADOPTING AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AND PACIFIC/WEST COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, INC. NOT TO EXCEED THE TOTAL OF $362,000 (as amended to read, " for professional services between the City of San Rafael, acting as the Contracting Agent and Treasurer for BASMAA, and Pacific/West Communications Group, Inc., not to exceed $362,00011) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 8. RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH NICHOLS•BERMAN ASSOCIATES TO PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DOMINICAN COLLEGE MASTER PLAN (P1) - File 4-3-318 Mayor Boro announced this item would be continued to the meeting of December 2, 1996, at the request of staff. 11. PARKING METER HOLIDAY - NOVEMBER 29 to DECEMBER 27, 1996 (RA) - File 11-18 Councilmember Phillips asked how we let people know about this moratorium? Mr. Bernardi stated that during this time each year the Public Works Department removes the interior of the meters for renovation and repair, noting this year they would also be changing the meters over to the new timing. He stated they would install a small sign in the meters which indicated two hours of free parking. Mayor Boro stated perhaps we could discuss this with the BID (Business Improvement District) , noting they run advertisements in the Weekly section of the Marin Independent Journal, and they might want to include something about the Parking Meter Holiday in these ads. Mr. Bernardi stated it needed to be made clear there was still a two hour parking limit, it is just that the customers do not need to put money in the meters for those first two hours. Ms. Heller suggested the City might issue a press release to let the public know two hours of free parking were available. Councilmember Phillips asked if perhaps the time limit should be greater than two hours? Ms. Heller noted the City does have parking lots with longer time limits, and Mr. Bernardi noted the parking lot at Third and "A" Streets provided unlimited parking. Ms. Heller noted the two hour parking limit was mainly on the street, and was designed to keep the traffic and the parking turned over, so everyone has a chance to shop. Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, declaring a two-hour parking meter holiday for all two-hour downtown meters, and the first two hours of parking at the Third and "A" Street Parking Structure for the period of 11/27/96 through 12/26/96. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None MONTHLY REPORTS: 17. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT (CM) - File 9-3-11 (Verbal) City Manager Rod Gould reported the Police Department had been using the newly revised voice mail system for the past three weeks, and noted when people call the Police Department during normal business hours, they now speak to a live person, and do not have to deal with voice mail at all. He stated those who call after normal business hours and on weekends get into a more simplified voice mail system. Mr. Gould commented on Steve Patterson's earlier suggestion that perhaps the City should have worked with the residents and users of the system to determine its flaws, and then make the changes accordingly, and Mr. Gould pointed out that after eight years of complaints, staff had a good idea where the inadequacies were in the system, and noted the feeling was that the City would try to make the changes we could immediately, work with the system and try to get the glitches out, and then see what further improvements could be made. Mr. Gould stated it was his hope we would do as much as we could with the current system, which is antiquated, and then address the question of whether or not a City-wide voice mail system, using state of the art technology, might be a better investment, while at the same time providing customer service training to our staff. Mr. Gould referred to the Macy's property, noting the Redevelopment Agency staff had sent out over fifty-five Requests for Proposals. He stated the interest in this property was tremendous, and we are looking for some very innovative proposals in the coming weeks and months. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/96 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/96 Page 4 Mr. Gould reported staff was working with the City Attorney's office to further assess the impact of Proposition 218 on the City's finances, noting all of the cities in the State of California were scrambling to determine what this means. He pointed out there is a great deal of controversy and uncertainty that surrounds this issue, and noted staff would be attending conferences and symposiums to get the advice of various experts and attorneys in this field. He stated staff would begin the Business Cost Study, which Council had authorized, in order to get a better idea of what the City's costs are. Updating the issue of Code Enforcement related to the Holiday Magic building, Mr. Gould recalled Council had held over, for one month, the Public Hearing on whether demolition or repair of the property would be required, in order to give the property owner adequate notice to consider the City's findings and recommendations for remedy of the deficiencies on the property. Mr. Gould noted the City had asked to hear from the property owner by today, as to what his intentions were for making the property safe, and addressing the deficiencies. Mr. Gould reported the City received a FAX from the attorney representing the property owner, suggesting the property owner was very interested in reusing the building, and would make some, but by no means all, of the changes requested by City staff. Mr. Gould stated staff would meet with the property owner, or his representative, in the coming weeks, but suggested the Public Hearing go forward at the first Council meeting in December. Mr. Gould reported a new Police Officer was sworn in by the City Clerk, and noted the Officer would be introduced at the next Council meeting. Mr. Gould introduced Gerald de Kerchove, Vice President of Fair, Isaac, who addressed the Council, reporting a scheduled item on the agenda of Fair, Isaac's Board of Directors meeting, held earlier today, had to do with the progress report on their plans to establish a campus at Lindaro and Second Streets which, as Mr. de Kerchove pointed out, has been a long and elaborate process. He noted Fair, Isaac' s Board of Directors, at their previous meeting three months ago, had stated they were basically progressing toward this conclusion, but there were a number of issues the company had to be certain were resolved prior to occupying the new campus. He noted the areas of discussion had to do with traffic issues, getting in and out of the campus and on the freeway, primarily coming from the north; toxic issues; and issues relating to safety around the campus. Mr. de Kerchove noted Fair, Isaac's Directors felt progress had to be made on these items before they could go forward with negotiations for the lease/purchase agreement with the developer of the property, Village Properties. Mr. de Kerchove stated he was very pleased to announce Fair, Isaac' s Board of Directors felt most of the red flags that would be in the way of formalizing the agreement were potentially out of the way. He noted the biggest one had to do with a technicality regarding an indemnification clause from the current owner, P.G.