Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1997-03-17SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/17/97 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, MARCH 17, 1997 AT 8:00 PM Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor San Rafael City Council Barbara Heller, Councilmember Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember Absent: Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember (arrived during Agenda Item #11) Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk OPEN SESSION - 7:00 PM: Mayor Boro announced Closed Session item. CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 PM: 1. 0 Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation Government Code Section 54956.9(a) a. Case Name: San Jose Mercury News v. City of San Jose, Sixth Appellate District Court of Appeal (Request for City of San Rafael participation as amicus party) . City Attorney Ragghianti announced City Council voted 4-0 (Councilmember Cohen absent) to participate as amicus party. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: None CONSENT CALENDAR: 8:00 PM Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to approve the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 2. Approval of Minutes of Special and Regular Approved as submitted. Meetings of Monday, March 3, 1997 (CC) 3. Summary of Legislation Affecting San Rafael (CM) Approved staff recommendation: - File 9-1 AB 334 (Wildman) & AB 339 (Takasugi), Prop 172 Sales Tax Allocation: Repeal of AB 1191: SUPPORT; AB 1296 (Morrow), Liability: SUPPORT; AB 923 (McClintock), Dissolution of Redevelopment Agencies: OPPOSE; SB 689 (Johnson), Regulatory Takings, Hours and Manner of Operation: OPPOSE. 4. Resolution Approving Council Priorities for 1997/1998 (CM) - File 9-1 x 9-1-2 x 9-3-11 COUNCIL PRIORITIES FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997/98. 5. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE adoption NO. 1707, ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ESTABLISHING AUTHORITY LIMITS AND PROCEDURES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS" (CM) - File 9-1-2 x 9-3-11 x 9-3-16 6. Monthly Investment Report (Admin. Svcs.) - File 8-18 x 8-9 RESOLUTION NO. 9806 - RESOLUTION APPROVING Approved final of Ordinance 1707. Accepted report. 7. Resolution Authorizing Renewal of MOU With RESOLUTION NO. 9807 - Orca Swim Club for 1997 Swim Season (Rec) RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE - File 4-10-172 x 9-3-65 SIGNING OF AN AGREEMENT WITH TERRA LINDA ORCA SWIM CLUB FOR 1997 SWIM SEASON. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/17/97 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/17/97 Page 2 8. Resolution Approving Contract with San Rafael RESOLUTION NO. 9808 - School District to Provide Breakfast Meals for RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE Pickleweed Park Child Care Preschool Program SIGNING OF AN AGREEMENT (Rec) - File 9-3-65 WITH THE SAN RAFAEL SCHOOL DISTRICT TO PROVIDE BREAKFAST MEALS FOR PICKLEWEED PARK CHILD CARE PRESCHOOL PROGRAM. 9. Resolution Approving Agreement Re: Regency RESOLUTION NO. 9809 - Center II Child Care (P1) - File 115 (PPP) x 10-2 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT WITH PELL DEVELOPMENT TO UNDERWRITE A HEAD START PROGRAM AND TO PROVIDE FUNDING TO THE MARIN CHILD CARE COUNCIL TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PRIORITY PROJECTS PROCEDURE. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen ABSTAINING: COUNCILMEMBERS: Miller (from minutes of regular and special meetings of March 3, 1997 only, due to absence from the meetings). SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: 10. RECREATION AWARDS: (Rec) - File 9-3-65 a. CANAL ARTS Mayor Boro introduced Anita Wah, Program Organizer, and Artists Patrick Maloney, Zoe Harris, Patricia Bon, and Wanda Cook of the Canal Arts Program, which has been recognized by the California Parks and Recreation Society. Mayor Boro reported the Canal Arts Program began in 1995, and cited Recreation Director Sharon McNamee's statement, "This group believes that the arts stimulate talents in children, that may go undeveloped in traditional forms of education, and can provide a particular powerful form of expression in the lives of young people who live outside the economic, cultural, or linguistic mainstream". Mayor Boro reported that in the Spring of 1996 the Canal Arts Program formed a partnership with Marin Arts Council, Canal Ministry, and the San Rafael Recreation Department, to come together to make this program a reality, noting on Saturdays at Pickleweed Park they hold ongoing classes in drawing, painting, multi -cultural folk art, modern dance, Mexican folklore dance, and ceramics. Mayor Boro stated the California Parks and Recreation Society is an organization representing all of the Parks and Recreation Commissions throughout the State of California, and they have designated the 1996 Community Award for the City of San Rafael to the Canal Arts Program. On behalf of the City of San Rafael, Mayor Boro presented the awards to the members of the Canal Arts Program, and thanked them for their wonderful contribution to the City. b. COMMISSIONER OF THE YEAR Mayor Boro introduced Patrick Webb, San Rafael Park and Recreation Commissioner, stating Mr. Webb had received the California Association of Parks and Recreation Commissioner and Board Members Recognition Award, being named the Top Commissioner in the State of California. Mayor Boro stated this award was much deserved, noting Mr. Webb had been on the San Rafael Park and Recreation Commission since 1983, having served as Chairman on several occasions. Mayor Boro pointed out Mr. Webb had been involved in the Recreational Element, the Shoreline Park Master Plan, the Vallecito School Joint Playground Development, the Oleander Park Development, the St. Vincent/ Silveira Advisory Committee, and was currently serving as Co-chair of the North San Rafael Vision Committee. Mayor Boro stated Mr. Webb was truly a dedicated volunteer to the City of San Rafael, and his efforts were greatly appreciated. On behalf of the Council and the City, Mayor Boro congratulated Mr. Webb, and presented his award. MONTHLY REPORTS: (Councilmember Cohen arrived at meeting during Item #11). 11. DEPARTMENT REPORT - DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY CLERK (CC) - File 237 x 9-3-14 City Clerk Jeanne Leoncini stated the Office of the City Clerk had a substantial place in history, pointing out the Municipal Clerk and the Tax Collector were the two oldest public servant offices. She noted the City Clerk is the historian SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/17/97 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/17/97 Page 3 of the community, and the entire recorded history of the town and its people, is in the Clerk's care. Mrs. Leoncini reported the City of San Rafael's Charter provides for the election of the City Clerk for a term of four years, or appointment if the position becomes vacant during the term of office. She stated that within the State of California, approximately 30% of the City Clerks are elected to their office, noting the City of San Rafael has had five elected City Clerks since the City's Charter was established in 1913: Eugene W. Smith, who served for 50 years; William L. (Lynn) Morgan, 11 years; W. Clifford Cornwell, 4 years; Marion A. Grady, 8 years; and herself, first appointed in 1977, and then elected for the first time in 1979, and re-elected every four years since 1979. Mrs. Leoncini introduced her staff: Patricia Roberts, Deputy City Clerk since July, 1995; and Nancy Eurman, Secretary to the City Clerk since April, 1995. Mrs. Leoncini stated one of the duties of the City Clerk' s Office was that of Elections Official, explaining the City Clerk administers Federal, State and Local procedures through which local government representatives are selected. Mrs. Leoncini stated the City Clerk also assists candidates in meeting their legal responsibilities before, during, and after an election. From election pre -planning to certification of election results and filing of final campaign disclosure documents, the City Clerk manages the process which forms the foundation of our democratic system of government. Mrs. Leoncini reported her Office also takes care of all the Fair Political Practices Commission filings for Campaign Statements, as well as Conflict of Interest Statements for the City Council, Planning Commission, City Manager, City Attorney, City Treasurer, and the San Rafael Board of