Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1997-09-02SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/2/97 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 1997 AT 8:00 PM Regular Meeting: Present: San Rafael City Council Councilmember Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember Absent: Albert J. Boro, Mayor Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager Gus Guinan, Assistant City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 PM None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: None CONSENT CALENDAR: Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Barbara Heller, E �iZ1IM-109 Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to approve the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Approval of Minutes of Special Joint Meeting (w/Planning Commission) of May 29, 1997, Special Closed Session Meeting of July 22, 1997 and Regular Meeting of Monday, August 18, 1997 (CC) 2. Request for City of San Rafael Participation consented as Amicus Party: (CA) - File 9-3-16 a) Case Name: Green v. City of Los Angeles Second District of the California Court of Appeals Approved as submitted. Council unanimously to participation as amicus party. 3. Legislation Affecting San Rafael (CM) Approved staff recommendation: - File 9-1 AB 233, Trial Court Funding Reform: SUPPORT; AB 1191, Stopping Red Light Running: SUPPORT; AB 1066 (Sher), Solid Waste and Recycling: SUPPORT; AB 673 (Floyd), Collective Bargaining. Forced Fact Finding: OPPOSE. 4. Resolution Renewing Contract with DMG (David M Griffith) to Process State Mandated Cost Reimbursement Applications (Current Contract from July 1, 1996 through June 30, 1997) (Admin. Svcs.) - File 4-10-270 5. Resolution Authorizing the Mayor to Execute Agreement to Settle Title Disputes for the MAYOR Properties to be Included in the Shamrock Center Development (RA) - File 2-12-1 x 12-4 x 117 x (SRRA) R-368 6. Resolution Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Agreement to Settle Title Dispute for the MAYOR City Corporation Yard (RA) - File 12-4 x SETTLE 117 x (SRRA) R-368 CORPORATION YARD AND ADJACENT RAILROAD PROPERTY. This item removed from Agenda. RESOLUTION NO. 9907 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT TO SETTLE A TITLE DISPUTE FOR SHAMROCK PROPERTIES. RESOLUTION NO. 9908 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT TO A TITLE DISPUTE FOR CITY AYES: COUNCIL ERS: Cohen, Miller, Phillips & Vice -Mayor Heller NOES: COUNCIL ERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/2/97 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/2/97 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF THE FINAL DESIGN DETAILS FOR A MIXED USE RETAIL, OFFICE, RESIDENTIAL PROJECT LOCATED AT 729 FOURTH STREET AT LINCOLN AVENUE, SAN RAFAEL, CA; APN 011-275-01; GLENN KOORHAN, APPELLANT; TOMMY KENNEDY, OWNER; JERRY LANGKAMMERER, REPRESENTATIVE (Comm. Dev.) - File 10-7 x 10-2 Vice -Mayor Heller reopened the public hearing from the City Council meeting of August 18, 1997, and asked for the staff report. Community Development Director Robert Leiter reported there were three major issues brought up in the appeal filed by Mr. Koorhan. The first was that the details provided did not, in his opinion, elevate the building to the Landmark Quality called for in the Vision. Mr. Leiter stated staff's response indicated this was, in fact, reviewed by the Design Review Board, and a determination was made that the project was consistent with the Downtown Vision. The second point made in the appeal was that the applicant had made changes in the drawings subsequent to receiving Planning Commission approval on July 1st, which were not consistent with the approved drawings. Mr. Leiter reported the Planning Commission did see the revised access plan, and from staff's standpoint, the changes made were not substantial, and did conform to the Zoning Ordinance. The third point was that the Planning Commission failed to adequately consider the revised access plan from Tamalpais Avenue. Mr. Leiter reported the Planning Commission did add a condition indicating proof of access should be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City Attorney, so from that standpoint, staff felt this issue had been responded to. Mr. Leiter stated staff was recommending the appeal be denied. Vice -Mayor Heller invited Mr. Koorhan to address the Council. Glenn Koorhan, 43 Estates Court, stated he was the owner of the building immediately east of the subject site, which is an historic building located at 711 Fourth Street, and also a part-owner of the building immediately east of that one, which houses the Red Wing Shoe Store. Mr. Koorhan reported that between these two buildings they had over $1 million invested in this block of Fourth Street, noting they had worked very hard over the years to improve this part of the Downtown. Mr Mr Koorhan stated it was awkward for him to be appealing this project, as he has been a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee on Redevelopment for the past seven years, has redeveloped several properties Downtown, and is an active supporter of Downtown projects in general. He stated that even though he does not believe the architectural design of this project meets the Landmark Quality Standards set forth in the Vision for Downtown, he believed there was really only one issue standing in the way of their support for the project, noting if that issue could be resolved, then the project would have their support and could move forward. Koorhan explained the issue has to do with the