& E., for prior use of the property, with regard to impact of future use of the property. Mr. de Kerchove stated that had been a complicated negotiation, and he commended Mayor Boro for intervening at precisely the right time, with precisely the right people, to help Fair, Isaac obtain the indemnification clause from P. G. & E. Mr. de Kerchove also commended Economic Development Director Ours for his assistance on a number of issues concerning the design of the property, noting as Project Manager, Mr. Ours had been incredible in ensuring the City was doing its job in making progress toward the common goals of the City and Fair, Isaac. Mr. de Kerchove believed one reason such good progress was being made was because the goals of Fair, Isaac and the City were so well aligned. Mr de Kerchove announced that after presenting the results of the investigations to Fair, Isaac' s Board of Directors at their meeting today, the Board unanimously approved a plan to continue negotiations with Village Properties, with the intent of securing a final lease/purchase agreement in early January, at which time they could submit an application for the Environmental Impact Report, and then apply for the building permit. Mr. de Kerchove stated the goal at this stage was to continue refining the negotiation steps, so in early January they would be ready to sign the agreement with Village Properties, who technically has the right to purchase the property, in which case Fair, Isaac could either lease or purchase the property from them. Mr. de Kerchove noted the conclusion of this step was scheduled for early January, although he pointed out this did not mean they would actually be at this point in January, as the Environmental Impact Report was a long and complicated process. However, Mr. de Kerchove noted that in light of the early work both the City and Fair, Isaac had done, there were no unforeseen major hurdles known at this stage which would prevent Fair, Isaac from completing this agreement. He stated Fair, Isaac's planning, however, had been very consistent with earlier steps they had taken to be extremely inclusive in the Environmental Impact Report process, so should there be any environmental issues from the neighborhoods, the community, SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/96 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/96 Page 5 or from anyone they had not identified as yet, and should there be some ground for solving these concerns, they would be able to attend to them as early as possible. Mr. de Kerchove stated the goal was to make this site as for use by Fair, Isaac, their employees and customers, to the revitalization of San Rafael. successful as possible, and also as a cornerstone Mayor Boro thanked Mr. de Kerchove on behalf of the City and the citizens of the community, recalling when the City was going through the Vision process several years ago, it had been the citizens who had come up with the idea of building a signature piece on this site, so it would really befit the entrance to the City. He stated with the vision Fair, Isaac has for this site, and with the support of the community, we were going to achieve that, noting not only would this be an economic benefit for the City, but it would certainly enhance and permanently change the landscape of the City. Mayor Boro stated the City was looking forward to this project going forward. Councilmember Cohen recalled when he and Mayor Boro had first discussed the recommendation that the City switch its thinking from retail to office use for the P. G. & E. site, he had felt that was a good idea, but was afraid the City would have to wait ten years to see it happen. He stated he never could have envisioned it would happen as quickly as it has, with a "homegrown" corporation of such an outstanding reputation. He felt the City and the community had learned a lot from working this as a partnership, and hoped we could continue to work as we have through the approval process, and perhaps set a new standard for having the process go so well and cooperatively. PUBLIC HEARING: 18. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE ADOPTING, BY REFERENCE, AMENDMENTS TO THE ANIMAL CONTROL REGULATIONS AND LICENSE FEE INCREASES CONTAINED IN SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 8.04 OF THE MARIN COUNTY CODE (ANIMAL CONTROL) (CM) - File 4-13-54 x 13-3 Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened, and asked for the staff report. Assistant City Manager Suzanne Golt reported this Ordinance referred to certain changes to Section 8 of the Marin County Code relating to Animal Control. Ms. Golt explained San Rafael, as well as the other cities and towns within Marin County, contract with the Marin Humane Society for animal control services. Ms. Golt stated the changes included in the amendment before Council relate to dog license fees, as well as a few changes concerning the timing and certain other conditions relating to delinquent penalties, and documenting some of the wording regarding potentially dangerous and vicious dogs. She noted there were also some minor changes relating to the confinement and quarantine sections. Ms. Golt noted the staff report contained a complete copy of the County's Animal Control Ordinance, Chapter 8.04, which was adopted in October, pointing out the changes had been underlined in the material from the County. There being no public comment, Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing. The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ADOPTING, BY REFERENCE, AMENDMENTS TO THE ANIMAL CONTROL REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN TITLE 8 OF THE MARIN COUNTY CODE." Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1705 to print, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None OLD BUSINESS: 19. REPORT FROM PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ON PRIORITIZED LIST OF DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND RECOMMENDATION TO CONSTRUCT IMPROVEMENTS TO PARK STREET AND UNION STREET IN FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 FROM THE CLEAN WATER ACTIVITY FUND (042 Account) (PW) - File 12-9 x 9-3-40 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/96 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/96 Page 6 Public Works Director Bernardi reported that on August 19th he presented two alternatives for Council's consideration regarding improving the drainage along Union Street, and at that time Council directed staff to review those options, as well as prioritize all of the drainage issues facing the City. Mr. Bernardi stated Assistant Public Works Director Matt Naclerio has been working with a sub -committee of the Budget Oversight Committee to re -prioritize these projects, noting an updated list had been attached to the staff report for Council's review. Mr. Bernardi stated once the Capital Improvement list had been completed, they then reviewed the rankings of Park Street and Union Street, in terms of their priority with other projects the City must address. He reported out of a total 89 points given to a particular project, the Park Street Drainage Project scored a rating of 45 points, and the Union Street Drainage Project scored a rating of 28 points. Mr. Bernardi reported the reduced plan for the Park Street Drainage Project involved approximately 1,200 feet of pipe, and a number of manholes and catch basins. He noted this particular project was the subject of litigation on some properties, which had been discussed with Council in Closed Session. Mr. Bernardi noted the staff report recommends staff be authorized to proceed with the preparation of plans and specifications, call for bids, and construct the project. Mr. Bernardi stated the Union Street Project was a little more complicated. He noted when the two alternatives were presented in August, one had been to do a minimum repair costing approximately $8,000, which included putting an asphalt berm on the east side of Union Street, cleaning out the existing drainage ditch, and cleaning the pipes that were plugged. He recalled the other alternative was to repair the entire system and install all new pipes, and that was estimated