Education during the election process, as well as committees formed to support or oppose ballot measures during the election process. Mrs. Leoncini noted she is also the Filing Officer for 120 Designated Employees, and the Geotechnical Review Board, Design Review Board, and Cultural Affairs Commission, as well as 40 Consultants. Mrs. Leoncini reported the City Clerk is also the City's Legislative Administrator, playing a critical role in the decision making process of the local legislature. She noted that as the key staff for Council meetings, the City Clerk prepares the legislative Agenda, verifies legal notices have been posted or published, and completes the necessary arrangements to ensure an effective meeting. She stated the City Clerk is entrusted with the responsibility of recording the decisions which constitute the building blocks of our representative government. Additional duties include the preparation, distribution, and public mailing of Agendas and Agenda Packets, and the Minutes of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meetings. Mrs. Leoncini stated this Office also oversees yet another legislative process, the preservation and protection of the Public Record, reporting that by statute, the City Clerk is required to maintain and index the Minutes, Ordinances and Resolutions adopted by the legislative body. The City Clerk also ensures that other municipal records are readily accessible to the public, noting the public record, under the conservatorship of the City Clerk, provides fundamental integrity to the structure of our democracy. City Clerk Leoncini reported Patricia Roberts, Deputy City Clerk, is responsible for the recording and transcribing of minutes for the City Council and Redevelopment Agency and Special Meetings, and functions as the City Clerk in the City Clerk's absence. She reported Nancy Eurman, Secretary to the City Clerk, who is also the computer expert in the office, works closely with the City Attorney's Office to receive, record, and process claims against the City, functioning as an active member of the Loss Committee. Mrs. Leoncini stated one of the honors of her position is swearing-in newly elected officials, noting she had sworn -in two new Police Officers earlier in the day. The City Clerk's Office also maintains an open central registry of appointive offices for 12 Boards and Commissions, comprised of 67 members, including notification of vacancies to City Council, the public and newspapers, contacting applicants, receiving applications, and scheduling interviews. Those Boards and Commissions include the Budget Oversight Committee, Citizens Advisory Group for Caltrans, Citizens Advisory Committee on Redevelopment, Cultural Affairs Commission, Design Review Board, Fire Commission, Geotechnical Review Board, Board of Library Trustees, Marin Commission on Aging, Park and Recreation Commission, Planning Commission, and Sonoma -Marin Mosquito Abatement District Board. Mrs. Leoncini reported the City Clerk is also Deputy City Treasurer, who signs checks in the absence of the City Treasurer. Looking to the future, City Clerk Leoncini reported the City Clerk's Office now has a WEB site, and Ms. Eurman distributed the WEB address to the Councilmembers SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/17/97 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/17/97 Page 4 (http://www,sanrafael.org/agendas.html). Ms. Leoncini noted Deputy City Clerk Roberts and Secretary Eurman were working on this in conjunction with Joe Leisek of the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, and beginning with this meeting, Agendas and Action Agendas will be placed on the Internet. She noted Agendas and Ordinances were also being posted in all of the Community Centers, as well as the Library. Earlier this year the City's Municipal Code was converted to an 8-1/2" x 11" format, making it much easier to use from both a research and an update standpoint. City Clerk Leoncini reported Ms. Eurman had attended a Records Management forum in Sacramento, stating her Office was looking forward to the completion of the current project of networking the computers in City Hall, which will advance communications between the City Clerk' s staff and other Departments. Ms. Leoncini reported she would be attending the City Clerks' Association Annual Conference in Santa Clara in April, noting the conference would include updates on Propositions 208 and 218. City Clerk Leoncini stated the election in November would be an exciting time in the City, reporting there were two seats open on the City Council and two on the San Rafael School Board, and her office was looking forward to working with the candidates. City Clerk Leoncini summarized with the quote, "No other office in municipal service has so many contacts. It serves the Mayor, the City Council, the City Manager, and all Administrative Departments. All of them call upon it almost daily, for some service or information, as does the public. Its work is not spectacular, but it demands versatility, alertness, accuracy, and no end of patience. The public does not realize how many loose ends of City Administration this office pulls together". Councilmember Heller noted there had been 106 claims against the City, and six lawsuits, and asked if these were higher numbers than in the past? City Clerk Leoncini noted these were fairly standard numbers. Ms. Heller also stated she hoped a laptop computer could someday be utilized to assist in preparation of the minutes. Mayor Boro thanked City Clerk Leoncini for her report, noting she and her staff do a great job for the City. PUBLIC HEARING: 13. PUBLIC HEARING - APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE AN EXEMPTION TO THE GENERAL PLAN FLOOR AREA RATIO OF .30 FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF PARCELS WITHIN THE NORTHGATE INDUSTRIAL PARK WHICH HAVE HISTORIC TRIPS UNDER THE CITY'S 1983 - 1986 TRAFFIC MODELING SYSTEM. THE NORTHGATE INDUSTRIAL PARK CONSISTS OF APPROXIMATELY 57 ACRES LOCATED IN NORTHEAST SAN RAFAEL, IN THE AREA OF OLD REDWOOD HIGHWAY, MITCHELL BOULEVARD, PAUL DRIVE, MARK DRIVE, AND SAN CARLOS COURT. AP NUMBERS 155-131-01 TO -28, 155-132-03 TO -23, 155-141-24 TO -31, 155-151-03 TO -38, 155-152-04 TO -14, 155-153-01 TO -13, 155-161-09 TO -29. SEMIK OUNGOULIAN, APPLICANT; PETER BREKHUS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, REPRESENTATIVE (P1) - File 115 x 10-2 Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened, and asked for the staff report. Senior Planner Sheila Delimont reported the proposed General Plan Amendment would apply to all parcels within the Northgate Industrial Park, and would allow an exemption from the current .30 FAR limit for parcels which have high historic trips. Based on a review of uses within the Industrial Park, she stated it appeared the Applicant' s site at 65 Mitchell Boulevard, as well as the Pacific Bell property, would be the parcels affected by this, noting they would be allowed to have additional square footage if this Amendment were approved. She reported that because 65 Mitchell Boulevard has 36 historic trips, it would allow the building to be fully occupied. Ms. Delimont stated that in considering this Amendment, it was important Council understand the lengthy process and history for this particular site. She noted Mr. Oungoulian first inquired about development regulations when the 1982 Northgate Activity Center Plan was in effect, noting this Plan used a .30 FAR for Undeveloped Parcels, and used peak hour trips, not FAR, in establishing the maximum square footage for Redevelopment Parcels. Ms. Delimont stated the 1988 Draft General Plan established a flat .30 FAR for all of North San Rafael, and eliminated exemptions for historic trips. She stated Mr. Oungoulian then requested a General Plan exemption for his property, based on an average .47 FAR for the Northgate Industrial Park, and the 36 historic trips on his site. She noted that during the General Plan hearings, this request was not granted, and Mr. Oungoulian subsequently tried to submit an application for a 16,300 square foot building, which was rejected by staff because it was inconsistent with the General Plan. Ms. Delimont noted Mr. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/17/97 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/17/97 Page 5 Oungoulian's appeal to the Planning Commission and City Council again cited the higher FAR for other buildings in the Northgate Industrial Park, but this request was also turned down. Ms. Delimont reported that in 1989 the Planning Commission did approve a 9,100 square foot building with a full first floor, and two small offices totalling 800 square feet on the second floor. She noted the staff report stated the remainder of the second floor would remain open to the first floor, although the approved plan showed framing for the entire second floor. She stated the Building Permit also showed the second floor being framed, but the Use Permit, Design Review Permit and Building Permit clearly stated the building was approved for the 9,100 square feet, and that it could not be expanded beyond the .30 FAR. In summary, Ms. Delimont reported that while a 15,400 square foot building was constructed by the applicant in 1994, only 9,100 square feet can be occupied, and stated this was the ongoing issue now before the Council. She reported that in 1995 the Planning Department did allow the transfer of the allowable Floor Area Ratio from the first floor to the second floor, after Mr. Oungoulian lost the tenant for the first floor. She noted this was done with a legal document which acknowledged the occupancy of the upstairs area had to be offset by non -occupancy of an equal area downstairs, so the total Floor Area Ratio would still be consistent with the .30 FAR. Ms. Delimont stated the primary purpose of the Floor Area Ratio is to regulate building intensity and traffic, and secondarily, it also regulates building mass and parking. She noted the Applicant stated on his application that public interest would be served by changing the Floor Area Ratio regulations, because it would resolve an inequity with other sites in the Northgate area which have been able to develop with higher Floor Area Ratios based on their trips, and he further stated it would provide additional office space without any impact, because the building already exists. Ms. Delimont stated Council had broad discretion in considering the Amendment, because this was a legislative action, noting staff had outlined several options for Council's consideration. She stated the first option would be to approve the Amendment as submitted; however, staff's concern was that while this would be specific to the Northgate Industrial Park, it could set a precedent for greater development for other sites within the City with high historic trips. She noted they were also concerned that this particular site does not have adequate parking to accommodate the full occupancy of the building. The second option would be to approve the Amendment, but to modify the language to establish a .46 FAR, noting this cap would be consistent with the average Floor Area Ratio in the Industrial Park. She pointed out this would also set less of a precedence because the square footage would not be based just on historic trips, it would also have to be demonstrated that the surrounding area had a high Floor Area Ratio. She stated that under this option, Mr. Oungoulian would not be able to occupy the entire building, but approximately 13,292 square feet. She stated this would also be closer to the available parking on the site. The third option is to deny this Amendment without prejudice. She pointed out the North San Rafael Vision process was underway, and this Amendment could be evaluated comprehensively with other Land Use changes in the area, and the Applicant could re -submit his application after the Vision is completed; this, of course, would delay the Applicant, and he has indicated that time is a concern for him. The final option, if Council believes there is no merit to this Amendment, is to deny the application. Ms. Delimont stated this application had been heard by the Planning Commission, who recommended on a 6-1 vote that the Amendment be denied without prejudice, so that it could be considered in conjunction with the ongoing North San Rafael Vision. She noted the Council had received a number of letters expressing concerns with parking, and also received a letter from the North San Rafael Coalition stating the application should be pulled into the Vision process. Ms. Delimont pointed out the staff report contained the Planning Commission minutes, which underlined the rationale for their decision. Councilmember Phillips referred to the Planning Commission's action in which they denied the application without prejudice, which involved the North San Rafael Vision. He was curious as to whether or not this issue would be reviewed in sufficient depth for the North San Rafael Vision, which is not a legislative body, to draw any conclusions with regard to this particular issue? Ms. Delimont stated it was her understanding the Vision Committee had just begun their discussions on Land Use. She noted the Planning Department had put together a lot of data on North San Rafael, and they will be looking at the opportunity to increase Floor Area Ratios where there is traffic capacity. She stated part of the process would also be that people could make requests for consideration further down the line, as part of the Visioning process, as we get into the Public Hearings. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/17/97 Page 5 Councilmember Heller noted one portion property, and later it refers to P. G. to was the Pac Bell property. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/17/97 Page 6 of the staff report refers to Pac Bell &E. Ms. Delimont reported the site referred Councilmember Miller asked if there had been any studies of the properties in East San Rafael which might, following this precedent, begin to come in with applications? Ms. Delimont reported there were a number of properties in East San Rafael which have historic trips, and noted this could create a precedent, although they would have to come in with an application for a General Plan Amendment as well. Semik Oungoulian, owner of the property at 65 Mitchell Drive, stated it had not been his intention to ask for a General Plan Amendment. Mayor Boro stated he had been informed by the City Attorney that this would be the only way Mr. OungoulianIsrequest could be granted. Mr. Oungoulian acknowledged he had been informed of that, but it was not what he intended to do, stating all he was asking was that the Council and City Attorney look at the General Plan and apply the appropriate policies, noting the General Plan, the Environmental Impact Report, and the Northgate Plan, clearly explained there was no General Plan Amendment needed. Mayor Boro stated the City Attorney felt differently, and since the City Attorney has stated an Amendment would be the only way to consider granting the request, that was the process that must be followed. Mayor Boro asked Mr. Oungoulian what, in his opinion, had changed since this issue was visited a number of years ago? Mr. Oungoulian stated his opinion had not changed. Mayor Boro asked what was different at this time than in 1988 when the City adopted the General Plan? Mr. Oungoulian stated in 1988 there were policies which were incorrectly applied to his property, as they are now, noting he firmly believed this, and had documents which would prove it, including copies of the General Plan, the Environmental Impact Report, and the Northgate Plan. He reported he also had documents which would verify his claims regarding the parking issue. Mr. Oungoulian stated he would prefer not to go through the process of a General Plan Amendment, noting he did not feel that was the correct thing to do. Mayor Boro asked the City Attorney to verify that this item was before the Council as a General Plan Amendment? City Attorney Ragghianti stated, "That is exactly the matter that is before you". Mr. Oungoulian stated if that was the only route for him, then he was asking for it, but it was not his choice, and he wanted to make certain this was clear for the record. Mr. Oungoulian stated the General Plan calls for an equitable FAR for the area, and he had to prove that his is equitable, noting his property was actually below the FAR of other properties on his street. Therefore, if Council still felt this had to be a General Plan Amendment, he believed his application, as presented, should do the job. Mr. Oungoulian reported that when the issue of parking arose, he placed a camera on the building to record the traffic. He than displayed photographs taken in two second increments, along with a chart, which he stated showed there was plenty of parking, and plenty of PM trips allocated for him. He noted both the General Plan and the Northgate Plan had stressed those were the two main issues for Redevelopment Parcels, not for New Development Parcels. Mr. Oungoulian stated his problem