access from Tamalpais Avenue, and relates to the second two points he raised in his appeal letter. He stated that since receiving conditional approval for the project on July 1st, the applicant has submitted revisions to the approved site plan, which they believe were not adequately considered by the Planning Commission. He stated the applicant did not have vehicular access from Tamalpais Avenue, because in order to have such access, an easement document signed by the applicant, himself and his wife, must first be recorded. He noted this was true even if the access was entirely contained within the applicant's own property. Mr. Koorhan explained this is the case because with respect to the panhandled portion of the applicant's property, it is not the ownership of the panhandle that governs its use, but rather a Settlement Agreement dated May, 1996 which settled the prescriptive easement claim. Citing some of the key terms of this Settlement Agreement, Mr. Koorhan reported the Agreement calls for two alternative access plans from Tamalpais Avenue, which he has included in the report as Exhibit 3. He explained Plan A calls for access over the panhandle portion of the applicant' s property, and there can be no grade separation between the rear yard of the Tavern property, which is currently used for parking, and the access driveway. The applicant is to place the vehicular entrance to his project 16 feet from his southerly property line, and it can be no more than 18 feet wide. He stated the applicant is to have one parking space in the southwest corner of the easement area, designated in Plan A as "K-111, and the emergency pedestrian exit from this project is to be just north of that parking space. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/2/97 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/2/97 Page 3 Mr. Koorhan explained Plan B calls for a straight driveway, which allows a row of parking along the southern boundary of the applicant's property, and again, no grade separation is allowed. He noted the vehicular entrance would be in the same location as in Plan A, and the applicant would have the parking space closest to his project, again denoted by "K-1" in the diagram. Mr. Koorhan pointed out the emergency entrance would be just north of the driveway. Reviewing what was approved by the Planning Commission, and when it was approved, Mr. Koorhan referred to Exhibit 4, which shows the plans submitted for approval by the applicant on July 1st. Mr. Koorhan stated this plan was neither Plan A nor Plan B, as permitted by the Settlement Agreement, noting the plan showed some parallel spaces alongside the southern property line, and an encroachment on the Red Wing property to make room for them. He stated it also showed an apparent grade separation between the access driveway and the area behind the tavern property, because the entrance was at minus four feet. However, unaware of the terms of the Settlement Agreement, because of a confidentiality clause in effect at that time, the Planning Commission approved this access design on July 1st. Mr. Koorhan reported that approximately two weeks later the applicant submitted a revised access plan, shown as Exhibit 5; however, this revised access plan was omitted from the staff report submitted to the Planning Commission in connection with the July 29th review of the project details. In addition, the staff report simply stated access was a matter for the City Attorney; therefore, the issue of access was not examined as closely as it should have been by the Planning Commission, and the minutes of the July 29th meeting show this revised access was barely even mentioned. Mr Mr. Mr Koorhan stated the revised access should have been more closely examined by the Planning Commission for several reasons. First, the revised access does not work because it calls for a retaining wall between the driveway and Mr. Koorhan's parking area; second, the garage door is larger than the applicant had agreed to make it; and third, parking space #10, as shown in the plans approved by the Planning Commission on July 1st and counted as part of the total parking to be provided by the project, has disappeared. Mr. Koorhan stated the supplemental staff report regarding this appeal was just wrong in its conclusion #2, which states the approved project plan does not contradict the terms of the Settlement Agreement, noting it clearly does contradict the terms of the Agreement, because there is a grade separation, there is no parking space for the applicant, and the garage door is too large. Mr. Koorhan stated the supplemental staff report also mentions that while there is a sloping between the easement and the parking area, there is no grade separation, and this is also untrue, noting the plans that are currently in for a plan check show a retaining wall, not a slope. He pointed out that even if the plans did show a slope, the garage door would have to be moved south, in violation of the Agreement, and the slope would be too steep anyway. Koorhan stated this revised access plan leaves the applicant without access from Tamalpais Avenue, noting no easement has been recorded, and the approved design does not work; therefore, the applicant has not satisfied Condition of Approval #59, which states that proof of access from Tamalpais Avenue shall be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City Attorney before issuance of a grading and building permit. Koorhan stated he had given a description of the problem, and would now like to offer a solution to the problem. He believed