to be approximately $80,000. Based on the Council's discussion at the August meeting, Mr. Bernardi reported staff had prepared a third alternative. Mr. Bernardi stated this plan was a hybrid of the two earlier alternatives, and would cost approximately $30,000, noting the work done on this plan would not be wasted in terms of the ultimate solution. Referring to a map of the site, Mr. Bernardi pointed out where the drainage ditch was located in relation to Mission Avenue and Union Street. He reported that in cleaning out the drainage pipe, the City's equipment crushed a pipe which was very near the surface, so they extended the pipe to a point beyond 113 Union Street, which now means they are talking about installing 168 feet of 18 inch pipe, which would be a permanent installation. Mr. Bernardi also pointed out an area of temporary 15 inch pipe, which would be installed and connect with other 15 inch pipes already there, and reported the new 18 inch pipe would be deepened to accommodate the new grades of the ultimate design. Mr. Bernardi stated additional work would consist of installing a modification around an existing catch basin, which would consist of constructing a berm and asphalt paving around the basin, so the water could be channeled to direct its flow into the catch basin, and to prevent its overflowing and running down the street. He reported on Jewell Street there was an existing dirt ditch which has been partially asphalted, and noted this plan proposed to re -asphalt that ditch in order to allow for the proper flow of water. Mr. Bernardi stated the berm was still proposed for the east side of the street, and they would be adding an asphalt sidewalk. He noted when they looked at this, they determined they could not just add a three to four inch berm and still have a place for the property owners to park their vehicles, so they were also putting in an asphalt walkway behind it so the property owners could drive over the three or four inch berm without any difficulty. Mr. Bernardi stated with this particular plan, if the water overflows the existing storm drain system, the new berm on the east side of Union Street would pick-up the water and carry it down the existing curb and gutter into existing catch basins at Mission Avenue and Union Street. The new pipe would work as designed, and in the interim, until they were ready to replace the rest of the system, these two systems would work all right. The 15 inch pipe they would be installing could be salvaged when they install the new 18 inch pipe up to Belle Avenue, and staff felt this particular alternative would meet the concerns of the neighborhood. Mayor Boro recalled earlier discussions of this issue included comments regarding concern of potential flooding where the children stand in front of a day care center at the bottom of the hill, and noted as he understood the proposed alternative, this problem would be resolved, and there would not be an unsafe hazard with the children getting off the bus at that location. Mr. Bernardi stated that was correct, noting the ditch would be filled-in. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/96 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/96 Page 7 Councilmember Phillips noted the proposal calls for going from 18 inch pipe to a short section of 15 inch pipe, and asked why we would be using 15 inch pipe instead of continuing with 18 inch pipe? Mr. Bernardi stated they had to use 15 inch pipe because it would be connecting on both sides to other 15 inch pipe, and in order to use 18 inch pipe, we would have to build a catch basin on each side, at a cost of approximately $2,000 for each of the basins. Councilmember Heller thanked Mr. Bernardi for finding a way to help the Union Street neighborhood, but asked if we would be able to go back in the foreseeable future and finish the job in a permanent fashion? Mr. Bernardi stated there were some funding alternatives staff was currently pursuing which might move the Union Street project further up the scale, but at this point, the permanent project was probably two years out. City Manager Gould stated that once the Business Cost Study was completed, they thought they would be able to return to Council with alternatives to do more storm drainage work. Ms. Heller asked if this was a complete list of everything in the City we know must be done, barring additional emergencies? Mr. Bernardi stated the $31 million estimated cost of all the work was what we know today, but tomorrow something could collapse, and it would have to be added to the list. Mr. Bernardi pointed out this list referred only to storm drainage. Councilmember Cohen noted the drawing Mr. Bernardi had been referring to was different than the one included in the staff report, which showed a "V" ditch. Mr. Bernardi stated "Detail All of the drawing remained the same, but "Detail B" of the drawing, which was now being presented, had been inadvertently omitted from the drawing in the staff report, and did more accurately reflect the site. Councilmember Heller asked when this project would begin? Mr. Bernardi stated the funds had been budgeted for this year, and they anticipated calling for bids in January, with construction beginning the end of March. Mr. Bernardi pointed out two things would be happening while they are doing the design work; first, they will continue to monitor and keep the storm drainage system clear on Union Street, noting they had already cleaned out the pipes to make sure they are all flowing, and they will continually monitor them during the winter months to make sure they work; second, they have taken steps to work in the backyards of the properties on Park Street, in the areas where the pipes currently go, to make sure the system is free and clear. Mr. Bernardi pointed out this area was part of staff's regular patrol when they are out looking at storm drain systems, noting that when it is raining, this was one of the first areas they check, and they will continue to check it during the rainy season until they can get the other pipe into the ground. Sallie Kibbee, President of the United Montecito Neighborhood Association, stated her Association was acting as the facilitator for the Union Street Homeowners Association, and she distributed photographs of the drainage system to the Councilmembers. Ms. Kibbee referred to the recommended proposal, noting it calls for a combination of 12, 15, and 18 inch pipes in a one block area. She stated mixing different size pipe creates problems, as was the case with the Park Street installation where a new large pipe was connected to an old smaller pipe, which could not take the pressure of the increased water and disintegrated, and the runaway underground water damaged the structures above it. Ms. Kibbee acknowledged mixing pipes on Union Street probably would not undermine houses, but would cause more flooding than before. In addition, Ms. Kibbee stated there was no real determination that the two to three inch high berms and curbs would, in fact, keep water from flooding the basement apartment at 106 Union Street, especially if more water than before is flowing on the street, which appears likely to happen. Ms. Kibbee stated it is known from past experience that the existing 12 inch pipe is inadequate to hold all the water running on the street, noting the photographs she presented show that even when the open ditch areas and existing pipe were cleaned out last April, there was still water overflowing onto the street. Ms. Kibbee reported Mr. De Fina, who lives at 123 Union Street, was anxious to replace his washed out sidewalk and curb, noting he might go ahead and do this if he could be guaranteed it would be replaced, at no cost, should it wash out again, or when a larger pipe is installed later. Ms. Kibbee stated