was that his was a Redevelopment project, noting that while staff recognized this, it was still being treated as a New Development project, under different policies, which Mr. Oungoulian stated was an incorrect assumption. Mr. Oungoulian pointed out that if the correct policy had been applied to his application, there would have been no need for a General Plan Amendment. Mayor Boro clarified that originally there had been a gas station at the location, which had been torn down, and then Mr. Oungoulian built his building, which was New Development. Mr. Oungoulian stated that was not correct. He displayed a map of the area, pointing out the location of his property, and noting all the parcels around that site were built up, except for the vacant parcel where the gas station had been torn down. He reported every parcel shown as being zoned Light Industrial and Office, had an FAR higher than .30. He pointed out that if one of these buildings should burn down, or be destroyed in an earthquake, the owner could rebuild in exactly the same way; therefore, he asked how the City could tell him the .30 FAR was for everyone, as that was not true? He stated the General Plan and the Northgate Plan were very clear on the rules governing what could be rebuilt, and technically speaking, the City was stating that in the area of Mr. OungoulianIsproperty, everything can be rebuilt the same, with FAR's grossly higher than .30, except Mr. Oungoulian's property. He asked for an explanation, stating he had been struggling for nine years to understand this, but had never been given a satisfactory answer. Mr. Oungoulian stated if others in the same area and on the same street can have higher FAR's, he believes he should have the same right, as long as he is meeting the parking, traffic, and SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/17/97 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/17/97 Page 7 height limitations. He asked why the other properties should be treated differently? City Attorney Ragghianti stated Mr. Oungoulian had referred to one of the policies in the General Plan, LU -15, and quoted, "When an existing building is larger than the FAR limit, and no intensification or change of Use is proposed, the property may be redeveloped at the same size as the existing building, if parking and design requirements in effect at the time of the new application can be met". He then referred to LU -14, the Land Use policy which precedes this section, and is the one that changed the City' s General Plan in 1988, providing that historical trips would no longer be utilized for the purpose of determining how large a structure could be built, and creating a flat .30 FAR. Mr. Ragghianti stated he felt Mr. Oungoulian was sincere in his belief that he had somehow been wronged in this process, but this was not, in Mr. Ragghianti's judgment, a difficult issue. He stated Mr. Oungoulian's entire argument, and the argument made by his attorney, springs from the metaphysical premise that, "if the building exists, and you let me build it, you must let me occupy it". Mr. Ragghianti stated the fact is that when Mr. Oungoulian built the building, he knew he could not occupy it completely, noting nothing had changed since then. He reported Mr. Oungoulian asked for an exception of the FAR requirement of .30, and on July 15, 1988, after he asked for the General Plan to be amended, he made precisely the same argument he is making now, about precisely the same property, and precisely the same building. Mr. Ragghianti reported that request had been denied, it was a final decision, and there was no new information being directed to Council at this time. Mr. Ragghianti stated it was a very simple argument; Mr. Oungoulian knew when he built the structure that he could only occupy 9,100 square feet, but now he was asking to occupy the rest of the building. Mr. Ragghianti noted Council could grant Mr. Oungoulian's request if they wanted to, as that was a policy decision, and a legislative act; however, in terms of judicial review of their actions, he pointed out that their actions would have to be determined by a court to be arbitrary, capricious, entirely lacking in evidentiary support, or depriving Mr. Oungoulian of all economic use of his property. Mr. Ragghianti noted Planning Department staff had outlined the options available to Council, and concluded with the caveat that there are plenty of things that they do in their profession that are difficult to analyze and explain, but this is not one of them. Mr. Oungoulian responded he did not believe this was a correct statement, noting that after being turned down once or twice, he was requested by the Design Review Board to go back to this design, as he was led to believe the FAR's had already been given, and told that he would have to return for a Use Permit; however, he stated when he returned for the Use Permit, he was told that his application could not even be taken. Mr. Oungoulian asked how one particular building, within a group of similar buildings, could be exceptionally singled out and treated differently than the others? Mayor Boro stated the Ordinance had been changed prior to Mr. Oungoulian developing his building, noting he felt that was the real issue. Mayor Boro stated he had read the staff report and the Planning Commission's report, and had heard from the City Attorney, pointing out he had also been on the Council in 1988 when Mr. Oungoulian asked for an exception to the General Plan. He reiterated that Mr. Oungoulian knew at the time he built this building that he was entitled to 9,100 square feet, and he had not heard Mr. Oungoulian present anything new or different, or information that anything had changed since then. Mr. Oungoulian asked only that the Council look at the issue, and make certain the correct policies are applied. He pointed out there was an LU -14 policy for New Development, and LU -15 for Redevelopment, and since his application was for Redevelopment, he asked why his application was being applied as LU -14? Mayor Boro pointed out Council had been told by the City Attorney that this was what applied to Mr. Oungoulian's property. Mr. Ragghianti stated that in reading LU -15, it was clear the term "Redevelopment" was not the key, and he noted this application was no different than a piece of property in a neighborhood that is down -zoned, with the exception that in this particular instance the policy clearly indicates that an existing building proposed for Redevelopment can be developed, as long as there is no (increase in) intensity in the Use, and Parking requirements at the time of the Redevelopment are met. Mr. Ragghianti stated there was no existing building to which LU -15 could apply in Mr. Oungoulian's case, noting he built a new building, and he knew he had to come in and seek an exception to the provisions of LU -15 because he had done that, and he was denied. Mr. Ragghianti reiterated the City was now going through the same arguments we went through almost nine years ago, and nothing has changed. He noted Mr. Oungoulian had the right to make this request but, as indicated to Mr. Oungoulian's attorney at the outset, a Use Permit could not be granted by the Council, because to do so, since he wished to occupy an additional 5,000 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/17/97 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/17/97 Page 8 square feet of this building, would be completely inconsistent with LU -14, a flat .30 FAR in this area. Mr. Ragghianti stated he advised Mr. Oungoulian's attorney, and again advised the Council, that it was necessary for Mr. Oungoulian to obtain a General Plan Amendment to be permitted to occupy the remainder of this building. Councilmember Cohen stated the Applicant references LU -15, and his attorney's correspondence to the City also indicated LU -15 applied. Mr. Cohen noted Mr. OungoulianIsattorney quoted language that was similar to what the City Attorney had read, which begins, "When an existing building is larger than the FAR limit.. ", and Mr. Cohen stated it was his understanding that this paragraph referred to buildings that were in existence at the time the General Plan was adopted, and is not in reference to buildings that are in existence today, which were built since the General Plan. Mr. Cohen stated the policy was adopted to deal with buildings that were in existence when this policy was adopted. He asked City Attorney Ragghianti if his interpretation was correct, and Mr. Ragghianti stated this was correct. Mr. Cohen stated