the solution began with Plan B, stating this was the plan the applicant preferred in May, 1996 when the Settlement Agreement was signed, noting it would have been put into place had his co-owner in the Red Wing building signed the Plan B easement by June 15, 1996. Unfortunately, he signed it after that date, and the court recently ruled they could not compel the applicant to use Plan B, although the applicant is free to choose Plan B. Describing the merits of Plan B, Mr. Koorhan stated first, Plan B yielded 11 parking spaces instead of the 7 spaces possible under the applicant's revised plans, and does this in a neighborhood which is extremely short of parking, and would be made more so by this project. He stated the many small businesses that have been using this parking for years would be spared the hardship and disruption that a shortage of parking will cause. Second, Plan B also affords greater visibility on Tamalpais Avenue when entering and exiting the project. Third, Plan B also gives back to the applicant Space #10, which he no longer shows on his plan. Finally, and most importantly, Mr. Koorhan stated that under Plan B they are willing to allow additional grading on their property, and movement and enlargement of the garage door, so the entrance to the project can be below grade. He stated the access problem would be solved, and the project could move forward. Mr. Koorhan asked, if the applicant has the choice of Plan B or Plan A, why was SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/2/97 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/2/97 Page 4 he choosing Plan A, which causes violations of the Settlement Agreement, over Plan B, which can be made to work? Mr. Koorhan noted the applicant may state that he prefers to have the access all on his land, but that is not consistent with the fact that for almost a year he put forth a plan that showed an encroachment onto the Red Wing property, a plan that was approved by the Planning Commission on July 1st. He stated the applicant might also state that there are insurance issues, but Mr. Koorhan reported they had thoroughly researched the insurance issue and found that all parties are fully covered at no additional cost to anyone. Mr. Koorhan stated perhaps the real reason the applicant wants Plan A is because he does not want to spend an extra $6,000 to move the two utility poles affecting the easement area. However, Mr. Koorhan pointed out this was $6,000 out of a project budget that must be in the neighborhood of $2.5 million to $3 million, or 2/10 of 1% of the project budget. Mr. Koorhan stated it was hard to believe such a small, relative sum would cause all this controversy, but he felt that appeared to be the case. In view of the fact that the applicant's design does not conform to Plan A, that the applicant no longer shows parking space #10 on his plan, as contained in the plans approved by the Planning Commission on July 1st, and that Plan B, which is totally within the applicant's power to choose, is superior from parking and safety points of view, Mr. Koorhan stated they were requesting Council take up the issue of access from Tamalpais Avenue itself, or in the alternative, send the matter back to the Planning Commission for consideration. He requested this be done prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. Addressing the issue of why the City should get involved in what the supplemental staff report properly called a dispute between private parties, Mr. Koorhan stated the answer is that parking and safety are matters properly considered when considering a project, and if the project causes existing parking to be lost, as this one currently does, then that issue needs to be identified and considered as part of the issuance of a Negative Declaration. He asked why anyone would want to unnecessarily cause disruption and hardship to the five small businesses, the Red Wing Shoe Store, the office tenants, and the two apartment residents who use this parking now. He stated the City should also get involved because the last thing anyone wants to see is for construction to start without all the access issues resolved, giving rise to the possibility that construction may be halted mid -stream until the violations are corrected. Mr. Koorhan stated all they want to do is protect their own property rights, and if they have to go back to court to do that, they will. Mr Koorhan stated they felt strongly that the resolution of the access issue, in consideration of the merits of the two access plans, should occur before final approval of this project. However, he stated if it is Council's determination that no further consideration of the access issue is necessary, they would ask, at a minimum, that Condition #59 be clarified to read as follows, "Proof of access from Tamalpais Avenue, in the form of a recorded easement, shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Attorney prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. The design of the access from Tamalpais Avenue shall conform to the requirements of the City Traffic Engineer, and to the terms of the recorded easement". In conclusion, Mr. Koorhan stated their request is that the access from Tamalpais Avenue be given the consideration it deserves from a parking and safety standpoint, or failing that, that Condition #59 then be clarified to read as previously set forth. Councilmember Cohen noted Mr. Koorhan had stated Plan A, while entirely on Mr. Kennedy I s property, could not be implemented without an easement from Mr. Koorhan, based upon the Settlement