this plan still calls for the open ditch area at the first two parcels north of the Belle Avenue intersection, noting this property is used as a child care facility, and while the facility is currently on hiatus, it will probably be reactivated, and there will again be a high concentration of children and an open ditch. Ms. Kibbee reported there was no regular street cleaning or maintenance in Montecito, SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/96 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/96 Page 8 and rain washes debris into culverts and pipes, and open ditches collect even more debris. She noted that if, as had been suggested, keeping the pipes clear was paramount to keeping the water from flooding the street, then she felt they must have a regular and committed system of street maintenance, particularly on Union Street. She stated monitoring the streets during storms was a good idea, but common sense dictates that it would not be a practical or workable solution to address the immediate flooding problems. Ms. Kibbee pointed out only part of the necessary work had been done on Park Street, as was being proposed on Union Street, and she suggested staff talk to the worst effected homeowners on Park Street to learn what a terrible experience this has been for them, and what it has cost them other than property damage, noting it had been very upsetting to the homeowners. Ms. Kibbee felt it would be grossly unfair to repeat this on Union Street. Ms. Kibbee stated the Association urged the Council to reject this proposal, and designate as high priority a fully functional drainage system on Union Street, which the property owners need. She noted this appeared to be the financially prudent way to proceed, pointing out the cost was now identified at $80, 000, while doing the alternate plan would be $30, 000, leaving $50, 000 unfunded at least until the year 2002. She stated increasing costs over the next six years would put this unfunded portion even higher, and most of the proposed alternate work would have to be redone, with only the 18 inch pipe on the parcel at Mission Avenue likely to survive. Ms. Kibbee stated the City should not let Union Street become another Park Street fiasco, but should do the job right, and do it all now. Ms. Kibbee read a letter from Phillip Sheridan, in which he states, "I am the owner of four parcels of property on Union Street. The storm and drainage situation absolutely must be corrected before we suffer anymore damage. Last year's damage to my property was in excess of $6,000, and it was caused by the negligence of the City of San Rafael. In the past I have had to litigate with the City to get them to correct sewer problems. This was done at great legal expense on my part, and the City had to correct the problem. I do not wish to have to continue to suffer damage; however, if it occurs again this year I will have no recourse but to engage counsel. Please consider our neighborhood request for correcting the deficient storm drainage set-up on the lower part of Union Street". Larry Ersland, 196 Union Street, stated a newspaper article in the Marin Independent Journal reported a study had been done in the Bay Area regarding city planning and sustainable neighborhoods, and it cited the Montecito/Happy Valley neighborhood as a role model for other neighborhoods. Mr. Ersland noted this really was a wonderful neighborhood, pointing out that at the corner of Mission Avenue and Union Street, the neighbors got together and created a lawn area for the children at Head Start and planted approximately one hundred plants, trying to make the neighborhood look nicer. He pointed out the neighborhood was culturally and economically diverse, and was the kind of neighborhood where the City should be supporting the neighbors in their effort to make a better neighborhood. Mr. Ersland referred to a recent newspaper article about the problems with the drainage systems throughout Marin County, and stated he was sympathetic to the issues the City was facing on a regular basis. He acknowledged there were some very pressing issues in the City of San Rafael, and noted whatever the City chose to do was greatly appreciated; however, he stated he had a couple of serious concerns regarding this proposal. He pointed out all the drainage was on the west side of the street, which was where the drainage ditch, pipes, and water collectors were located. He stated this was up-slope, noting the street slopes from the west side to the east side, and he felt it was backward to have all the collection ditches on the east side of the street rather than the west side. He acknowledged he had spoken with Mr. Bernardi about this, and Mr. Bernardi informed him the culvert had to be there because of interference with some of the utility lines on the east side of the street. Mr. Ersland stated if the City was going to put $30,000 into a project that would not be the ultimate solution, it seemed clear it would be a long time before the residents would see the City coming back and doing anything else. Mr. Ersland noted Mr. Bernardi's report indicated staff was proposing a two to three inch mound on the east side of the street, and he did not feel this would be adequate, stating at a minimum there should be curbs and gutters on the east side of the street. Mr. Ersland believed the proposal did not really address all the water that would overflow if it backed -up, or the remaining water that runs down the street. Mr. Ersland pointed out the situation is very different on Union Street than it SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/96 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/96 Page 9 is on Park Street, stating the situation on Park Street is an old system that started at the top of the hill and went under private property; therefore, that situation has to do with damaging private property, while Union Street has to do with common areas where people walk, and the areas in the street. He stated, at a minimum, he would ask the City to have higher barriers on the east side of the street to protect his property, and that of his neighbors who live on the east side of the street. Councilmember Cohen stated one of the issues the City was dealing with was trying to balance the ability to allow the residents to continue to have on -street parking, while dealing with the drainage issue. Mr. Ersland reported the cars were actually parking in the pedestrian right-of-way, forcing people to walk around the cars into the street, which was much more dangerous whether or not there was rain. Mr. Cohen asked if Mr. Ersland, as a property owner, would be prepared to give up on -street parking? Mr. Ersland stated he did not feel he would be doing that, as all that was needed was to move the cars off of the pedestrian right-of-way onto the street where they belong. Mr. Bernardi noted Mr. Ersland would still be able to park in front of his house, and instead of being next to his fence, he would be four or five feet further into the street, where the gutter line is. Mr. Bernardi stated this would result in a narrowing of the street, because instead of the cars parking further off the edge of the pavement, as they do now, they would be parking right at the edge of the pavement where the curb line is located. Mr. Cohen asked if a curb and gutter could be installed there? Mr. Bernardi stated it would increase the cost, and he also pointed out the Council had a policy which stated the City does not do frontage improvements for individual property owners, and had stated in other situations that the City would not increase the value of a particular piece of property by adding frontage improvements. Mr. Cohen stated we were proposing, under this plan, to do a 165 foot asphalt berm, and asked if the City