HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1997-05-05SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/5/97 Page 1
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, MAY 5, 1997 AT 8:00 PM
Regular Meeting: Present:
San Rafael City Council
Barbara Heller, Councilmember
Cyr N. 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
Mayor Boro announced Closed Session Item:
CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 PM:
1. Conference with Real Property Negotiator:
Albert J. Boro, Mayor
Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember
Property Street Address: Bernard Hoffman Fields
Las Colindas Road, San Rafael
AP No. 178-051-04
Negotiating Parties: City of San Rafael
Dixie School District
Under Negotiations: Instruction on price and terms of payment.
No reportable action was taken.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:00 PM
RE: FIRE AT 21 MIRAFLORES AVENUE - File 9-3-30 x 11-8
Randy Wallace, 15 Miraflores, urged Council to enforce parking regulations in the
neighborhood to provide access for emergency vehicles, and asked for a timeline
for enforcement. City Manager Gould suggested representatives of
Police/Fire/Public Works meet with neighborhood to develop consensus before taking
action.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the
following consent calendar items:
ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION
3. Report on Fair Political Practices Commission Accepted report.
Annual Filings for 1996 (CC) - File 9-4-3
4. Summary of Legislation Affecting San Rafael (CM) Approved staff
recommendation:
- File 9-1 AB 1512 (Shelly) Beverage
Containers: Expand recycling program: SUPPORT.
5. Resolution of Appreciation to Anh Bach, Public RESOLUTION NO. 9825 -
Works Maintenance Worker II, Employee of the RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION
Quarter Ending March 31, 1997 (CM) TO ANH BACH, PUBLIC WORKS
- File 102 x 9-3-40 x 7-4 MAINTENANCE WORKER II, EMPLOYEE
OF THE QUARTER ENDING MARCH 31, 1997.
6. Resolution of Appreciation to Sun Valley RESOLUTION NO. 9826 -
Elementary School - Recipient of Distinguished RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION
School Award (CM) - File 102 x 5-2-3 x 9-2-1 TO SUN VALLEY ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL - RECIPIENT OF CALIFORNIA DISTINGUISHED SCHOOL AWARD.
8. Resolutions Approving the Purchase of Police
Vehicles: (PD)
a. Resolution Authorizing the Police Chief to a. RESOLUTION NO. 9827 -
Purchase Five (5) Unmarked Police Vehicles RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
From Wondries Fleet Sales in Los Angeles for PURCHASE OF FIVE (5)
UNMARKED
$94,541.00; - File 4-2-290 x 9-3-30 POLICE VEHICLES FROM WONDRIES
FLEET SALES IN LOS ANGELES, FOR THE AMOUNT OF $94,541.00
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/5/97 Page 1
b. Resolution Authorizing the Sole Source
Purchase by the Police Chief of One (1)
Police Parking Enforcement Vehicle from
Municipal Maintenance Equipment, Inc.
in Sacramento for $20,305.00
- File 4-2-291 x 9-3-30
THE AMOUNT OF $20,305.00
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/5/97 Page 2
b. RESOLUTION NO. 9828 -
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
PURCHASE OF ONE (1) POLICE
PARKING ENFORCEMENT VEHICLE
FROM MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE
EQUIPMENT, INC. IN SACRAMENTO, FOR
9. Resolution Extending Time for Completion of RESOLUTION NO. 9829 -
Improvement Work on Subdivision of Lands of RESOLUTION TO EXTEND TIME
FOR
Laurel Properties (Current Extension Through THE COMPLETION OF
IMPROVEMENT
May 18, 1997) (PW) - File 5-1-316 WORK - "SUBDIVISION OF LANDS
OF LAUREL PROPERTIES" (FAIRHILLS DRIVE AT IDLEWOOD PLACE - A FOUR -LOT SUBDIVISION).
10. Resolutions of Appreciation to Freitas Advisory RESOLUTION NO. 9830 -
Group: Shirley Fischer, Hermine Boyadjian, Bob RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION
Bonebrake, Bob Holmes, Alan Zahradnik, Art Brook, TO SHIRLEY FISCHER,
Paul Cohen, Andrew Preston, Nader Mansourian, FREITAS ADVISORY GROUP.
Katie Yim, Jerry Champa, Lester Roth (PW)
- File 102 x 9-2-50 RESOLUTION NO. 9831 -
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO HERMINE BOYADJIAN, FREITAS ADVISORY GROUP.
RESOLUTION NO. 9832 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO BOB BONEBRAKE, FREITAS ADVISORY
GROUP.
RESOLUTION NO. 9833 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO BOB HOLMES, FREITAS ADVISORY
GROUP.
RESOLUTION NO. 9834 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO ALAN ZAHRADNIK, FREITAS ADVISORY
GROUP.
RESOLUTION NO. 9835 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO ART BROOK, FREITAS ADVISORY
GROUP.
RESOLUTION NO. 9836 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO PAUL COHEN, FREITAS ADVISORY
GROUP.
RESOLUTION NO. 9837 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO ANDREW PRESTON, FREITAS ADVISORY
GROUP.
RESOLUTION NO. 9838 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO NADER MANSOURIAN, FREITAS
ADVISORY GROUP.
RESOLUTION NO. 9839 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO KATIE YIM, FREITAS ADVISORY
GROUP.
RESOLUTION NO. 9840 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO JERRY CHAMPA, FREITAS ADVISORY
GROUP.
RESOLUTION NO. 9841 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO LESTER ROTH, FREITAS ADVISORY
GROUP.
11. Report on Bid Opening and Rejection of Bids For RESOLUTION NO. 9842 -
2nd, 3rd, and "A" Streets Underground Utility RESOLUTION REJECTING BIDS
FOR
District Improvements (Project No. 912-9012-8809) 2nd, 3rd, AND "A" STREET
(PW) - File 4-1-488 x 6-51 x 12-18-13 UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT
IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO RE -BID PROJECT.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar for further discussion:
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF MONDAY, APRIL 21, 1997 (CC)
Councilmember Cohen asked that the minutes of April 21, 1997 be amended as follows:
Page 20, Item 19-c, first sentence, change word "he" to "Council".
Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to approve the
minutes of the Regular Meeting of Monday, April 21, 1997, as amended.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/5/97 Page 2
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/5/97 Page 3
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
7. CITY'S EXERCISE OF MARIN HOUSING AUTHORITY'S OPTION TO PURCHASE TWO BELOW MARKET
RATE (BMR) UNITS AT THE MARIN LAGOON CONDOMINIUM PROJECT: 38 MARINERS CIRCLE AND
55 MARINERS CIRCLE, SAN RAFAEL (CA) - File 5-1-313 x 229
This item was carried over for two weeks to the meeting of 5/19/97 at the request
of Mayor Boro. Housing Consultant Dick Bornholdt to provide number of units where
City can and cannot recapture any "windfall" profit realized by the seller, and
why there are different policies.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
12. a. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO ANH BACH, PUBLIC WORKS
MAINTENANCE WORKER II, EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER ENDING MARCH 31, 1997 (CM)
- File 102 x 9-3-40 x 7-4
Anh Bach, Public Works Maintenance Worker II was unable to be present at meeting.
b. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO SUN VALLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL -
RECIPIENT OF DISTINGUISHED SCHOOL AWARD (CM) - File 102 x 5-2-3
Mayor Boro explained the State of California School Recognition Program was
established to honor schools that have demonstrated their exemplary educational
program, as determined by successful teaching and learning, high standards for
all students, rigorous graduation requirements, strong family and community
involvement, partnerships with the business community, safe and clean school
environments, and modern technology. He noted the State Superintendent of Public
Instruction had recently announced the winners in the 1997 California
Distinguished Schools Program, and commended Sun Valley Elementary School, which
is part of the San Rafael Elementary School District, for being selected by the
California Department of Education from among California's 4,900 elementary
schools as a California Distinguished School.
On behalf of the City Council, Mayor Boro presented Bob Vasser, Principal, with
a Resolution of Appreciation to Sun Valley Elementary School, and expressed the
City's sincere appreciation for the school's outstanding service to the children
of the San Rafael community.
13. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTIONS OF APPRECIATION TO FREITAS ADVISORY GROUP: (PW)
- File 102 x 9-2-50
SHIRLEY FISCHER, HERMINE BOYADJIAN, BOB BONEBRAKE, BOB HOLMES, ALAN ZAHRADNIK, ART
BROOK, PAUL COHEN, ANDREW PRESTON, NADER MANSOURIAN, KATIE YIM, JERRY CHAMPA,
LESTER ROTH.