Mr. Oungoulian's attorney misapplies this, and by leaning heavily on Redevelopment, Mr. Oungoulian is missing the point that it clearly is LU -14 that applies, as it did when Mr. Oungoulian made his application initially, pointing out that nothing had changed. Mr. Oungoulian stated that in the City's General Plan, for any property which is undeveloped or underdeveloped, LU -14 would apply. He stated the City had several lists of these properties and their parcel numbers which had been designated as "New Development". He asked if the City really believed LU -14 applied to his property, why was his property not on one of these lists? Mr. Cohen stated if Mr. Oungoulian's gas station had burned down, and he had wished to rebuild his gas station, he would have had a right to do so, under Policy LU -15. Mr. Oungoulian stated that was not true, because the zoning had been changed. Mayor Boro invited members of the public to address this item. Bonnie Brown, business owner at 45 Mitchell Boulevard, noted her property was next door to Mr. Oungoulian's, and pointed out FAR's primarily are established for trips pertaining to local streets and interchanges, but noted they also relate to parking. She reported there was a parking lot next to Mr. Oungoulian I s building at 65 Mitchell Boulevard, and next door there was another parking lot on Paul Drive, at a building owned by Bob Antonioli. Ms. Brown stated the parking lots for these two buildings were also approximately the same size, each with two rows of parking. Ms. Brown reported Mr. AntonioliIsbuilding is fully occupied, and at mid-morning when things are at their peak, the parking lot is almost full. She noted Mr. Antonioli's building is single story, and if Mr. Oungoulian's building next door were fully occupied, it could potentially be twice the size, with parking the same size. She stated that to the local business community, this was a graphic representation of what the problem was going to be, and felt what they were really talking about was a depreciation in property value to the neighbors, because people were going to be parking in their lots. She stated there was nothing worse than when someone has been in business for many years, and they come to their business in the morning and there are no parking spaces left. She noted it made one feel as though they wanted to move their businesses out of there. Ms. Brown stated she really liked her business community, and wanted to protect it, stating it was a wonderful place to work. She noted she was concerned about the misrepresentation that the average FAR's for the Northgate Industrial Park are at .46 or .47. She referred to a listing of buildings in the Industrial Park, along with their FAR's. She pointed out five buildings neighboring 65 Mitchell Drive, noting Mr. Antonioli's office building next door, with the same use as Mr. Oungoulian's building, had an FAR of .32; the building at 45 and 55 Mitchell is .31 FAR. Ms. Brown noted another building owned by Mr. Antonioli, which is two doors down from Mr. Oungoulian I s building, has an FAR of only . 27 , the building at 4460 Redwood is .32 FAR, WestAmerica Bank is .33, 4340 Redwood Highway is .31 FAR. Ms. Brown stated the office buildings were all hovering at approximately .30 FAR, and they were all built when the FAR was based on trips. She noted what raises the FAR, which Mr. Oungoulian is referring to, is the Light Industrial Office, which is reasonable, because the average is higher than .30; however, that is not for the Office buildings. She stated this was what irritates the other property owners, because they are observing the rules. She noted no one in the Business Park would come in with a proposal to build a building of this size and show their face in public, because they care about their neighbors. She stated this was what worried the rest of the business owners, because if the City opens the door, and does not put its foot down firmly in the beginning, they will be SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/17/97 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/17/97 Page 9 seeing Use Permits to occupy the entire building, Parking Variances, and other requests until the entire building is .57 FAR, which is almost double what all of the office buildings are along the street. Ms. Brown stated the other business owners were concerned when they saw the size of the building as it was being built, but then heard the City had told Mr. Oungoulian that only 9,100 square feet of the building could be occupied, and the rest could only be used for storage. However, they soon saw balconies being built on what was supposed to be the storage area, and realized the property owner did not have the same thing in mind that the City did. Ms. Brown urged the Council to put its foot down, stating the precedent this would establish was very dangerous, particularly when looking at East San Rafael and future redevelopment in the Industrial Park. She pointed out they are having higher traffic trips now, because Office Use is intensifying and there are more people, and noted it will really be a mess when we redevelop, and the City needs to look down the road. Ms. Brown stated that if the City allows Mr. Oungoulian to go to a .46 FAR, which he feels is the average, but which is not representative of the Office space FAR, then he will return in the future asking for a .75 FAR and a Parking Variance, and that will be double the amount of space anyone else in the neighborhood has. Ms. Brown stated the business owners want a good business community, and she urged the Council to deny Mr. Oungoulian Is request for a General Plan Amendment, stating that would really help the business community. Ron Antonioli, property owner, stated he had built thirty-five of the seventy buildings in the Northgate Industrial Park, and noted all of them comply with the Deed Restrictions of the Northgate Industrial Park. He urged the Council to deny Mr. Oungoulian's request. There being no further public comment, Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing. Councilmember Cohen noted he had read the Planning Commission minutes, and stated it was unclear to him as to why the recommendation was to Deny Without Prejudice? Ms. Delimont stated that if the application was denied without prejudice, Mr. Oungoulian would have the ability to re -submit the General Plan Amendment within a year, so if the Vision in process came forward with a recommendation for a higher FAR, he could bring his application back to the Council without having to wait for General Plan Amendments and Zone changes, which would be done as a packet to implement the Vision. Mr. Cohen reviewed the chronology, stating Mr. Oungoulian purchased the property after a meeting to understand the development requirements; he made an application that was denied during the General Plan process; he applied for a change in the General Plan, which was denied; he applied for a General Plan Amendment, which was denied after the General Plan was adopted; and now there is another application for a General Plan Amendment. Mr. Cohen pointed out that was five tries, so far. He asked if staff supported the current recommendation? Ms. Delimont stated it had been their recommendation to the Planning Commission, because at this time they were looking at the possibility of providing some additional office space, or increasing FAR's in North San Rafael, and it was felt that if Mr. Oungoulian wanted it to be considered, it could be folded in with that process and looked at then. She noted staff had not recommended the application be approved at this time, only that if the Commission felt it had merit, it should be folded into the Vision process. Mayor Boro stated he would not want to send some kind of message to the Vision Committee by making such a motion, and felt this request should stand on its own merit, noting if and when something changed, the applicant could come back. He stated when the FAR's had been established, they were done community by community, and he felt that to blend these two issues might give false hope to the applicant, or could influence the Vision Committee, and he stated the Council should address this issue on its own merits. Councilmember Miller agreed, stating this application should be dealt with strictly on its merits. He pointed out there have been five attempts at this, and it has always been denied, noting each time it was presented there was no new information; therefore, he saw no merit in this request. Councilmember Heller asked if the North San Rafael Vision