could talk to the property owners involved and discuss doing curb and gutters instead, with the property owners contributing the difference in cost? Mr. Ersland stated there were only two property owners involved, himself and the Nave family, noting he could not speak for the Nave family, and did not know if they would be willing to incur the cost or not. Mr. Ersland stated he would certainly be interested in doing this, although it would not be worth it for him to do it if the Nave's did not. Mr. Bernardi stated staff could pursue this option. Mr. Cohen noted Mr. Bernardi had stated the City could conceivably do a higher asphalt berm, and noted if the City were to do a higher berm, that might justify Mr. Ersland's investment in a curb and gutter in front of his property. Mr. Cohen stated Mr. Ersland Is willingness to participate was something the City should look at, noting there might be some benefit for everyone if this were something he was interested in pursuing at the same time. Mr. Ersland pointed out this was a very busy street, with a lot of pedestrians, and right now they were having to walk in the street. Mayor Boro clarified that if it cost one amount to install the berm, and another amount to put in a curb and gutter, then the property owner would pay the difference? Councilmember Cohen stated he felt that would be reasonable, noting if the City was prepared to put in the asphalt berm, and we have a property owner who states he is willing to pay for improvements to the front of his property, then he felt it was important to look at this option. Mr. Ersland pointed out it was important to reiterate that this would need to go all the way up the street, and would need to include the Nave property. Councilmember Cohen stated the Council could not force the Nave family to do the improvements to the frontage of their property, but they could certainly see if it would be more beneficial to them, with the same kind of participation with the City. Councilmember Cohen stated staff should pursue this particular issue in greater detail with the two affected property owners. Mr. Ersland noted the asphalt berm could be made higher than two inches tall, and Mr. Bernardi stated the only reason that had not been part of the proposal was because they wanted to allow the property owners the opportunity to continue to park as they have been doing. Mr. Ersland stated he would prefer the cars not be parked as they have been, and Mr. Bernardi stated they would install a six inch berm, which would help address Mr. Ersland's concerns. Mayor Boro felt there was consensus on the issue of Park Street, and stated the Council should go forward on that issue, noting it was unfortunate the Council was being asked to undertake the permanent improvements at this time, when the study shows where this project falls with relationship to other projects and concerns throughout the City. He stated staff had been creative and had come up with a solution that may not be the entire solution, but was certainly better than what was there today. He stated the City would like to do the whole thing, but there are several million dollars worth of projects ahead of this one, which SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/96 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/96 Page 10 have been identified as even higher priority. He suggested the Council go forward with the proposal for Park Street, as presented, let staff discuss the issue of the curbs on Union Street with the property owners, and then either come back to Council if an agreement is reached, or go forward with the initial solution. He stated the City was doing everything it could, within reason, and noted the Council had to think about its responsibility to the rest of the community, as well. Councilmember Cohen stated the only change he would recommend to the proposal had to do with the 165 foot section of asphalt berm, noting he did not feel staff needed to revisit the entire issue. He stated he was comfortable with the proposal being presented for Union Street for the new piping, filling in the ditches, and the new DI boxes, and he felt Council should authorize staff to proceed with that work, and to state that if, as a result of discussions with the property owners, or after another look at what the asphalt berm should be, there was a slight change to that, and if it was not a cost item, staff should go ahead and do it, and if there was a cost to it, they could come for Council's approval on just that one piece, just that one section of asphalt berm that might be curb and gutter. Mayor Boro asked if we went from three inches to five inches with the asphalt berm, how much it would add to the cost of the project? Mr. Bernardi stated it would be insignificant. Mayor Boro suggested the motion be to go with that, and if the property owner was willing to put in the curb and gutter, then they would pay the difference. Mr. Bernardi stated they would handle that when they went out to bid on this particular part of the work, asking for a bid for an asphalt curb and sidewalk, and then an alternate bid for concrete curb and gutter and a concrete sidewalk, and if Mr. Ersland and the Nave family wanted to participate, they would have the price they would be required to pay, and they could make their decision the night the Council awards the contract. He stated staff would proceed, as Mr. Cohen has suggested, and have an answer when Council awards the bid. Mayor Boro asked if the next time this issue would come before Council would be when the bid was awarded, not for further design discussion? Mr. Bernardi stated that was correct. Councilmember Heller asked if Council was being asked to approve the rest of the 1996/97 projects, or if they would be brought back at a later date? Mr. Bernardi stated Council was only being asked to approve these particular projects at this time, and the report with the list of future projects was presented only for Council's information. He noted staff would come before the Council with future projects on an individual basis. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to accept the report as presented, and adopt the recommendation presented by the Public Works Director to proceed to construct improvements to Park Street and Union Street within fiscal year 1996/97 from the Clean Water Activity Fund. AYES: COUNCIL ERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCIL ERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 20. RESOLUTION APPROVING USE OF FEDERAL LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $55,204 FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM (PD) - File 240 x 9-3-30 Acting Police Chief Tom Boyd stated this was a request that Council approve spending $55,000 in Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Funds to fund the City's new Code Enforcement Program, which has already been approved. He stated these funds had been designed with eight Purpose Areas in mind, and funding the Assistant Code Enforcement Officers, fits into the first Purpose Area, and seems to fit with the general intent of the fund spending, as allocated by the federal government. Acting Chief Boyd stated staff had checked with the federal government, and they felt this was an appropriate use of the funds, and staff felt using this money for the Code Enforcement Program would be very beneficial to the City. He noted the Police Department was very excited about working with the expanded Code Enforcement Program, and it was essential in doing some of the things in the neighborhood. Acting Chief Boyd noted staff would need to come back before the Council and hold a Public Hearing, as required, and show what is termed as the net gain in the number of law enforcement officers who perform non -administrative