Mayor Boro explained the Freitas Advisory Group was commissioned in January, 1995
to perform alternative studies for the Freitas Interchange, at which time the
Advisory Group established a study goal, which incorporated providing adequate
capacity without adversely affecting other streets and highways, improving safety,
providing acceptable access, and minimizing confusion. He noted that over a 26
month period the Advisory Group reviewed approximately 20 alternatives to improve
the Freitas Interchange, and have now unanimously agreed to a short-term (interim)
improvement
to signalize the two intersections of the interchange, coordinate both signals to
function as one, and widen the off -ramp and Redwood Highway. He stated the Advisory
Group has also agreed the Caltrans Alternative should be constructed as the
long-term (ultimate) improvement, should traffic conditions warrant additional
capacity enhancing improvements.
On behalf of the City, Mayor Boro presented Resolutions of Appreciation to Shirley
Fischer, Hermine Boyadjian, Bob Bonebrake, Bob Holmes, Art Brook, Paul Cohen,
Andrew Preston, and Nader Mansourian, thanking them for their hard work, and
expressed appreciation for the Freitas Advisory Group's outstanding service to
the City of San Rafael.
Freitas Advisory Group members Alan Zahradnik, Katie Yim, Jerry Champa, and Lester
Roth were unable to attend the meeting.
MONTHLY REPORTS:
14. CITY WORK PLAN REVIEW - File 237
Assistant City Manager Golt presented the Monthly Work Plan Review, which she noted
gave a very good overview of all the items which tie-in with the eight major goals
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/5/97 Page 3
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/5/97 Page 4
Council established in August, 1996.
Councilmember Heller complimented Ms. Golt on the excellent State of the City report.
Councilmember Heller asked about the proposed City mail box, to be placed outside
City Hall. Public Works Director Bernardi stated staff was researching what the
mail box will look like and where it will be placed.
Council accepted report, without motion.
15. DEPARTMENT REPORT - LIBRARY - File 237 x 9-3-61
Library Director Vaughn Stratford experienced technical difficulties with the
equipment he was to use to make his presentation; therefore, this Agenda Item
was continued to the regular City Council meeting of 5/19/97.
(Next item taken out of order at request of Mayor Boro).
NEW BUSINESS:
17. INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS TO FORM THE DEL GANADO MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT: (Admin. Svcs.) - File 6-53
a. RESOLUTION INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR THE FORMATION OF THE SAN RAFAEL DEL GANADO
MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 97-2, AND THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS
FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997/98, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF PART 2 OF DIVISION 15 OF
THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE.
b. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
AND MUNI FINANCIAL CORPORATION FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT CONSULTING SERVICES.
Administrative Services Director Ken Nordhoff stated he was presenting two
Resolutions which initiate the proceedings to form the Del Ganado Maintenance
Assessment District. He reported several years ago, due to tight budget
constraints, the City discontinued maintenance on 42 miles of medians throughout
the City of San Rafael, noting that over time those medians have begun
deteriorating, and have become an eyesore to many residents of the community.
Mr. Nordhoff reported two community areas were presently considering forming
Districts as a means of refurbishing those areas, and putting some life back into
the medians. He noted the first group to bring their desire to do so to staff
is the area known as the Santa Margarita Neighborhood Association, which is in
the northwest Terra Linda area of the City. He reported they are specifically
looking to either install new improvements, or refurbish existing improvements
along the Del Ganado ditch, beginning at Freitas Parkway, and going up Del Ganado
until it ends.
Mr. Nordhoff reported staff has had several meetings with the Del Ganado
representatives, and they have submitted a request via the City Manager's Office
to bring this issue before Council for consideration. Mr. Nordhoff pointed
out the City has to comply with a number of regulations, including Proposition 218
and the Lighting and Landscaping Act of 1972, which requires that this item be
brought to Council's attention, and that they have the ultimate authority to
initiate the proceedings to form the District. Mr. Nordhoff reiterated this was
only the initiation of the process, and under Proposition 218 there are a series
of events that must be accomplished prior to the District being formed as a legal
entity, and prior to assessments being levied or calculated, should the Council
choose to initiate the Resolutions now before them. He noted one of the
Resolutions defines the District, sets the tentative boundaries, and names the
District; the other appoints an Assessment Engineer who will do benefit assessment
work in the proposed District area, and hold meetings with staff and neighborhood
residents to discuss what the District should look like, both in terms of the
physical improvements along Del Ganado, as well as the geographic boundaries of
the District.
Mr. Nordhoff reported that because this is a General Benefit District, it requires
a 50% vote at a public hearing, and under Proposition 218, the vote is weighted,
which means that once the Engineer's Report is completed, they will have determined
how much General Benefit is contained within that District, which becomes the
City's obligation, and how much Special Benefit is contained within that District,
which is the responsibility of the property owners within the District. Mr.
Nordhoff stated each property owner is entitled to vote with respect to their
benefit in relation to the total benefit the District provides. Mr. Nordhoff
explained this was known as "weighted ballots", noting the ballots would be
developed in conjunction with the City Clerk' s Office and mailed prior to a public
hearing. He noted the ballots were required to be submitted on or before the
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/5/97 Page 4
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/5/97 Page 5
public hearing date, and the ballots are tabulated at the close of the public
hearing. He stated if more than 50% of those ballots received favor the District,
the District will be formed and move forward. If, at that time, there are more
than 50% that are not in favor of forming the District, the process ceases at
that point and cannot move forward.
Reporting on what has been done to date, Mr. Nordhoff stated the Association has
been meeting with neighborhood residents for over a year, and conducted an informal
survey. He stated the Association estimated the District size to include 740
properties, although he acknowledged he was not certain about the six commercial
properties. He noted they also mailed out an interest survey to all the affected
owners, noting approximately ninety were absentee owners. The Association
received 248 responses, representing approximately one-third of the property
owners, and of those responses approximately 182 were interested in this project,
and the remaining 66 votes were not interested in proceeding.
Mr. Nordhoff noted that of the two Resolutions before Council, one was initiating
the proceedings to form the District, and the second to initiate a contract with
a benefit assessment engineering company to begin the preliminary work to do the
benefit analysis. Mr. Nordhoff stated it was estimated these costs would be
approximately $18,680, and noted Council should be aware that if the City goes
through this process and uses these City funds, and should the vote not go forward
at the public hearing date, those costs would have to be borne by the City. If
the District is formed and is successful, those costs would be borne by the property
owners as part of the District, and the City would be reimbursed for those costs.
Councilmember Phillips asked if it would be possible for the City to independently
survey the more than 700 property owners? Mr. Nordhoff stated it was possible.
Mr. Phillips stated he was not suggesting that at this point, he merely wanted
to know if it would be possible.
Councilmember Heller referred to a letter she received which stated the Association
had no legal standing and, therefore, should not be allowed to bring this before
the Council. She stated it was her understanding that any group can bring a tax
measure like this before Council per Proposition 218, and asked the City Attorney
to comment. City Attorney Ragghianti explained he did not think it had anything
to do with Proposition 218, and anyone could propose the formation of a District,
noting, in fact, the City itself could propose the formation of such a District.
He stated the legitimacy or representation of the entity is something the Council
should listen to, but it does not really have anything to do with the legal
requirements for going forth.
Councilmember Cohen noted the letter Ms. Heller referred to also makes the claim
that this project falls within CEQA guidelines, and would therefore trigger
requirements for an Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Ragghianti stated he did
not agree, noting the point at which CEQA, or a project within the meaning of
CEQA, would be triggered would be June 9th, as shown on the attached schedule,
which is the time at which a Resolution of Intent would be adopted by Council.
Mr. Ragghianti stated that in the limited time his office has had to review the
letter which raised, for the first time, the CEQA issue, it was their opinion
that the proceedings before Council were preliminary. He stated if, and only
if, after the Engineer makes his proposed spread and the Engineer's Report is
accepted by the Council at a public hearing, and the Council adopts a Resolution
of Intent to go forward, would CEQA review be necessary. Mr. Ragghianti stated
this was his opinion after the limited time he has had to research this issue.
Councilmember Cohen noted if this were the case, there would be an Intent Meeting
the middle of June, and the public hearing would not occur until August, when
Council would tabulate the ballots and adopt a Resolution amending or approving
the final report, and asked where in this process the CEQA requirement would be
triggered? He noted the point raised in the letter, which does concern him is
if, in fact, this is a sufficient project to trigger the requirement of an
Environmental Impact Report, is that a cost the City would have to bear "at risk"
before even determining whether there were sufficient votes for the project to
move forward?