Committee were to change FAR' s in the Industrial Park, or anywhere within the North San Rafael area, would Mr. Oungoulian then have a chance to readjust his building and come back to the City, if his property fit any of the new FAR's? Ms. Delimont stated he could not apply again separately for a year, but since the Vision Committee was doing a comprehensive General Plan for the entire area, if they adopted a policy of increased FAR' s and Mr. Oungoulian I s was one of the properties that could be covered SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/17/97 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/17/97 Page 10 by that, then they would have that flexibility. City Attorney Ragghianti stated that during the Vision process Mr. Oungoulian could raise the same arguments he raised tonight, noting it was important to make it clear that the Vision process has no legal significance save and except as this Council adopts the recommendations into the General Plan, so the Vision Committee cannot do anything without the legislative action of the Council, they can merely recommend policy changes. He stated that during this process, up to and including hearings before the Council, Mr. Oungoulian can state his case again if he wishes, indicating the wisdom of increased FAR's. Councilmember Cohen clarified that if Council, as a result of those recommendations, adopted General Plan Amendments which would allow increased FAR 's, Mr. Oungoulian could then file an application for a Use Permit. City Attorney Ragghianti stated that if the General Plan is amended to permit an increased FAR, Mr. Oungoulian would then be permitted to apply for a Use Permit consistent with the new FAR. Councilmember Cohen agreed the Council was better served to let the process work. Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to direct staff to prepare a Resolution denying the application for a General Plan Amendment. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None NEW BUSINESS: 14. REORGANIZATION TO FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (CM) - File 9-3-85 x 9-3-17 x 9-3-32 x 9-3-40 City Manager Gould stated he was proposing a reorganization to create a new department within the City of San Rafael, one focused on Community Development. He reported private development was currently monitored, planned and regulated by up to five different City departments; however, the bulk of the activity takes place in the Planning Department and the Building Inspection/Land Development section of the Public Works Department, where the City has some of the most dedicated, professional, hardworking employees in the City. However, he pointed out that they were divided by organizational barriers, physical walls, lack of common hours, lack of common tools and records, and a lack of adequate information systems. Mr. Gould stated it was possible that applicants coming before them are shunted back and forth between counters, and when this occurs, there can be a lack of communication and coordination, which can sometimes result in errors, but often results in increased delays. City Manager Gould stated he has had numerous conversations with various users of our development process, and one of the common themes he hears, which has been confirmed by surveys of our business organizations, is that San Rafael's development processing is probably the best in Marin County, better than any other city or town in Marin; yet, it could be substantially improved. Mr. Gould stated he has heard from those who seek to develop private property, whether its putting an addition on a home, building a new building, or starting a new business, that they want the process to be consistent, reliable, understandable, and have a reasonable duration. He stated these customers felt that if what is being proposed is not going to work, they want to know that early on, and they want to be able to track their application throughout the process, and know where it is at different stages. He noted they also want to be able to talk to a staff member and understand the steps that are necessary, and be sure they understand the ground rules. City Manager Gould reported that in January he began a series of conversations with the employees in these divisions, to talk about how we are structured and how we do things in San Rafael, and he began to float the idea of putting people together in a Community Development Department, stating those who are most involved in private development activity ought to be all on the same team. He stated the concept would be to put these functions together under the same roof: Current Planning; Advance Planning; Transportation Planning, which is currently something we are not staffed to do, but would like to work toward; Land Development; Building Inspection; our strengthened Code Enforcement effort; Counter Technicians and Clerks; and Information Services. City Manager Gould stated this new Department would have to work very closely with Redevelopment, Public Works Department, Fire Inspections, Administrative Services, and be part of the new complete Community Policing approach that is being developed under the leadership of Cam Sanchez. Mr. Gould noted the Public Works Department would now be focused strictly on public engineering and infrastructure maintenance, which would sit very well with Council's priorities in that area. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/17/97 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/17/97 Page 11 City Manager Gould reported he began discussions with the Planners and Building Officials earlier this year, and on March 5th they held a workshop to begin discussing this plan in earnest. He noted the group raised a number of issues he felt were worthy of Council's consideration, referring to Page 3 of the staff report. Working as a team, the group identified the following as strengths of the current organization: customer service oriented; dedicated; skilled and competent; professional; strong worth ethic. Conversely, the group also identified the following drawbacks, or areas for improvement, in our current organizational arrangement: weak communication; lack of coordination; work overload; sometimes a lack of teamwork; poorly arranged work space; lack of cross -training, meaning people do not know what others are doing, or why; lack of appreciation; sometimes inconsistencies; and even lack of trust in some circumstances. City Manager Gould stated these were very serious issues, which he felt we needed to address; however, if we were to move to this different configuration of a Community Development Department, a number of opportunities were identified by the groups, which they believed could enhance customer service through better communication. He reported they thought one of the first things the new organization should do would be to decide what its Mission and Goals are, and define its values and just who its customers are, noting that is not always self-evident. He stated they believed they could reduce the permit requirements and streamline the permit processing, and also achieve better coordination through one-stop permit processing, by cross -training staff. They also recommended coordinating hours, so these departments are open at the same time, and perhaps have one person who would be able to go to all the departments and cut through the red tape and move things. He stated staff felt they could institute a permit tracking system so the applicant, at any time, could ask where the permit stood, and we would be able to call it up on an information system. He noted it would also be helpful to the employees, themselves, to be able to track the applications. Mr. Gould stated the physical workspace could be greatly improved, noting they felt they should knock down the walls that separate the Planning, Building, and Public Works Departments, and enhance the lobby to make it more friendly to the customers by setting up some customer workspaces, so they could sit down with the Planners and Building Inspectors and go through their plans. He noted computers could be installed at the counter, so some of the items could be processed right there at the counter, and perhaps some of it by FAX modem, without the customer ever even coming to the Community Development Department. He stated that by making better use of the information tools we have now, we could greatly enhance the service we provide. He reported the Public Works Department was developing a very powerful Geographic Information System, and stated we need to put the Planning Department