services. Acting Chief Boyd stated this program would easily satisfy those requirements. He reported there was also a requirement for additional matching funds, but noted the City had already allocated funds for the Code Enforcement Program, and those SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/96 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/96 Page 11 funds could be rolled over into this program. He requested Council approve these funds, pending completion of the other two requirements the City must satisfy with this particular grant. Councilmember Cohen asked if once the City has completed those two requirements, would we have something in writing from the federal government, stating the City is authorized to use these funds in this fashion? Acting Chief Boyd stated that was correct. He stated the City must establish an Advisory Committee consisting of representatives of the County Sheriff, District Attorney, local courts, schools and a community member, noting this Committee would be required to give the final approval. Acting Chief Boyd stated that once the Committee had given approval, he would make sure the federal authorities knew exactly what we were doing, and he would ask for their written approval. Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 9745 -RESOLUTION APPROVING USE OF FEDERAL LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $55,204 FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM. 21. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING USE OF STATE COPS PROGRAM SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $120,594 FOR PICKLEWEED CITY SERVICES CENTER IMPROVEMENTS AND COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING OFFICER (PD) - File 9-3-30 x 9-3-65 Acting Police Chief Boyd reported the California State Legislature passed AB 3229, which created the Citizens Options for Public Safety Program (COPS), and required each of the fifty-eight counties to develop a supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund, noting our allocation from the County of Marin for the City of San Rafael was $120,594. He explained these funds were supposed to be spent for "front line" law enforcement, but the bill was not definitive on exactly what "front line" law enforcement was. Acting Chief Boyd stated each county has developed an Oversight Committee for the spending of these funds, noting Marin County's committee was in place, and has given the City our share of the money. He stated after talking to the members of the Committee, they felt the two uses Council was being asked to approve were appropriate. He explained the first of these uses was the authorization of $60,000 for the expansion of the Pickleweed Community Center to accommodate a Police Officer and Code Enforcement Program, noting this program was well on its way, and they were currently looking for final drafts of architectural schemes for expansion and remodeling. The second use was to fund a Community Officer specifically for the Canal area, noting this Officer would work at the Pickleweed Center and develop some community oriented policing programs the Police Department has long been looking for. Acting Chief Boyd stated these two uses really go hand in hand and will compliment each other, and he urged Council to authorize the funds for these purposes. Mayor Boro referred to the plans for the Pickleweed Community Center, noting the report suggested placing the Police Department's service center in the middle of the lobby. He stated he would like to see if there was a way the presence of that office and the people working there could be exposed to the outside, so they could look out and people could see they are there, noting he felt that would be important. Acting Chief Boyd stated the design they have been working with does have windows to the outside, noting they had designed the office space so it faced into the lobby, so it would then mesh with the counter area currently there, and create more of a community effect within the lobby of the building. Mayor Boro stated he assumed the Officer assigned to the Service Center would be Spanish speaking, noting it would not make sense otherwise, and should be a requirement. He also stated it was important the person in this job not just sit there and be in an office, that it would be his or her job to be outside in the community. He pointed out that some of the Councilmembers had been at Pickleweed Park a few weeks ago, and there were things going on in the park that were somewhat questionable, and it did not even make a dent in the activity when the Police arrived. He stated we have to bring a sense of order and to respect everyone's rights in that park, and the people in the Service Center should be very visible and be able to communicate, noting that as we design this office we need to think about the facility being a vehicle toward that goal. City Manager Gould stated if the funds can be found, they would like to have a Police Services Aide who can be stationed at the counter during the day, while the Community Police Officer would be the "spark plug" on the Community Police operations occurring in the Canal neighborhood, be highly visible, and be coordinating with other Police Officers, other agencies, and other departments, including Code Enforcement, and be very visible in the community. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/96 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/96 Page 12 Councilmember Heller asked if we would be able to transfer someone from the Police Department immediately into this position, or would be have to hire someone, noting she was concerned about a long period of time to find a new Police Officer? Acting Chief Boyd noted this was a concern, and they would need to review this. He stated the Police Department had streamlined the recruiting policies, noting they had just hired one new officer, and they would be scoring recent tests to compile a list and begin background investigations. He stated there would be a delay in this, but the Department would place a high priority on getting an Officer down there. He stated we would be able to transfer someone to this position once our staffing levels were up to the point where we could do that. Councilmember Cohen agreed the Officer who takes this position must be fluent in Spanish, otherwise we would be fooling ourselves, thinking we are going to have someone who is really going to be a neighborhood Officer, or be the "spark plug" for the community. Councilmember Miller stated the Canal Voice Project has had two sessions in the Canal, and a call for Community Policing, a foot presence, and an Officer who is active and interacting with the entire community and the other service providers, was something that came up in both of these sessions. He noted this was a very high priority in the Canal, and stated it was nice to see government and citizen participation coming together. Mr. Miller agreed it was absolutely essential the Officer in this position be Spanish speaking. Councilmember Cohen asked if Acting Chief Boyd was comfortable that spending $60,000 still falls within the definition of Front Line Law Enforcement? Acting Chief Boyd stated he did, noting he had spoken with three members of the Oversight Committee, reporting they felt this was an appropriate use, specifically because they felt it would be a spot for all of our Officers to meet to conduct business, and the Code Enforcement Officers will also be there part-time, pointing out we want the Code Enforcement Officers to work with the Police Officers. He noted the regular Patrol Beat Officers would also stop in, increasing our presence in Pickleweed Park, and the Street Crimes Officers, as well as the Neighborhood Officer, would all be utilizing this office. He stated