Mr. Ragghianti stated at some point, if this is a project within CEQA and there
is no exemption, some determination must be made as to the environmental document
that will accompany the project, whether that is a Negative Declaration or an
Environmental Impact Report, he did not know, because he felt an examination would
have to be made. Mr. Ragghianti stated it was not unusual for the Engineer's
work to examine, from a cursory perspective, preliminary environmental
considerations in connection with the spread he intends to make, but at some point
the environmental issue needs to be addressed, and Mr. Ragghianti felt the trigger
for that would be determination by the Council to go forward, which in this case
would be the 9th of June. Mr. Ragghianti asked for Mr. PendoleyIs observations.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/5/97 Page 5
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/5/97 Page 6
Planning Director Pendoley stated they had decided the CEQA liability was incurred
at the time the public hearing was held, noting the great advantage of that was
that we would have the Engineer's Report, which would help us to scope the project.
Mr. Pendoley noted each instance was slightly different, and it was hard to be
absolutely certain he was correct on this. He suggested we wait until August,
but did state he agreed with Mr. Ragghianti that this should be discussed with
the Bond Counsel, as they are familiar with these issues.
Mayor Boro invited comments from members of the public.
Eric Bancroft, resident of Del Ganado Road and Vice President of the Santa Margarita
Neighborhood Association, stated that over the years the neighbors have talked
about doing something about the ditch, and individual appeals have been made in
the past. He reported a year and a half ago a handful of residents tried to
determine how many people were actually interested in doing something about the
Del Ganado ditch, and they had a small meeting at the Recreation Center, attended
by approximately 50 people. He stated most of those in attendance expressed a
desire to continue this project, noting they all feel Terra Linda is a great place
to live, and they want to keep it that way. Mr. Bancroft stated the residents
feel the Del Ganado ditch is the entrance to West Terra Linda, and believe it
sets the tone for the whole area, noting people who go by the ditch coming into
Terra Linda are shocked, and the residents felt they had to do something about
this.
Mr
Mr
Bancroft reported the road was divided, in part, by an unsightly open concrete
ditch, which serves as a drainage channel for all of West Terra Linda, not just
Del Ganado, noting if it were not for the Del Ganado ditch people on Bamboo,
Barberry, and even Monticello would experience flood damage in heavy downpours.
Mr. Bancroft reported the ditch was protected by a three foot cyclone fence,
with no landscaping on the first block, and minimal landscaping on the second
block. He stated that over the years many automobiles have crashed through the
fence and into the ditch, noting the fence has been patched over and over again,
and each time it becomes a little more ragged looking. Mr. Bancroft reported
that as a result of all this patching and rusting, and now no watering, the ditch
has become extremely unsightly, and the residents would like Del Ganado Road to
have the same appearance as Freitas, noting they believe Freitas is amply
maintained, and they would like Del Ganado to equal that, at least.
Bancroft stated they are so concerned about this ditch and its appearance that
they actually reactivated the Santa Margarita Neighborhood Association, noting
they started out as just a ditch committee, but because of all the interest it
expanded to a Neighborhood Association, not only because of the ditch, but because
of other issues coming up in the future. Having been informed by the City that
it does not have the funding to do all of the Capital Improvements the neighborhood
would like to have done, or even to do the maintenance the neighborhood feels
the City should be doing, they have decided they would be willing to participate
in a Lighting and Landscaping District, and help defray the cost of fixing up
the Del Ganado ditch. Therefore, Mr. Bancroft urged Council to approve the
Resolution and initiate this process.
Ian McLeod, 116 Duran Drive, reported that in the process of pulling this together
the City had generously made $1,000 available for a study, which was conducted
by Landscape Architect Brian Wittenkeller, who did some drawings and estimates
of cost. He stated they were shocked at how expensive it was, so they went back
to the drawing board, and the proposal they had intended to
recommend has been cut in half. He reported they are trying to do the least possible
that is still an effective way of enhancing the safety and appearance of the area.
Sue Paul, resident of Las Ovejas, reported she has lived in Terra Linda for
approximately five years, stating the Del Ganado ditch is an embarrassment, noting
the patch jobs and plastic streamers on the ditch are very tacky. Ms. Paul stated
she has worked on the mailings for the 740 residents in their neighborhood, done
door to door delivery, and mailings to property owners out of the area to make
certain everyone is aware of the mission the Association is on, noting she would
love to see this go forward.
Blanca Glatt stated she has been a resident of Del Ganado for fifteen years, noting
that when she first moved to Del Ganado the homes in the area were very run down,
and the ditch was very dirty. She stated her husband cleaned the ditch and they
remodeled their home, and motivated other residents to improve their homes and
the area. Ms. Glatt stated the Association believes if the community is not kept
clean and safe, the value of the homes will decrease, people will be moving out
of the neighborhood, and renters will come in. She stated this was a family
neighborhood, noting many of the people who are opposing this plan have already
raised their children in the neighborhood, and have already benefited from the
taxes. Ms. Glatt stated many of the residents receive no tax benefits, yet they
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/5/97 Page 6
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/5/97 Page 7
raise money for the schools and the community where they live; therefore, she
did not believe this was a selfish request for the benefit of the residents of
Del Ganado, noting it was for everyone's benefit. She stated she would like to
have a safe and clean neighborhood where her children and her grandchildren could
live.
Margaret Johnston, 945 Las Ovejas Avenue, stated she joined the Neighborhood
Association because the original proposal had been something she could not agree
to. She reported that over the past year and a half there has been much discussion
among the neighbors, and there has been a great attempt to find a solution most
people can agree with. She noted the ditch contributes greatly to the character
of the neighborhood, and she believed this improvement would be a general benefit
to everyone, and likely enhance property values throughout the whole neighborhood.
She encouraged the Council to go forward with this.
Ms.
Johnston stated that while she was not going to express an opinion on CEQA,
she noted she was an environmental professional, and has dealt with environmental
projects for some time. She stated that while a CEQA review may be required,
she felt this was not the kind of project that was in any way a detriment to the
environment and was, in fact, just the opposite. She stated if CEQA were used
to block this in any way it would be a misuse of the law.
Ed Bloom, 115 Duran Drive, stated his property did not directly face the Del Ganado
ditch; however, he felt the ditch was the entrance to the general neighborhood
area, and stated the site right now was just terrible. He stated the residents
believed that without improvements over the years to come it would actually be
an eyesore and reduce their property values. Mr. Bloom urged the Council to take
positive action to improve this area.
Joe Marrino, resident of Bamboo Terrace, stated he had lived at his current address
since 1968, noting he had attended three or four meetings and opposed this plan
because he had specific things he did not like about the it. He stated he found
that this weekend someone from the Neighborhood Association had been calling
residents of the neighborhood about attending a meeting, but he had not been
invited. He stated, as a property owner, he should have been invited, and while
he acknowledged some of the people in his neighborhood might not have been able
to attend such a meeting, he believed all of the property owners should have been
invited. Mr. Marrino stated that when he opposed the plan he had hoped the Del
Ganado group would consider an alternative, but they were not very flexible, and
had their eye on a beautiful plan that cost too much money. Mr. Marrino reported
that plan would cost $300, 000 now, and in the next twenty years it would be another
$300,000 to $400,000 to maintain it. He pointed out they would have to use
resources to maintain it, noting they would have to use water, and there would
be pipelines to maintain, and that is why the City has not done this for the
neighborhood already. Mr. Marrino stated they all needed to be flexible, and
to consider other alternative plans that are less costly and would provide a certain
amount of beauty.
Mr
Marrino stated part of their plan was to narrow two lanes on both sides of the
ditch to one lane in both directions, and the reason given for that was that it
would be a lot safer because there are a lot of speeders on Del Ganado. He stated
there are speeders everywhere, and you cannot stop speeders by narrowing the lanes,
which might cause one car to bump the one in front of it, you achieve safety by
taking down licenses and notifying the Police. Mr. Marrino also referred to the
Fire Station, noting they were supposed to have egress and
ingress, and if there was a one lane road on both sides of the ditch it would be
very dangerous, because if one car gets in the way, and the Fire Department loses
30 seconds on the way to a fire, we would all be in trouble. Mr. Marrino stated
he was against the lane reduction.