Agreement. Mr. Koorhan stated that was correct. Mr. Cohen asked if the plan which Mr. Koorhan stated had been submitted, but not yet approved by the Planning Commission, could be implemented without an easement? Mr. Koorhan stated it could not, noting the applicant cannot have any vehicular access from Tamalpais Avenue without an easement first being recorded. Mr. Cohen stated it was his understanding that while Mr. Koorhan's appeal contains three points, it is really the access, and underlining that, the parking issue, that are the main thrust of his appeal? Mr. Koorhan stated that with regard to his first point, he still believed the overall architectural design does not meet the Landmark Quality we are all looking for, comparing it to the Macy's proposal; however, the project has been exhaustively reviewed by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission, so it is hard to have only his opinion to go against the opinion of all those professionals. Therefore, he stated Mr. Cohen would be correct that the remaining issue has to do with the second two points raised in the appeal letter, the revisions since the July 1st Planning Commission approval, which have to do with access, and inadequate consideration of that access. Councilmember Cohen noted the Planning Commission's and staff's response regarding the issue of access is addressed in the Condition which states, "Proof of access SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/2/97 Page 4 Mr. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/2/97 Page 5 from Tamalpais Avenue shall be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City Attorney, prior to the issuance of a grading permit". Mr. Cohen asked, if Mr. Koorhan was correct that an easement is required, which must be signed by Mr. Koorhan before that access is legally available, why is that Condition not satisfactory? Mr. Cohen stated he had reviewed the documentation Mr. Koorhan had submitted, and while he reads such documents with interest, he acknowledged he is not an attorney, and does not claim to be able to evaluate Mr. Koorhan's contention that an easement is required. However, if Mr. Koorhan is confident that an easement, signed by him, is required before any of these acts or proposals can be submitted, and if Mr. Koorhan has the power to withhold his approval of such an easement until his concerns are addressed, then Mr. Cohen believed Mr. Koorhan should be able to make his case in a compelling fashion to the City Attorney, who would not be satisfied that the ability of the applicant to have access to the property had been satisfactorily demonstrated until the easement issues have been resolved. Mr. Cohen felt that would leave this as a private matter, to be resolved between Mr. Koorhan and the project applicants over the issues of easements, and once Mr. Koorhan made his case to the City Attorney, if he was correct and nothingcould be done regarding access until the easement is granted, it would seem that Mr. Koorhan would have the upper hand, because he would have to grant that easement. Mr. Cohen asked, rather than requiring Council to make a judgment as to Mr. Koorhan I s claim that an easement is required, why was it not sufficient for him to make that claim to the City Attorney? Koorhan stated the reason he was now before Council was because he believed it was the role of the Planning Commission, and perhaps the Council through an appeal, to consider the impacts of the various access options, in addition to the mere legal aspects of the granting of access. Mr. Koorhan noted there were existing parking spaces that have been in place for years, with small businesses and taxpayers who use those spaces, and there were also safety issues, with regard to visibility on ingress and egress. He stated these were issues that should properly be considered as part of the approval process, but were not in this case. Therefore, while Mr. Cohen may be making a point from a legal standpoint, Mr. Koorhan believed it went further than that, noting the City should be involved from the standpoint of parking and safety, and the relative merits of the two options that are available to the applicant. In addition, he stated the possibility exists that the Plan A easement may be granted and recorded, which would then satisfy the City Attorney; however, if construction were to start with the current design, we would have a problem down the line, because the current design violates the Settlement Agreement, and construction could start with those violations and he would have to act, from a legal standpoint, to stop those violations. Mr. Koorhan did not believe this was a situation or condition that the City would want, nor one that he would want. Councilmember Cohen stated it still was not clear to him, noting if he accepts Mr. Koorhan's argument, as he makes it, without trying to analyze the legal issue, which he is not qualified to do, and accepts that the proposed access is a violation of the Settlement Agreement and will subject this matter to further review in court and the halting of the project, then why would Mr. Koorhan not be able to make that case to the City Attorney, if it were so "cut and dried"? Mr. Koorhan stated he very well may be able to make that case, noting he had not yet had a chance to speak with the City Attorney on this point, but he would be happy to do so. Mr. Cohen stated his understanding of the reason for the Planning Commission inserting that Condition was exactly to do this, and rather than the Commission or the Council trying to interpret the