this would bring people together, and would increase our presence at the Teen Center, which was one of the things the Police Department has been trying to do for a long time. Mr. Gould pointed out that Acting Chief Boyd has spoken with the three law enforcement members of the Oversight Committee, while he had spoken with the non -law enforcement members, and he agreed that the Committee felt our use of these funds was appropriate. Councilmember Phillips stated that in discussing this project with some of the CCA (Canal Community Alliance) members, he felt this was going to be a welcome addition to Pickleweed and the community. He referred to the issue of community acceptance of the Officer who will be at this location, and asked if rather than just hiring someone who can speak Spanish, perhaps we could get a buy -in from the community by asking what they would like to see with regard to our Community Policing efforts in that location. Mr. Phillips felt community involvement might enhance the process. Acting Chief Boyd agreed we had to keep an open mind as we moved into these types of projects, noting it would not be the traditional way of allocating personnel that we have done in the past. He felt if we were going to have a Community Officer, it was appropriate to have an Officer who really wants to be there, and it would also be significant as to how that Officer interacts with the community, and what the community expectations are. He stated all these things would have to be pulled together for a successful program. Mr. Phillips asked if, during some of the meetings being held in the community, could the issue of community input regarding this position be discussed, focusing on the expectations and buy -in aspects? Acting Chief Boyd stated that would be very easy to do. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 9746 -RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING USE OF STATE COPS PROGRAM SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $120,594 FOR PICKLEWEED CITY SERVICES CENTER IMPROVEMENTS AND COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING OFFICER. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCIL ERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None NEW BUSINESS: SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/96 Page 12 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/96 Page 13 22. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION SETTING BAIL SCHEDULE FOR VARIOUS MUNICIPAL CODE VIOLATIONS (CA) - File 13-8 x 9-3-16 x 9-10-2 City Attorney Ragghianti reported Penal Code Section 1269 requires that each year every city in the County advise the court as to revisions to its bail schedule, noting we seek to do that this year by revising our bail schedule. Mr. Ragghianti stated the bail schedule lists infractions and misdemeanors in various amounts of fees which may be posted to forfeit, in the event the individual cited chooses not to appear in court to contest the citation. Mr. Ragghianti stated the amounts contained in the revised bail schedule are for criminal citations, issued here but handled by the Marin County courts, and once the citations are issued, they are processed through the Marin County court system. He noted the City had been discussing a Code Enforcement Ordinance, which they hope to bring to Council soon, after further discussions with the City Manager. Mr. Ragghianti stated the fines schedule for civil citations issued under this new Code Enforcement Ordinance would likely mirror the amounts listed in the bail schedule, but they would not have to. He noted fines for the civil actions would be retained 100% by the City of San Rafael under the new system, as opposed to the manner in which it is handled now. He pointed out how little the City keeps once the penalties and assessments are added to the bail amount. He noted, as an example, that even on a fine of $110, the City would only keep $17 of that amount. Mr. Ragghianti explained the $110 amount was designed to provide a realistic, uniform increase to the bail set for infractions and misdemeanors, and also attempts to be consistent with the range of bails that other cities in Marin County impose. He stated the $500 figure was for misdemeanor offenses only, noting it was important to point out the reason so many of these are issued as infractions is because with an infraction there is no right to jury trial, while misdemeanors carry with them the constitutional right to a jury trial. He stated $500 was the current maximum fine that could be imposed for a misdemeanor under our Municipal Code. Mayor Boro noted there were three items on which he felt the fines and the bails should be much higher. The first was the "Discharge of guns, pistols and other weapons prohibited". He pointed out that if someone was caught discharging a gun, that was a pretty serious offense, but it was only a misdemeanor, and not a criminal charge, unless someone was hurt. He stated he would like to see a higher fee for this, noting he was more interested in penalizing someone for this than in the money the City might retain from the fine. The second item of concern referred to "Consuming alcohol in a public place". Mayor Boro asked where the category of "Public Drunkenness" showed up on the bail schedule? Mr. Ragghianti stated this was listed under 647F of the Penal Code, noting this category was occupied fully by the Penal Code, and the City had no right to charge someone with being drunk in public. Mr. Ragghianti added this was also a misdemeanor offense, and the maximum fine for a misdemeanor was $500, by State law. Mayor Boro asked what the City' s option would be on these two items, consuming alcohol in a public place, and the discharging of guns? Mr. Ragghianti stated the City had no options on the misdemeanor side, noting if we charged them as misdemeanors, the maximum fine permitted by State law would be $500; however, he noted the City could increase infraction amounts to any amount we want, not exceeding $500. The third item Mayor Boro questioned concerned "Secondary dwelling units without a Use Permit", noting this seemed to be an issue of great concern to many people in the City, and yet there were many people who were just flaunting the law. He felt the City needed to put some teeth into this, noting if the City cites someone, it should be worthwhile. Mayor Boro stated in looking at the bail schedule list, some of the items seemed much more significant than others, and someone discharging a gun, consuming alcohol in public, or having an illegal second dwelling, are big concerns, and he felt the penalties should reflect that. Councilmember Cohen stated he had also noted the listing for illegal second dwelling units, and he assumed this referred only to the fine, and that the City also ordered abatement of these units, once they were determined to be illegal. Mr. Ragghianti stated he had not seen the actual issuance of the citation for operating, or permitting to be occupied, a second dwelling unit without a Use Permit. He stated the normal procedure he would expect to be followed in such circumstances would be an Order to Show Cause issued to the owner of the property, as to why the second dwelling unit ought not to be declared a Public Nuisance and abated. Mr. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/96 Page 13 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/96 Page 14 Ragghianti stated all of the expenses which the City would incur in connection with the abatement of a Public Nuisance, once a Public Hearing declared it to be a Public Nuisance, are capable of being collected, including attorney fees. Mr. Ragghianti noted when the new Code Enforcement Ordinance is adopted and we have had a chance to work it through, these types of proceedings will be tried before the Hearing Officer, and would not come before Council unless there was an appeal. Therefore, the City would, hopefully, be able to more aggressively go after these, collect 100% of the costs, and recover more than we are required to spend for the Hearing Officer and to implement the program. Councilmember Cohen pointed out the schedule listed a fine for men who use women's bathrooms, but no fine for women who use men's bathrooms. Councilmember Miller cited other places where this law has been liberated out of necessity, and stated he felt this was poor legislation. City Attorney Ragghianti asked if the City should remove this violation from the bail schedule, and Councilmember Miller stated he would prefer it was struck from the list. Councilmember Phillips stated he failed to understand the reasoning for this violation. Councilmember Cohen stated he felt it should be left to the discretion of the Police Department. Regarding the consumption of alcohol in a public place, Councilmember Miller asked if this covered, for example, a group of people reserving the picnic area at Gerstle Park for a wedding reception, and they served champagne, while at the same time there are signs throughout the area which state, "No Alcohol"? Mr. Ragghianti stated he did not think so, noting whoever rented the facility for purposes of the wedding reception should be given that opportunity with a Use Permit. Public Works Director Bernardi stated that when the Parks Department issues their permit, one of the questions they ask is whether or not alcohol will be served, and if so, if it will be sold, or be part of the festivities; therefore, with the issuance of the Park Use Permit there is an acknowledgement that alcohol may or may not be used, and there is appropriate indemnification in dealing with this. Councilmember Miller stated if that were the case, then he had problems with the posting, noting there are many signs stating "No Alcohol", and this creates a great amount of confusion. He also asked, by the same token, if he and his family were at Pickleweed Park, and they serve wine, would this be a public place that would refuse to allow that? Mr. Bernardi stated it could be, and suggested perhaps this issue be looked at by the Park and Recreation Commission, and the Council might want to look to them for further review. Councilmember Heller stated it would be very healthy to have the Park and Recreation Commission look at this issue, and what the problems might be, noting she felt they would welcome the opportunity to review this. Mayor Boro suggested that if it was worth $500 to offend the Smoking Ordinance on the third violation, then the discharging of a gun or other weapon should also carry a $500 infraction, as well as $500 bail. He noted he would not ask for a change on the issue of consuming alcohol in public until the Council received further clarification from the Park and Recreation Commission, although he did feel the amount should be increased for that, as well. Councilmember Cohen stated he was concerned about the issue of alcohol consumption, and felt the Council needed to look carefully at the fact that it was hard to make a distinction, under the law, between the family having wine with their picnic, and the kind of people we would expect to find down on "B" Street, sitting in the park drinking beer. He stated the family drinking wine would not bother him if he took his children to the park, but the other type of public drinking would. He stated it would be hard, under the law, to state certain instances of drinking in public would be all right, and others would not, noting we may have to continue to have public consumption of alcohol prohibited, unless by permit. He agreed the Park and Recreation Commission should review this issue. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the Resolution setting the Bail Schedule for violations of the San Rafael Municipal Code, as amended, increasing the violation for Section 8.12.170, "Discharge of Guns, Pistols & Other Weapons Prohibited" to $500 Infraction and $500 Bail amounts. RESOLUTION NO. 9747 -RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A BAIL SCHEDULE FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE (as amended). AYES: COUNCIL ERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCIL ERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/96 Page 14 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/96 Page 15 23. a. BOAT LEAKING FUEL BY BEACH PARK - File 13-2 x 9-3-66 (Verbal) Councilmember Cohen reported he had discussed with Fire Chief Marcucci a boat leaking fuel near the Beach Park harbor, noting there was a containment boom around it. Mr. Cohen asked who has responsibility, and what authority the City has, in doing something to get the boat out of there? Acting Police Chief Boyd stated the boat would be removed by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, free of charge, noting a Ranger had already tried to make arrangements with them, and we had hoped to have the boat removed a few weeks ago, but we have not been able to schedule a time when they could come, break up the boat, and take it away. Acting Chief Boyd noted they had checked with the Fire Department and determined the boat was not leaking anything into the Canal, and that it was contained. b. MCCMC LEGISLATION COMMITTEE - File 9-1 x 9-11-1 (Verbal) Councilmember Heller reported as a member of the MCCMC Legislation Committee, she had attended the League of California's Legislative Implementation Briefings on November 6th, which was followed by a report on Proposition 218 given by Attorney Natalie West. Ms. Heller reported she had brought back an information packet on various bills, which might be of interest to several different departments, noting staff members were welcome to take whatever information they wanted from the packet. C. MARIN/SONOMA RAIL SERVICE - File 170 (Verbal) Mayor Boro reported there had been a request, with the cooperation of AmTrack, that a train which was being proposed for potential rail service between Marin and Sonoma Counties, be available to come down the line and terminate at the station in the City's intermodal terminal. He stated the train would be a "light rail/light diesel", and would look similar to a BART train. Mayor Boro stated they are discussing running the train on December 9th and 10th. d. GRAND OPENING OF NEW GOLF STORE, "STROKES" - File 9-1 (Verbal) Mayor Boro announced he had attended a ribbon cutting at a new golf store, "Strokes", on Fourth and "D" Streets. e. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION HEARING - File 13-17 (Verbal) Councilmember Miller reported he and Acting Police Chief Boyd had attended the hearing of the Human Rights Commission regarding the INS raid in San Rafael. He noted the purpose of the hearing had been to ascertain whether or not the INS had followed its own policies and procedures regarding the use of force, and whether or not they respected the Fourth Amendment rights of the individuals. He stated one issue that arose was the role of the City of San Rafael and our Police Department, which Acting Chief Boyd responded to very eloquently. He stated the Human Rights Commission would conduct a review of the INS raid, noting many questions remained unanswered. f. MARIN/SONOMA INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE STUDY - File 170 (Verbal) Mayor Boro reported the Marin/Sonoma Intermodal Transportation Committee will hold a workshop on Wednesday, November 20th at 7:00 PM in the Council Chamber. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1996 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/96 Page 15 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/96 Page 16 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/96 Page 16