Mr
Mr
Marrino stated there were more important priorities than another assessment
tax, which would tax a lot of people in the neighborhood who are retired and earning
less than 40% to 50% of what they originally earned, and the younger people who
have just bought houses and can hardly afford their mortgage payments. Mr. Marrino
agreed there had to be emergency services, such as paramedics, and also school
parcel taxes, as those are vital to society, and added there also had to be Fire
Flow for safety, and road repairs. He stated we also needed to allow young people,
middle-aged people, and people of all ages who do not have a car to get in and
out of Terra Linda by providing local bus services.
Marrino stated many people on reduced incomes are in a tight spot, and they
do not need another tax. He recommended Councilmember Phillips' suggestion of
polling the residents to get the pulse of all of the property owners in a formal
vote, and then go from there.
Paul Vince, 630 Barberry Lane, stated his concerns regarding the Santa Margarita
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/5/97 Page 7
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/5/97 Page 8
Neighborhood Association are with respect to their representation to the community
at large, and to the Council, that they have some standing to represent the 740
property owners. He noted the CC & R's (Conditions, Covenants, & Restrictions)
from his Grant Deed provide for no Neighborhood Association, and as far as he
has been able to determine. they have not complied with the statutory requirements
to be an unincorporated association to have a legal standing under the State
Corporation Code. He stated they represented themselves at their meetings and
through their survey as having some authority to represent the 740 property owners
in this proposed District, and he believed that was simply not true.
Mr. Vince stated he was also concerned that there had been a significant misstatement
of fact in the suggestion that the results of the informal survey were mailed
to the property owners. He reported they were not mailed to the property owners,
noting his had been stuck under his door mat, where he usually gets ads for cleaners
and painters, and that sort of thing. He stated he did not know what was mailed,
but did know the results of the survey were not mailed; therefore, the 740 property
owners did not get the notice of this survey, which Mr. Vince felt they were entitled
to. He stated the survey, while well intentioned, did not provide an adequate
disclosure to the homeowners, stating the disclosure that is necessary is the
nature of the proposed project, alternatives for the proposed project, and the
cost of the evaluation process. He noted there was certainly no disclosure that
a Vote of Interest would commit more than $18,000 in taxpayers funds to proceed
with this process. Mr. Vince felt it was also a problem that the survey did not
explain the consequences of a "response", or "no response", stating that having
talked with a fairly substantial number of homeowners after the survey came out,
and after the meeting on May 13th, a great number of people believed that "not
interested" was the same as not sending a reply, and to characterize the results
of the survey as 3-1 in favor was not accurate. He noted the survey could be
characterized as 3-1 opposed considering a "no response" was considered "not
interested" by a great many people who received this. Mr. Vince stated this was
an equally valid characterization of the survey results.
Mr. Vince stated it was not his intention to sink this project; however, he would
like to see, as Councilmember Phillips has suggested, that the community be polled
with adequate notice and full disclosure. He stated only then, when the voters
have had that notice and disclosure, will they have the necessary information
to make an informed decision, and only then will the City Council have the necessary
information to make an informed decision as to whether or not this type of project
has any possibility for success, before committing the $18,000 that is necessary.
Mr. Vince stated the safety issue was something that really concerned him, reporting
there was a recently rebuilt Fire Station on Freitas, and he was not thrilled
with cutting the access from two lanes to one. He noted he had raised the issue
of CEQA because he has had some environmental experience as well. He stated it
seemed a glaring absence in the proposal that CEQA was not even addressed, and
the idea that it may be applicable, and may commit the City to an Environmental
Impact Report and the additional costs and delays of that, was something he felt
really needed to be brought out.
Mr. Vince stated he would like to see the City Council table this matter for 90
to 120 days, to be able to do a survey and make sure the people who are going
to be asked to bear the financial impact of this have had the opportunity to make
an informed decision, and to make the results of their informed decision available
to this Council. Mr. Vince also stated he was willing to volunteer his time and
effort, as were his neighbors, to conduct the survey and arrange for the mailing,
and respectfully requested the City provide funding for this, as well as the mailing
labels. He noted they would like to see this go out on City of San Rafael
letterhead, so there is an organization with legal standing to represent the group
in the community, and asking for this information which will be essential to the
decision to raise taxes or not.
Sue Beittel, resident of Barberry Lane, stated she felt this project was premature.
She noted she had attended various meetings of the San Rafael Homeowners
Association, and many meetings of the North San Rafael Vision, and she believed
we were going to be looking at a series of improvements people would like to see
in Terra Linda, and the entire North San Rafael area, noting this was a very small
project compared to some of the ones she has heard discussed. Ms. Beittel stated
that by paying $12 per year just to take care of one long block from Freitas to
Las Ovejas on Del Ganado we really eliminate a lot of spots in Terra Linda that
need attention, pointing out the walkways between Scotty's Market and Northgate
Shopping Center, among others.
Ms. Beittel stated one of her fears was when people commit themselves to $50 for
twenty years, plus $12 per year, they will not be willing to look at a bigger
picture, noting we really need to bring the Terra Linda community from a 1950's
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/5/97 Page 8
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/5/97 Page 9
community to a 2000 community, and make it a better place than it is now. She
felt if there were more people to share the burden, that is the greater Terra
Linda area, to do this and other projects, we would be in a lot better position,
and might not have to spend as much money on interest as we would on this project,
as we might be able to do some things on a pay as you go basis.
A resident of the Santa Margarita neighborhood, noted an Environmental Impact Report
would certainly make a difference in deciding how sound the Del Ganado ditch project
is. In addition, he agreed that Councilmember Phillips' suggestion of a poll
of all property owners would be very helpful, because a group of homeowners might
raise a legal issue, and the City would be caught in the middle. Therefore, he
would advise Council to listen to both sides of the issue, suggesting they consider
tabling the issue for 120 days.
Eli Shamah, resident of Bamboo Terrace, referred to a letter Council received from
H. F. Ferry, Jr., and stated several of the residents of Bamboo Terrace felt the
same way. He noted that when the committee started the Santa Margarita Homeowners
Association, he and Mr. Ferry had several issues of concern which they believed
the Homeowners Association might address, many of which would not have cost any
money; however, it soon became apparent that the only issue of importance was
the ditch, and the people along Del Ganado wanted to take over the Association
and address only the ditch. Mr. Shamah felt there were other priorities, such
as transportation and general road maintenance. He stated the
ditch itself could be done in several ways, and noted Councilmember Phillips had
an excellent idea when he suggested at one of the meetings that they make plans
for several stages of cost. Mr. Shamah noted they could start off by just replacing
the fence and putting in some landscaping, without redoing the whole street,
changing the lanes, or those improvements that would cost half a million dollars.
He stated there were other priorities, and he believed the City would find there
was a lot of resistance from the people, many of them retired, who live on Bamboo
Terrace, because those improvements would not affect them very directly.
Walter Bollin, resident of Bamboo Terrace, noted he was one of the residents who
obtained the questionnaire and did not send it in, but stated he was opposed to
the project as it now stands. He felt Council was making a great leap when they
assume that approximately 25% "yes" votes are going to add up to 50% "yes" votes
when it comes down to the final cut.
Mr. Bollin stated he opposed the project primarily because he was concerned about
narrowing Del Ganado, noting it was a very busy area, people double park, typically
around the swimming pool during the summer, and the bus stop is located there.
He also believed the City had abrogated its responsibility in minimum maintenance
on the ditch, noting if the fence gets broken it stays broken for months, pointing
out it is already rusting, and a new fence would be a great improvement. Mr.
Bollin reported there had been a tree growing in the ditch for approximately three
years, until the Homeowners Association had a clean-up day and took the tree out,
noting he would like to see more maintenance done.
Carol Dillon, resident of Penny Royal Lane, stated she walks down Del Ganado almost
every day and notices what goes on there, and noted she has worked on clean-up
programs and has seen the debris in the ditch. As a gardener, she believed the
ditch could be made more attractive, and suggested perhaps everyone could just
make donations and collect enough money to make the ditch attractive.
She felt that for the time being they should just put some plants in, because there
was not going to be any money. She stated there were so many priorities now,
there was never going to be any bus service, and the ditch was not going to be
done, but they could work together and make it attractive.