legal issues, they have deferred to the City Attorney's Office to evaluate the legal points Mr. Koorhan is making about the access requirements and the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Mr. Cohen stated if Mr. Koorhan can make his case, as he confidently states that he can, then it would seem the existing Condition #59, which leaves this issue in the hands of the City Attorney, should meet Mr. Koorhan's concerns. Mr. Cohen stated his other question relates to the point Mr. Koorhan made about the differences between Plan A and Plan B, noting Mr. Koorhan may be raising a point that has some validity, but is not contained in his appeal letter. Mr. Cohen stated the argument Mr. Koorhan has made between Plan A and Plan B has to do with the number of parking spaces available to Mr. Koorhan's properties, as well as the applicant's property. Mr. Cohen stated the issue of the availability of parking is not an issue raised in Mr. Koorhan's appeal. Mr. Cohen noted he did not hear an issue of public safety raised by Mr. Koorhan, nor did he hear why the City has a compelling interest, other than the parking issue; however, he reiterated the parking issue does not appear to be part of the appeal before Council. Mr Koorhan reported the third point raised in his appeal letter, which stated the access from Tamalpais Avenue was not adequately considered by the Planning Commission, was intended to cover the point Mr. Cohen just made, which is that one access produces a certain number of parking spaces, while the other produces more parking spaces, and one access plan is safer than the other. He stated the relative merits of those issues had not been adequately considered by the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/2/97 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/2/97 Page 6 Planning Commission, so the issue of parking and safety are actually sub -sets of the third point raised in the appeal letter, which is that these issues just were not adequately considered. Mr. Koorhan believed that if they had been, there would be a different result at this meeting. Vice -Mayor Heller noted Plan B was Mr. Koorhan Is preferred plan; however, he stated his partner did not sign -off on this until after the court-ordered final date. She pointed out they had the opportunity, at a previous point in time, to choose this plan, but they chose not to. Mr. Koorhan explained the Settlement Agreement called for the agreement to Plan B to be signed by his colleague, the owner of the Red Wing property, by June 15, 1996, and the week prior to June 15th he had agreed to sign it, but wanted to meet with the applicant to go over some minor issues, such as who would maintain the sweeping of the lot, how the insurance would work, and some other minor issues. However, he reported the applicant refused to meet with them, and the June 15th deadline passed without the owner of the Red Wing property signing the Agreement, although he did sign it subsequent to that date. Mr. Koorhan noted that while Plan B still remains an option, the court literally interpreted the Settlement Agreement with respect to the June 15th deadline; therefore, they cannot compel the applicant to accept Plan B. Tommy Kennedy, applicant, stated the issue is not as "cut and dried" as Mr. Koorhan says it is. In response to Mr. Koorhan's statement that Mr. Kennedy just did not want to spend the additional $6,000 to move the utility poles, Mr. Kennedy stated there was a long list of items he must comply with, which are going to cost him approximately $35,000 to $40,000. Mr. Kennedy reported that for almost two years he has been in front of the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board regarding this project, noting he has built projects all over San Francisco and the surrounding counties, but Mr. Koorhan has put him through torture. He stated he had wanted the appeal to be heard at the last Council meeting, but Council decided to delay the proceedings until this meeting, in order to give Mr. Koorhan a chance to be present. Mr. Kennedy stated he had met with Mr. Koorhan three weeks ago, at which time Mr. Koorhan stated he would delay this project as long as he possibly could. Mr. Kennedy stated that although he has had a very difficult time with this project, he was not worried about himself, he was worried about those who will come here after him. He asked if it was fair for someone to come in and stall a project for as long as Mr. Koorhan has, which has cost him approximately $75,000? Mr. Kennedy stated the next guy down the road should not have to go through what he has gone through on this project. Jerry Langkammerer, applicant's representative, stated that over the past two years it has been apparent to him that Mr. KoorhanIsonly role has been to delay this project as long as possible. He reported Exhibit 4, which refers to the parallel parking, was presented and discussed at three Design Review meetings, with Mr. Koorhan present, and he had no complaints. However, when it passed he complained, and then they had to go back and design Exhibit 5, which also passed. He noted the accesses had a great deal of attention by the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission. Mr. Langkammerer stated the current plan was to do Plan A, and in the Plan A Agreement, which was worked out by Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Koorhan, there were two accessibility dimensions listed in the Agreement. One was that the door to the parking could only be 18 feet wide; however, Mr. Langkammerer reported that was