online with it, and then eventually all the Operating Departments, because this was an incredible tool for productivity enhancement, and we need to cross -train everyone so that we can use it. Mr. Gould stated that through teamwork and cross -training we can deal with the issues of trust and communication. Mr. Gould stated that simplifying the General Plan and Zoning Codes to become more flexible, and to recognize some of the growth potential, especially in East San Rafael, was something staff believed Community Development would be well positioned to attack, and working toward developing transportation support for the Planning function, and increased Administrative support in general, were also things they believed would be doable under this reorganization. City Manager Gould stated that after their discussions, the consensus of the group was, if properly managed, a Community Development Department could remove some institutional blockage, and improve customer service. He reported they then began to discuss how such a Department might be staffed and organized, and they believed they would need a new Community Development Director, a position which would replace the current Planning Director's position. Mr. Gould stated that if the Councilmembers agreed this reorganization had merit, staff recommended Council direct them to move forward, and authorize them to begin the recruitment of a Community Development Director. Mr. Gould stated staff was also recommending Council engage the services of a professional recruitment firm, noting he was recommending Bob Murray, of the David M. Griffith firm, which has the largest public sector recruitment practice in America, and recently completed the recruitment for our Chief of Police. Mr. Gould reported the cost of this recruitment would be up to $18, 000, but would probably come in somewhat less than that. He noted if Council were to authorize this, he believed they could have candidates by early June, a selection by mid-June, and the new Director beginning in early July. Mr. Gould pointed out this would closely coincide with the start of the fiscal year, and staff felt it might be advantageous to begin the new Department under the new budget, as part of the new fiscal year. In the meantime, the employees who have been working on this project felt they could form teams to deal with such issues as the General Plan revision, permit streamlining, SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/17/97 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/17/97 Page 12 teamwork and coordination, and the workspace re -do, and have those ideas ready when the new Community Development Director comes aboard. Mr. Gould pointed out they had purposely left the exact configuration of the new department somewhat loose, on the notion that the new Director would probably want to have some say over that, and they felt it would be even more attractive to the candidates to be able to put their own stamp on it. Mr. Gould reported he had discussed this proposal with the Chamber of Commerce and the Marin Builders Exchange, noting both had found favor with it. Mr. Gould stated the Council's options were to approve the reorganization proposal and authorize the recruitment; suggest modifications; direct staff to restudy the proposal; or to indicate their lack of interest in the reorganization plan. Councilmember Miller stated he strongly favored this plan and its timing. He noted that having the staff now "plowing the field", so the new Director, whom he assumed would have a great deal of experience in this area, would be able to put the whole thing into place, would give both the new Director and the City the opportunity to gain from significant experience. Mr. Miller stated the only part of the proposal he found slightly weak was the coordination with the other Departments, noting he would like to see more strongly involved the inclusion of the inspections by the Fire Department. Councilmember Cohen stated that when he thinks back over the years, as a member of the Council and a member of the Planning Commission, and looks back at mistakes they made, many of them can be traced to a breakdown of communications, good people doing their best to do good work, but not understanding what people on the other side of the wall were trying to accomplish. He stated there had been several of those types of mistakes over the years, and those were the types of mistakes we wanted to avoid, noting we have an obligation to the public to avoid them. Mr. Cohen reported he had spoken with Peter Arrigoni, President of the Marin Builders Exchange, and stated Mr. Arrigoni echoed some of these same views, having stated he felt San Rafael had the best departments in the County in terms of how applicants are treated, and that we had very qualified people, dedicated to their jobs, in the Planning and Public Works Departments. However, when Mr. Cohen commented the City felt it could do a better job, and had an obligation to try to do that, Mr. Arrigoni agreed that we did. Mr. Cohen stated if we can increase our consistency and communication, and make it so that people really get a clear understanding of what the rules are when they come in the door, then we will really have something that will be head and shoulders above what anyone else has, and he felt we now had an opportunity to do this. Councilmember Heller stated this issue was something she had been interested in for a long time, because she understood other cities had made very good use of it. Ms. Heller acknowledged this plan would require funding, noting City Manager Gould would be coming back before the Council in a couple of months with the physical plans, and asking if he would try to dovetail that in at the same time the Departments are merged, or piecemeal it in as they move forward? City Manager Gould reported he and Administrative Services Director Ken Nordhoff had been discussing a plan that would provide some one-time money, which the Council could use to address some ongoing needs in the City, and one of them might be to provide a sum that could be available for the physical improvements and the information systems necessary to really support this new department. Councilmember Phillips pointed out that Department Heads from each of the departments would be significantly impacted by this, and asked what the reaction has been from the Department Heads? Mr. Gould stated this plan had been discussed at the Department Head level, and asked Director of Public Works David Bernardi, whom Mr. Gould felt was the most directly affected by the reorganization, to respond. Mr. Bernardi noted he and City Manager Gould had spent a considerable amount of time discussing the concept for this new department, and stated he fully supported the plan. Director of Economic Development Jake Ours stated he felt the plan was a great idea, and he was looking forward to the change. Councilmember Phillips stated that with this reorganization, we would have a completely reorganized department, with a person who is unfamiliar with San Rafael. He asked if that would be an overload, with regard to the person and the impact this will create, and how Mr. Gould planned to provide for a smooth transition? City Manager Gould stated he had, on a number of occasions, asked Planning Director Robert Pendoley if he would be interested in applying for this position, noting that if Mr. Pendoley were to apply, Mr. Gould expected he would be highly competitive in the field. However, assuming Mr. Pendoley did not apply for the position, and if the Director were someone coming from outside San Rafael, there were two things working for us. First, Mr. Pendoley is a total professional, SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/17/97 Page 12 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/17/97 Page 13 and would stay on to provide some overlap with the new Director, and help in a consulting capacity, so we would not lose his wealth of institutional knowledge. Second, we have a very highly dedicated staff, whom Mr. Gould felt certain would work very closely with the new Director to get him or her up to speed, and to provide the smoothest possible transition. Mayor Boro stated he fully supported this idea, and noted he had mentioned to Mr. Gould that a lot of this was attitude, as much as it was organization. He pointed out that from the public' s point of view, we were coming up with "one stop shopping", a seamless interface with the public on the kinds of things the public is generally interested in. Mayor Boro stated the