Albert Barr, resident of San Rafael, stated he did not live in Terra Linda, but
noted his neighborhood is going through the same process regarding Point San Pedro
Road. Referring to Councilmember Phillips' suggestion of the City doing a survey
of the property owners, Mr. Barr pointed out such a survey is not required by
law, or under Proposition 218, and noted that when they presented their proposal
to the City to form a special Assessment District, they presented the City with
a petition signed by the Presidents of 16 Homeowner Associations on Point San
Pedro Road. He reported the City did not feel this was adequate, and suggested
they do a survey, which they are in the process of doing. However, Mr. Barr noted
it was not easy to get a mailed response from people in the neighborhood, and
reported each of the Associations was holding meetings and doing the surveys,
and they would hold a town meeting in a week. He stated he hoped they would get
more than 50 people out of a population of 2,400 homes. Mr. Barr felt that the
City doing another survey would be redundant, a waste of City money, and just
a pretext to stall the project, and he recommended the City follow the procedure
already outlined and established, whereby the City accepts the survey done by
the Homeowners Association, noting he hoped Council would accept the results of
the Point San Pedro survey, as well, and then start the process so that with proper
notice the residents will have an opportunity to vote on this.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/5/97 Page 9
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/5/97 Page 10
Brenda Pollack, 1074 Las Ovejas, stated what is happening here is very unfortunate,
noting she sees the Del Ganado ditch literally dividing the neighborhood. She
reported she does not have an alternate route to her home, and must drive down
the ditch or go out of her way and drive up Las Collindas, thereby creating more
traffic for those people, which she would prefer not to do. She asked the Council
to consider this is an eyesore, noting she has lived in Terra Linda for five years,
and did not believe she had realized any appreciation on her property, while some
of the people who have lived there since 1968 are paying lower taxes and sitting
on at least a quarter of a million dollars equity, which is something she may
never see. Ms. Pollack stated she agreed with the earlier comment that the area
was like 1957, noting "American Graffiti" was filmed on Fourth Street, and stating
if they want to make "American Graffiti II" they can come to Terra Linda.
Nancy Turner, resident of Del Ganado, stated she had been a part of the Association
for the past year and a half, noting she had a file of the people who had attended
the meetings every month, and she has always been quite impressed that there has
been in excess of thirty-five to fifty-five people at every meeting. She reported
one of the things they had done early on was to distribute a survey to the people
attending the meetings, noting the Association wanted to do more than just the
ditch, and asking them what their priorities were. Ms. Turner stated the residents
all voted for the ditch as their Number One priority, and that is how it became
the Association's Number One priority.
Ms. Turner stated, as a resident facing Del Ganado, she sees cars speeding down
the road all the time at fifty and fifty-five miles per hour, and also sees that
as the ditch gets filled up with water, it does overflow at the sides, pointing
out there are children who play in the ditch. She urged Council to approve this
project so they can proceed, because she believed expanding the landscaping would
also make it a much safer street for the children in the area, and for residents
and the number of cars that keep going into the ditch.
Diane Vince, resident of Barberry Lane, stated she believed everyone was in favor
of doing something to beautify their community, and felt the issue was just what
exactly that should be. She reported that when this proposal was made the numbers
were not known, and when people actually did the math and realized it would be
a million dollars in taxes over the next twenty years for this one project, that
turned -off a lot of people. Ms. Vince stated she had done an informal study
throughout the neighborhood, and over 100 people she spoke with would not support
the tax increase to pay for this project. She noted she would like to see some
other options explored for low maintenance for the ditch, and the other projects
needed within their neighborhood. Ms. Vince stated she had spoken with
Councilmember Phillips, and one suggestion she had was to contact schools of design
across the country who are looking at urban planning and urban design, and have
them come up with some ideas to help decide what would be appropriate for this
community, and would be within certain cost constraints that everyone could live
with.
Andrea McLeod, resident of Duran Drive, stated she was a member of the Santa Margarita
Homeowners Association, and had worked on some of the presentations and attended
most of the meetings. Ms. McLeod reported she has observed, in terms of
safety, the places that are the most dangerous are the ones that have no landscaping,
noting time and time again where they see cars falling in the ditch is where there
is no landscaping. She felt the City needed to know that, because she believed
that would be a big part of why they may or may not support any proposal.
Mayor Boro referred to the issue of who does the survey and how it is done, and
asked if it is a process called for under the law, what is the City's role?
Secondly, he asked for an explanation as to how the figure of 740 homes was arrived
at? Administrative Services Director Ken Nordhoff noted representatives of the
Association would have to respond to the question regarding the number of homes,
as this was a geographic area that they developed, and not something that staff
contributed to. Mayor Boro also asked how this meeting, tonight, had been noticed?
Referring to the issue of a survey, Mr. Nordhoff reported Proposition 218 does not
require a survey process, noting Council was actually taking action under the
Lighting and Landscaping Act of 1972. He stated this Act had been in effect for
twenty-five years, and allows either citizens, individually or collectively, or
the City Council as a Body, to initiate proceedings to form a District. He
explained Proposition 218 now layers on top of that and requires more of the formal
public meeting, public hearing, and ballot processing activities. However, it
is actually the Lighting and Landscaping Act that allows any one of those entities,
individuals, a group of citizens, or the City Council, to initiate the proceedings
to form a District. He noted that when this is done, the benefits and improvements
are usually defined, a tentative name is given to the District, and the engineering
work is authorized to be done, with the expectation that they would come back
and make subsequent Findings before formally approving the District, deciding
which projects would be completed, and determining levies that would affect the
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/5/97 Page 10
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/5/97 Page 11
parcel owners within the District. Mr. Nordhoff noted this was all under study
at this time, pointing out the 740 parcels need to be defined as part of this
process, and what improvements need to be developed, replaced, or put in brand
new also needs to be defined. He pointed out that is really worked through with
the homeowners who are affected by this, because it is not the City's project,
it is really their project. He stated the City was just the facilitator, and
they need to help the City decide what level of maintenance and improvements they
want, what the costs will be, and how the costs will be shared.
Mayor Boro noted the City could ask for a representative of the Homeowners Association
to explain how they arrived at the figure of 740 homes, and asked if one of those
740 homeowners feels they do not want to be part of this, or that this is not
logical for them, how is it publicly validated that these 740 homes truly belong
in this project? Mr. Nordhoff stated that was what the Assessment Engineering
Process would do, which is addressed in the second Resolution. He reported the
engineering process would determine how large the District is, define the level
of benefits, and to what extent those benefits are received. He pointed out they
might be divided into zones, noting sometimes property owners closer to the
improvements receive a greater benefit than those that are further away.
Councilmember Heller noted the figure she had heard was $62 annually, and asked
if that figure could change when the engineering firm looks at the entire project,
and if some homeowners might be paying $42, with those who live closer to the
improvements paying $52, and those who live even closer paying $62? Mr. Nordhoff
reported that in using the preliminary drawings as a basis, and in listening to
what the Association has said about having scaled down the Level of Effort over
a period of time, staff then checked the numbers with the Public Works Department,
and they felt the construction costs were reasonable, given the level of
improvement the Association was contemplating at this point. Ms. Heller asked
if the amount paid by the property owners would vary? Mr. Nordhoff stated that
was correct, particularly when larger properties were involved, such as the
shopping centers, because they had a greater weighted benefit, and a greater
participation in the vote.
Councilmember Phillips asked if there was a profile of those homeowners who responded
to the survey, showing how many of those who returned the survey were people who
live along the ditch, and what the responses were as they spread further out into
the more outlying areas? Mr. Nordhoff stated he did not have that information.
Mayor Boro asked Mr. McLeod if the Association had that information? Mr. McLeod
reported they had compiled a map which showed green dots for those who were in
favor of the project, and red dots for those who were against the project. He
noted the map showed a general dispersal throughout the 740 properties, and there
was no concentration in one place or another.
Public Works Director Bernardi reported staff had provided Mr. McLeod and Mr. Bancroft
with maps and lists of Assessor's Parcel Rolls, in order to assist them in getting
an idea of the scope of the number of properties that would be involved in this
project. Mr. Bernardi stated staff told the Association it was up to them to
determine the boundaries, although staff did give suggestions as to what the
boundaries should be and who should be included. Referring to the survey, Mr.
Bernardi stated staff had told the Association that before this matter would be
brought to the Council, Council needed to have some general indication of what
the general interest was in the community, and rather than a survey coming from
the City, it would be more appropriate to generate it within the community itself,
so they would be the ones who are really moving the project forward, with the
City acting as a facilitator.