only other thing he would like to have considered would be that if someone were to have an application for a project or a job, and they were dealing with this Community Development Department, that they be able to walk into the Department, go to a computer and call up their application, and see where that job is in the cycle and who is doing what. He noted it would be a great help if the jobs could be put on the computer so they could be tracked. City Manager Gould stated another idea that had been raised was in the cases of the simplest applications, which are routinely approved over the counter, if the applications could be taken via FAX, and if we were able to accept VISA or MasterCard, the applicant would not even have to come in to the Department. He acknowledged we were not currently able to do this, but noted it was very common in other middle-sized cities in California to be able to do so. Councilmember Heller stated she was not clear on how Redevelopment was going to fold into this Department. City Manager Gould stated Redevelopment was legally and institutionally a separate entity, although Redevelopment was one of the Economic Development tools the City could wield. He noted Mr. Ours was the Economic Development Director, and Mr. Gould hoped the City would be able to attract a Community Development Director who had the significant experience and understanding of Economic Development principles, especially long-term Economic Development in regard to Planning, so that he or she would be able to work with Mr. Ours, pointing out Mr. Ours is more the Project Manager, who gets things built and gets things in the ground. He stated the new Community Development Director has to have an understanding of Land Use Economics, as well as Planning and Building Construction, so they will fit neatly together, and the Community Development Department will compliment Redevelopment. He noted that while Mr. Bernardi would be focused mainly on infrastructure, he would like his counsel on development applications, as well. Mr. Gould stated the Planning Department had begun a practice of providing applicants of any kind of complicated application with a pre -development review at staff level, where staff provides a sense of what the applicants need to do, and what they need to be thinking about in order to ensure smooth processing. Mr. Gould stated he would like to expand that to include Redevelopment, Public Works, and Fire Inspections, so we can get a good "group think" on an application early on, identifying issues and moving on them. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution authorizing the formation of a Community Development Department, provide for recruitment of a Community Development Director, and allocation of $18,000 from current General Fund Reserves to accomplish that task. RESOLUTION NO. 9810 -RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FORMATION OF A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND RECRUITMENT FOR A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AND ALLOCATION OF $18,000 FROM GENERAL FUND RESERVES FOR THAT RECRUITMENT. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 12. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT (CM) - File 9-3-11 (Verbal) City Manager Gould stated Fire Chief Robert Marcucci had initiated a program whereby the users of the Fire Department and Paramedic services receive letters asking them to rate the service they received. Mr. Gould reported the results of the first Customer Service Survey indicated 95% of those receiving service were Highly Satisfied with the service rendered by our Fire Department. Mr. Gould reported the Police Department had made some major arrests during the past week, including a bank robber and a shooter in a Canal incident. Mr. Gould referred to a terrible fatality on Las Gallinas, noting a resident of the area had questioned whether Las Gallinas was property engineered and designed. He stated the Police Department had completed an exhaustive investigation of this traffic accident, SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/17/97 Page 13 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/17/97 Page 14 and the toxicology report showed the teenage driver of the motorcycle had twice the legal limit of alcohol in his bloodstream, and he had been traveling at over 85 miles per hour upon impact. Mr. Gould pointed out the only other fatality at this intersection also occurred as a result of a combination of alcohol and excessive speed, noting there was no way to engineer against that. Mr. Gould reported Planning Director Pendoley has hired the new Code Enforcement team, and they will begin in the next couple of weeks. He also reported Administrative Services Director Nordhoff has hired the new Information Systems team, and they will also be starting within the next couple of weeks. Mr. Gould reported the City Clerk swore -in two new Police Officers, and two more maybe offered employment. He also reported the Canal (Voice) conversations were continuing, noting there would be a total of 17 meetings. Mr. Gould reported the Charitable Giving Committee has chosen Ritter House as the recipient of our efforts in 1997, including monetary contributions, as well as work, such as repainting Ritter House. Mr. Gould stated the Fair, Isaac application was received today. 15. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: a. GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE DISTRICT - File 112-2 x 11-16 (Verbal) Mayor Boro stated he had attended a meeting in Washington, D.C. last week, at which Carney Campion, representing the Golden Gate Bridge District, and Harry Moore, representing the Board of Supervisors, testified before a Congressional sub -committee on Transportation. He reported Congressmembers Lynn Woolsey and Nancy Pelosi, and Congressman Frank Riggs, representing the Northern Counties, were also in attendance, and all three endorsed the retrofitting of the Golden Gate Bridge. Also, Supervisor Harry Moore advanced the concept of demonstration money ($14 million) for the reversible HOV lane, and that also had the agreement and support of the three Bay Area representatives. b. MCCMC - COUNTY -WIDE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS - File 113 x 9-3-30 x 9-3-31 x 9-3-40 (Verbal) Councilmember Heller announced the Marin County Committee of Mayors and Councilmembers would be having a special meeting on March 20th at 7:00 PM in our Council Chamber, to discuss County -wide communications, including Police, Fire, and all Public Safety radios and communication systems which will be needed in the next few years. She urged the Councilmembers to attend this meeting, and noted City Manager Gould would be speaking, as well as representatives from the Warner Group, the communication consultants, and Farhad Mansourian representing the County's Public Works Department. Ms. Heller also reported she has learned from Senator Feinstein's office that the FCC has given permission for the County to test the radio frequencies, which will happen shortly. c. LATINO COUNCIL - File 9-3-30 (Verbal) Councilmember Miller reported he, Councilmember Heller, City Manager Gould, Police Chief Sanchez, and Police Officer Ray Fernandez had attended a meeting of the new Latino Council, formerly the Latino Services Project, reporting they have taken a new and very positive direction. Mr. Miller reported the key speakers were Mr. Gould, Chief Sanchez, and Officer Fernandez. He stated Officer Fernandez has been organizing Latino Police Officers throughout the County, noting there will be a Chapter of the Latino Police Officers' Association here in Marin County. Mr. Miller stated Officer Fernandez had done great work, and was a real model for the Latino Council. d. FREITAS INTERCHANGE - File 4-3-259 x 9-2-50 x 9-3-40 (Verbal) Councilmember Cohen reported the Summary Report for the Freitas Interchange had been received from our consultant, CH2M Hill. The members of the Freitas Interchange Advisory Committee have been asked to review the report and submit their comments to Assistant Public Works Director Matt Naclerio by the end of this week. Mr. Cohen stated recommendations on how to proceed would be presented to the Council, hopefully in April. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 PM SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/17/97 Page 14 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/17/97 Page 15 JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1997 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/17/97 Page 15