Councilmember Miller stated he was looking down the line in terms of the Proposition
218 vote and the weighting, and asked if the weighting of the shopping center
had played into the calculation of the 700 plus homes, noting if that was a
predominant weight and could kill the project, that would mean they run a grave
risk of dumping $18,000 down the tubes before they even get to the project. He
pointed out we have to know what the weighting is so we can see whether or not
there is a good chance the project will go through. He stated Council was being
asked to take a gamble that this project was going to get through, and if the
gamble looks good, Council will take it, but if the gamble does not look good,
it would be difficult to cast a vote for it, because that would substantially
be tossing away $18,000. Mr. Nordhoff acknowledged the votes are weighted, and
given the geographic outline of the area, which is mostly residential, the shopping
center will carry a greater vote, but it will not be so out of proportion that
it would be 10% or 15% of the voting. Mr. Nordhoff stated we would not know until
the assessment engineering work is complete, based upon the cost of the project
and the spread of the benefit, exactly how much more the shopping center is,
relative to a single family residence.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/5/97 Page 11
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/5/97 Page 12
Councilmember Phillips asked if the relative weight was based on market value of
the parcels, or the size, or some other factor? Mr. Nordhoff stated it had to
do with the level of benefit received, noting they tend to look at this as it
is
broken down into common groups, such as single-family, multiple -family, commercial
and industrial units. He stated it had no relation to market value or assessed
value. Mr. Phillips asked if the Recreation Center and the Fire Station, which
the City would be obligated for, would carry that same concept in terms of relative
weight? Mr. Nordhoff stated that was correct, although they would be a little
different, since they were public facilities, the same as schools, churches, and
non-profit facilities, but pointing out no one would be excluded from the process.
Mr. Phillips asked if this meant the City would be paying a tax if this project
passed? Mr. Nordhoff stated that was correct.
Councilmember Heller noted this tax would go with the parcel, and asked if the
homeowner could pay one lump sum if they wanted a tax write-off for a specific
year? Mr. Nordhoff stated they could, explaining that under the formation of
any Assessment District the property owner always has the right to pay the levy
up front, or any time they choose to during the life of the assessment. Mr.
Nordhoff reported there would be two tiers to this; a construction portion, which
will cease after twenty years, and the maintenance portion which will continue
thereafter.
Councilmember Miller asked, of the 700 plus buildings within the Assessment District,
how many are owner occupied and how many are non -owner occupied? Mr. Nordhoff
stated that according to the information he received from the survey, approximately
90 properties are non -owner occupied, and the remaining 650 are owner occupied.
Mayor Boro stated Mr. McLeod was in the unique position of working on this project
as a resident, noting he also sits on the Vision Committee. He asked Mr. McLeod
how he saw this project tying into the Vision process? Mr. McLeod stated the
process the Vision Committee was going through was a Northern San Rafael -wide
process, and the Vision Committee is now coming to the conclusion that the
recommendations the Committee comes up with will have to be funded somehow, and
while they want to have the whole area improved, the financial problems will have
to be solved on a case by case basis. Therefore, he stated they see these two
processes as one and the same.
Councilmember Miller stated he felt they would have a greater chance of getting
this passed as an Assessment District if they took on a number of projects. Mr.
McLeod agreed that if they could widen the scope of the District the cost would
come down, but when they begin to widen the scope and see how much there is to
be done, from Freitas Parkway all the way through the community, the number of
projects and the appetite for improvement is enormous, and they felt this
particular project and the scope they have used to define the District was
appropriate, and within the same scale as the overall projects would be. He
stated the assessments, which he hoped North San Rafael takes on to complete the
whole Vision process, would be on a like scale.
Councilmember Phillips noted much had been made about converting the two lanes to
one, and asked who had made that decision, if that was the Association's proposal,
something that was coming from the Department of Public Works, or just how it
came about? Mr. Bernardi stated this issue had come up in the beginning
discussions about expanding the landscaping, how wide it should be, whether or
not there should be a bike path on this part of Del Ganado, and whether or not
there were any capacity problems with narrowing the road down to one lane. Mr.
Bernardi reported Del Ganado was originally designed to connect to Lucas Valley
Road, over the hill from where it currently ends; however, since there is Open
Space at the end of the road now, the likelihood of extending the road is slim.
Therefore, the need for a road that wide to carry two lanes of traffic was not
there, and if they were to take six feet of the roadway for landscaping, there
would be a travel lane, a striped, Class III bike path in addition to the parking,
and they would have enough width to do all of that and would not have any capacity
problems. Mr. Bernardi pointed out that in the Vision process they are looking
at traffic calming techniques, and one very good technique is to narrow the road,
noting this would have a very good effect on vehicle speeds. Mr. Phillips asked
Mr. Bernardi if he were comfortable with that concept, and Mr. Bernardi stated
that he was.
Councilmember Cohen stated he was distressed with the line in the staff report which
stated, "Votes shall no longer be tabulated one vote, one owner", noting
Proposition 218 has taken us away from the one person, one vote concept, which
he felt was a problem. Mr. Cohen noted the engineering firm was going to study
the General Benefit versus Special Benefit that each property owner receives,
and that the City's General Fund must contribute the General Benefit portion of
the District's cost. Therefore, Mr. Cohen asked if the engineering firm
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/5/97 Page 12
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/5/97 Page 13
determines that a third of this project is a General Benefit and two-thirds is
a Special Benefit unique to the 740 homes, because there is an expectation that
the City would maintain the roads, which is a General Benefit for all the roads
throughout the City, the City would then be liable for $300,000 out of the $1
million cost of this project? Mr. Nordhoff stated it was not a $1 million cost
for the project, it requires the collection of levies once the improvements are
financed. Mr. Cohen asked if it were conceivable the Engineer could come back
and conclude that a third or a half of this project was a General Benefit, and
therefore the City would be on the hook for half the project? Mr. Nordhoff did
not believe it would become that high, noting he expected it to be more in the
area of 10% to 20% as General Benefit, with the balance being Special Benefit,
shared amongst the property owners. Mr. Nordhoff explained those were
traditionally the types of ratios that come out of these studies, and typically
they do not come in at a third or a half for General Benefit Districts. Mr. Nordhoff
acknowledged that did not mean it could not happen, it just seemed highly unlikely.
Counciilmember Phillips asked if the City got a vote? Mr. Nordhoff responded
the City would get a vote.
Referring to the survey and whether or not those who chose not to respond at all
should be counted, Mr. Cohen noted the language of the proposal which states,
"A 50% favorable vote is required at the time that there is a balloting", and
continues with the statement, "A 50% favorable vote of those ballots received
at the public hearing". Mr. Nordhoff stated it would be 50% of those ballots
received prior to or at the public hearing. Mr. Cohen clarified that this meant
50% of those ballots, not 50% of the property owners within the boundaries of
the Assessment District as defined, and Mr. Nordhoff stated that was correct.
Councilmember Cohen stated valid questions had been raised regarding this issue,
and he was not prepared to make a motion on the issue at this time. He noted
one issue worth consideration was whether or not the extent to which the Vision
Process has been looked at in this context. He noted Council might want to hear
more about the CEQA issue, noting if in fact the City may be facing an Environmental
Impact Report on this, it would be on top of the $18,000 before we even have the
balloting, and the exposure becomes that much greater, and he felt Council needed
to know that. He stated that where he might be willing to commit $20,000 to see
whether or not the majority of ballots come back favorably, if it is $40,000 or
$60, 000, he would have to think that much harder about whether the City was willing
to gamble on that. He noted if the City was going to have to pay for an EIR before
we could even do the balloting, the Council needed to know that.
Councilmember Cohen stated he supported the project, and hesitated to say the City
should delay it at this point, noting Public Works Director Bernardi had pointed
out to him that the ditch does what the City needs it to do, it drains the water
out of the neighborhood, and that is what it was designed to do. He acknowledged
that if this were a subdivision we were accepting today, we would never accept
an open ditch, but this was constructed before it was part of the
City of San Rafael, and so we are left with it. Mr. Cohen stated the City no longer
had the resources available to do the kind of beautification project being
requested. Mr. Cohen stated this group of homeowners listened to that and asked
what they would have to do, noting there were many discussions with City staff,
Mayor Boro, and various Councilmembers, and the Association members themselves
came up with ideas that would improve the look of the neighborhood, and in
particular this street.
Mr. Cohen acknowledged it might be better to fold this into a larger project, and
do it as an outcome of the Vision process, but he hesitated to suggest waiting
another year in order to do that. He also felt there was a risk that a larger
project might collapse of its own weight, noting if you get something for everybody
the price goes way up, and it becomes very convoluted. He stated this was a fairly
well defined, specific benefit, noting he appreciated the amount of work the
Association has put into getting the project to this point. He stated he was
concerned about the CEQA issue that has been raised, and he would like a better
answer on that, but noted if staff felt confident in answering that question at
this time, then that was fine.
Regarding the issue now before Council, and whether they should "roll the dice"
on the $18,000, he felt that in return for the community work that has been done
in getting us to this point, Mr. Cohen stated he was prepared to do that. He
noted if the majority of the homeowners agree that this is not a wise use of
taxpayers money, there will be an opportunity to vote against this before the
tax actually goes on the Assessor's Tax Rolls, noting Council was not committing
the City beyond the $18,000 at this time.
Councilmember Miller stated he still has hesitation regarding the folding of this
project into the Vision. He noted the Vision process should be completed by July
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/5/97 Page 13
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/5/97 Page 14
or August, and if it were completed by then, there would be no reason this project
could not be looked at in terms of going forth individually, or going forth with
the greater project, and we would have an opportunity to determine how we could
weigh these issues out. He stated he did not want to delay this project too long,
but on the other hand he felt there had to be a time where we could look at this
when the Vision comes into play. Mr. Pendoley stated the schedule for the Vision
had been revised, and they now believed the Vision would be completed in October.
Regarding CEQA, Mr. Pendoley stated that while they had not done an initial study
at this stage, he was confident this project could be done with a Negative
Declaration.
Councilmember Phillips stated he was willing to move forward on this project, because
he believed there was enough interest in the community. He stated if the community
was willing to foot the bill, with the City paying its share, then he felt the
Council should back them. He acknowledged $18 , 000 was a lot of money, but believed
Council was justified in spending the money to see if there truly was an interest,
which he felt was there and would be cultivated by this group.
Councilmember Phillips felt that while the North San Rafael Vision would have merit,
he believed it would be better for Council to move forward with this specific
idea than wait for the Vision to be completed.
Councilmember Heller agreed the traffic calming was an excellent idea. She asked
if, by passing the Resolution of Intention we would be starting the clock, but
it would be up to the neighborhood group as to when to actually begin the process,
noting the reason she was asking for this verification was because she believed
it was up to the 700 plus homeowners as to whether they choose to wait and go
with the North San Rafael Vision. Mr. Nordhoff stated staff was asking Council
to initiate the process and begin the engineering work, with the expectation that
the City would just be discussing the 740 property owners affected as proposed,
rather than waiting for the Visioning process to be complete. Ms. Heller asked
if, as an Association or as a neighborhood group, they chose to wait, would that
be up to them? Mr. Nordhoff stated that was correct, noting that it could also
change the scope of work somewhat.
Mayor Boro noted the whole purpose of adopting this Resolution was to start the
process, and the neighbors who are before Council are stating they want to begin
the process; therefore, he did not believe Council should assume they would be
changing their mind. Mayor Boro recalled a year and a half ago he and Councilmember
Cohen had met with Mr. Bancroft and another gentleman from the neighborhood and
discussed this issue, noting it had become a little more complicated with the
passing of Proposition 218. However, this was a very specific project for a very
specific neighborhood, and these people have persevered and followed the process.
He stated his only concern was the EIR issue, noting he would like a little more
information from the City Attorney's Office.
Mayor Boro stated that when the Vision process concludes it will be the start of
things, not the end, and to have this group wait for something so specific, and
have to go through that entire process, it could be a couple of years down the
line. He stated he felt obligated, and believed the support was there, to go
forward with this project.
Referring to the EIR, Mayor Boro asked when Council would have to make the decision
as to whether we needed one or not? City Attorney Ragghianti stated he believed
the action Council was preparing to take at this time would not trigger CEQA,
stating he believed it would be necessary for the Engineer's scope of work and
Assessment Preliminary Report to be received so that a project description,
adequate to prepare an initial study, could be prepared and looked at by the
Planning Department. He noted that unless something changed, it was still his
opinion that the Engineer' s work is crucial to an actual description of the project
that is proposed to be the subject of the Assessment District proceeding, and
once the nature of that project is described by the Engineer at a public hearing,
accepted and approved by the Council, and the Resolution of Intent to form the
District adopted, Mr. Ragghianti believed that CEQA would be triggered, and an
initial study would be done. Mr. Ragghianti stated that between now and that
date, he believed the Engineer could be engaged to assist the City in outlining
what they believe some of the environmental issues they will confront will be.
Mr. Ragghianti stated he believed the date in June, or whatever the schedule
dictates, will be the date when CEQA is triggered, noting the initial study must
be prepared, and the appropriate environmental document prepared and adopted by
the City. Mayor Boro asked how much of the $18,000 would be expended between
now and June 9th to get to the preliminary report. Mr. Nordhoff estimated
approximately one-half to one-third of the $18,000 would be spent to get to the
preliminary report.
Mr. Cohen pointed out that, philosophically, Proposition 218 has told the City to
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/5/97 Page 14
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/5/97 Page 15
let those who will benefit from tax increases decide whether they want to bear
the burden of the cost, and noted that was what Council was now being asked to
do, to spend $18,000 to ask people to make the decision as to whether they want
to improve their neighborhood, or live with the ditch as it is.
City Attorney Ragghianti pointed out that when the Engineer's Report is prepared
and brought to Council, the public will have an opportunity, as will the Engineer,
to debate and discuss the report, to ask questions, and to require that it be
modified, noting it would not be a report that was simply prepared and adopted
pro forma, it will be the subject of a public hearing.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt a Resolution
initiating proceedings for the formation of the Del Ganado Maintenance Assessment
District 97-2, and the levying and collection of assessments for fiscal year
1997/98.
RESOLUTION NO. 9843 -RESOLUTION INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR THE FORMATION OF THE
SAN RAFAEL DEL GANADO MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 97-2, AND THE LEVY AND
COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997/98, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS
OF PART 2 OF DIVISION 15 OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE.
AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt a Resolution
authorizing the execution of an agreement between the City of San Rafael and Muni
Financial Corporation for Assessment District consulting services.
RESOLUTION NO. 9844 -RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AND MUNI FINANCIAL CORPORATION FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
CONSULTING SERVICES.
AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
After a brief recess, Mayor Boro reconvened the Council meeting.
OLD BUSINESS:
16. CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSAL FOR THE CREATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF AN
ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION FINE SCHEDULE FOR THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE
(P1)
- File 9-10-2 x 10-2 x 9-3-16
Code Enforcement Officer Nimat Shakoor-Grantham reported that at the last Council
meeting staff was directed to review each Municipal Code section for
appropriateness of the fines, to prepare a list showing what the fines had been
before, and to delineate how the City would collect these fines and forfeitures.
Ms. Shakoor-Grantham pointed out Schedule A of the staff report showed the
difference between the proposed Administrative Fines and the Criminal Citation
Fines. She reported the various City Departments were called upon to re-examine
the listed Municipal Code Sections and the appropriateness of the proposed fines,
noting these meetings resulted in some Sections being deleted, and some fines
were lowered, while others were graduated, with an increase for each offense.
Ms. Shakoor-Grantham noted the report summary explained how the City plans to
collect and enforce the fines.
Ms. Shakoor-Grantham reported that after the staff report was distributed last
Friday, a few typographical errors were found, and the revisions are shown in
Revised Exhibit A to the report.
Deputy City Attorney Eric Davis explained the first correction referred to Section
5.34.010, and reported that in changing from the previous fine to a graduated
fine there was an error, and the first listing of $250 needed to be eliminated,
so there will be a graduated fine of $50 for the first offense, $100 for a second
offense, and $250 for third and additional offenses. Referring to Animal Control
fines in Section 6.10.010, Mr. Davis recalled in April the City's Animal Control
Ordinance was amended, and imposed limits on the amount of the fines, but the
changes were not reflected in the Fine Schedule. He explained the first offense
for Sections 8.04.179, 8.04.240, and 8.04.245 should be $50, the second offense
should be $100, and the third and additional offenses should be $250. Mr. Davis
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/5/97 Page 15
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/5/97 Page 16
pointed out the Sections reflected in this schedule are Sections taken from the
Marin County Animal Control Code, which the City adopted by reference. Mr. Davis
also referred to Section 6.10.030, explaining there was an additional change in
the Animal Control Ordinance that impacted the fines for Leash Violations to $50
for the first offense, $100 for the second and additional offenses, noting the
fee of $250 for third and additional was eliminated in the Amendment.
Mr. Davis reported Section 6.10.010, referring to the Marin Animal Control Code,
also included additional animal control violation Sections 8.04.180, 8.04.181,
8.12.010, and 8.12.020, which incorporate provisions of the Marin County Control
Code. He noted there was no change in the $300 fine amount for these violations,
but because of changes in the Ordinance, two of the Sections were overlooked,
which he has added to the revised list.
Mr. Davis referred to Section 9.12.034, explaining that in making the change to
graduated fines there was an inadvertent failure to remove the previous fine
designation of $300, and the fines have been changed to a progressive $50, to
$100, to $250.
Mr. Davis referred to the last page of the Fine Schedule, noting Section 17.20.070
needs to have the previous listing of $300 removed, and Section 17.30.010 needs
to have the previous listing of $250 removed.
Councilmember Miller reported that in the Graffiti Ordinance the City allowed
community service as an option other than payment of the fine. He noted that
community service, especially when it is related to young people, was a far better
behavior modification device than a fine would be. He asked if there was any
way to incorporate that in these instances, or were we limiting our scope? Mr.
Davis reported that as the Administrative Citation Ordinance now reads it provides
only for the adoption of a Schedule of Fines, to be imposed in the case of a violation
of the various Municipal Codes, and there is no provision for the "payoff" of
fines by community service. However, he noted that was not to say that the
Ordinance could not be rewritten in some fashion to provide for some equivalent
service in lieu of a fine. Mr. Miller felt the City should be consistent in dishing
out punishment, and if we have that alternative for one type of violation, we
should have the same allowance for other violations. He stated he would like
to see the Ordinance amended so that community service is included as an alternative
to payment of the penalty, just as it is in the Graffiti Ordinance.
Mayor Boro asked Mr. Miller which violations he would like to make eligible for
community service? Mr. Miller felt it should apply to all of them, noting it
could be something that was left up to the Administrative Hearing Officer. Mayor
Boro stated that in the case of graffiti, if the person committing the act is
a teenager, the whole issue of a fine versus community service is the hope that
community service will perhaps teach someone a lesson; however, if someone has
a barking dog, and they continue to have a barking dog, he felt the City would
have a bigger effect
with them if they were fined a couple of hundred dollars. Mayor Boro stated he
did not see the correlation that every act should have community service. Mr.
Miller suggested having the option there, to be applied at the discretion of the
Administrative Hearing Officer, and noting that especially when many of these
infractions could easily be committed by youth or other people who are not able
to pay in the first place, this should be an option that is there for them, and
be consistent throughout the City's Ordinances.
Councilmember Phillips stated this was an interesting idea, and asked how something
like this could be monitored? He wondered if perhaps we were setting up a
bureaucracy to handle a $300 fine that may make this whole area non-functional
and non-operable? Councilmember Miller responded he would assume it would be
monitored the same as we monitor the Graffiti Ordinance. Mr. Davis stated he
was not certain the mechanism for doing this was even in place at this point,
and with respect to the Graffiti Ordinance, he did not know that it had yet been
determined how much community service would be the equivalent of the fine that
would be imposed.
City Manager Gould suggested Council approve the Fine Schedule as presented, and
allow staff to come back with some discussion of how community service would be
used as an alternative to the fines, how it would work, and how it would be
administered.
Deputy City Attorney Eric Davis noted the City Attorney's Office does intend to
come back before Council at a later date with some clean-up amendments to the
Ordinance, and if this is an idea that has merit, it can be pursued and included
with the amendments brought back to the Council. Mayor Boro stated he believed
certain types of offenses may be more correctable with a work program than others,
although he felt Mr. Miller made a good point in noting that if someone cannot
afford the fine, there should be an alternative.
Councilmember Phillips noted there were fines for first, second, and third and
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/5/97 Page 16
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/5/97 Page 17
additional offenses, and asked if we had the mechanism in place to monitor and
enforce the offenses and provide this kind of information? Planning Director
Pendoley reported the implementing department feels it is going to be relatively
easy to set up simple data base to track that. Mr. Phillips noted that when the
issue of the Fee Schedule was first brought before Council, he had a question
about parties of twenty or more people, noting he did not see it on the revised
list, and asked if he should expect it to be there, or if it had been taken off?
Deputy City Attorney Davis stated it was one of the items that was originally
listed as being within the category listed as Sections 2.16.028(1), which is
"Parks, Other Regulations", noting this was a violation of Park Regulations
regarding not having a permit. Mr. Davis noted that category had now been folded
into Section 2.16.028, which lists a number of categories, and now provides fines
for a first offense of $50, a second offense of $100, and a third and additional
offense of $250. Mr. Davis noted rather than listing all of the other types of
regulations, they have highlighted the specific violations of Park Regulation
that are deemed to be so significant as to require a fine of $500, and all the
other Park Regulation violations have graduated fines.
Mr. Phillips asked if there were other areas that had also been consolidated, and
how responsible was the Council for the detail behind the Fee Schedule if there
is, in fact, additional detail? Mr. Davis stated the Open Space categories had
been collapsed, as well, and Section 19.10.060(10), "Destruction of Property",
has been highlighted by having a $500 fine, and Section 19.10.060(18), "Hunting
and Dangerous Weapons", also has a $500 fine. However, all the other Open Space
Regulations carry essentially the same $50, $100, $250 graduated fine structure.
He reported this had been done through input from the Police Department, with
the feeling there was a need for a progressive set of penalties that were at a
considerably lower level than they were before. He noted they had incorporated
the Police Department's comments and recommendations in those Sections, both in
the Open Space and the Park Regulation areas.
Councilmember Heller asked if it made sense to add this to the City Work Plan Review,
so Council could see where we are in a year, and look at the expenses, as opposed
to the fines being brought in? She noted this was going to be very expensive
for the City, and we should watch to see if this is something we are losing a
lot of money on, or if we are beginning to recoup our costs. Mr. Davis agreed
it was a good idea to revisit the Schedule of Fines on a regular basis. City
Manager Gould recalled that one of the reasons the City went to an Administrative
Hearing Officer process was so the citations would return to the City. Ms. Heller
stated she would like to be able to track how many citations are returned to the
City, and what that amount of money is. Mr. Gould agreed, noting he believed
this program would pay for itself.
Councilmember Phillips agreed with adding this program to the list of items for
follow-up, noting it seemed that while we have this program in place, we were
not quite there yet in terms of the enforcement. He suggested that perhaps
somewhere on the list of follow-up items Council could see where we stand with
regard to the mechanism for enforcement, otherwise they would just assume
enforcement is in place
when it really is not. City Manager Gould acknowledged they were not quite there
yet, noting Deputy City Attorney Davis was preparing a list of procedures to be
reviewed by staff, and we still need to hire the Hearing Enforcement Officer.
Mr. Gould stated we had to put a number of things in place to get some experience
with this new set-up in order to answer Council's questions, and noted staff would
be reporting back periodically, acknowledging this was a matter of great interest
to the Council. Councilmember Phillips noted there were two issues, one was
implementation, so it is working; and the second, following up on Councilmember
Heller's point, was how effective it is, and the net generation after it is up
and running.
Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the
Resolution establishing an Administrative Citation Fine Schedule, as amended.
RESOLUTION NO. 9845 -RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A SCHEDULE OF FINES FOR VIOLATIONS
OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE (As amended to include Revised Exhibit A).
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
18. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:
a. RE: CRITERIA FOR SITE RELOCATION - ST. VINCENT DINING ROOM - File 9-2-49
Mayor Boro reported the Council had expected City Manager Gould to present at this
meeting a list of criteria from St. Vincent de Paul regarding the relocation of
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/5/97 Page 17
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/5/97 Page 18
their dining room; however, the list Mr. Gould received did not meet the City's
requirements. Mayor Boro urged City Manager Gould to impress upon St. Vincent's
that Council expects to see a revised list of criteria at their meeting of May
19th. Mayor Boro pointed out an agreement between the City and St. Vincent de
Paul had been signed in December, but after five months we are still at square
one, and he stated we had to move beyond this point. Mayor Boro again urged City
Manager Gould to impress upon St. Vincent's that the Council expects this item
on the Agenda for the meeting of May 19th. The other Councilmembers agreed with
Mayor Boro's assessment and instruction to City Manager Gould.
There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned
at 10:45 PM
JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1997
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/5/97 Page 18