illegal, noting the door must be 20 feet wide to comply with the City's Code. He pointed out that this was only one of the plans Mr. Kennedy could not comply with in order to be able to simply get on with Plan A. In addition, the Agreement stated the southerly edge of the door must be 16 feet from the property line, yet Mr. Kennedy has demonstrated that if they place the door 8 feet 11 inches from the property line and slide the door down, they can have a gentle ramp that cars can drive without scraping the bottom, and also provide access to the parking lot. He noted the last two feet, which, by City Ordinance, are not parking spaces because you cannot park within two feet of a wall, would have an approximate 50% curve for approximately a foot and a quarter, going to zero at two feet away. Mr. Langkammerer stated they can physically satisfy the Agreement, but cannot technically satisfy what Mr. Koorhan wrote a year ago, noting Mr. Koorhan was unwilling to say they can move the door from 16 feet to 8 feet 11 inches, because he does not want them to build the building. Mr. Langkammerer stated the two plans Mr. Koorhan has drawn are both illegal by City standards, pointing out if there is perpendicular parking, the driveway cannot be 20 feet wide, and the one hundred and twenty degree turns on a 20 foot driveway simply do not work. He noted the Planning Commission and Design Review Board already knew this, and he felt Mr. Koorhan was hoping the Council would not know that. As for providing more parking spaces, Mr. Langkammerer stated it would not provide more legal parking spaces, but if they give the driveway to the access, as shown in Plan B, it provides more illegal spaces between the Red Wing property and the Tavern property, where they could jam cars back in there. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/2/97 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/2/97 Page 7 Mr. Langkammerer believed these were very complicated issues, noting staff had done a very good job on this. He stated Councilmember Cohen was correct when he stated there was legal recourse to this, and he feels what Mr. Koorhan wants is more ammunition from the City to stop this project. Mr. Langkammerer urged Council to reject the appeal. Councilmember Phillips noted Mr. Koorhan had suggested one of the reasons the applicant might be opposed to Plan B was because of the relocation of the utility pole, at a cost of approximately $6,000, and Mr. Phillips asked if that was their reason for opposing Plan B? Mr. Langkammerer stated it was not, noting that for the money they have lost during the past month because of this delay, the $6,000 is almost immaterial. Mr. Phillips asked what their basic opposition was to Plan B? Mr. Langkammerer reported the twenty feet would not work, and the driveway needed to be wider. He stated Mr. Koorhan wanted to move the door to where they would be wrapping around to a lower level of parking, creating serious internal problems within the building. Mr. Phillips asked if staff agreed with this major contention? Associate Planner Bill Tuikka reported Senior Civil Engineer Fred Vincenti had reviewed the plans that were looked at by the Planning Commission on July 1st, as well as the plan that was approved on July 29th, and he agreed those plans would work. He noted Plan B has not been reviewed by the City's Engineer. Mr. Phillips asked Mr. Tuikka if he felt Plan B would work? Mr. Tuikka stated he believed the architect was correct, that with the location of the ramps inside the building, Plan A would be preferable as to the location of the garage door. Mr. Phillips asked Mr. Tuikka to clarify the requirement for the garage door, specifically the question of 18 feet vs. 20 feet? Mr. Tuikka stated this was a Building Code issue, and 20 feet would be required. Councilmember Phillips asked if Mr. Langkammerer believed Plan B was not functional, and Mr. Langkammerer stated that was correct. Mr. Langkammerer referred to a drawing of the building which showed that upon coming into the garage, one would make an immediate right turn down the ramp, and if the door were moved forward, as Mr. Koorhan is suggesting, people would actually be entering on the ramp, and the only way to make the turn and stay on the ramp would be to create even more of a grade separation. Councilmember Cohen stated the comparison drawings given to Council which show Easement Plan A and Easement Plan B both show the location of the garage door to be consistent with the description in the Settlement Agreement, which is starting at 16 feet from the southerly property line, and then going to 18 feet wide. He noted both of them appear to show the garage door in the same place, relative to the property line, with the difference being in the location of the emergency exit, which is not a vehicular exit but a standard doorway. Mr. Cohen noted it seems as though the location of the garage door is not really an issue, as the two Easement Plans appear to show the garage door in the same place, and asked if there was any other reason Plan B would not be workable? Mr. Langkammerer stated that with Plan B, parking spaces T-1 and T-2 would have to be 18 feet deep, and the driveway to make the turn would have to be a minimum of 24 feet, preferably 26 feet; therefore, if the driveway and doorway are off to the left, people will have to veer left and then make an immediate right. He noted that while this may be possible, it was a very poor design. In addition, Mr. Koorhan shows K-1 as being a compact space of 16 feet, but Mr. Langkammerer stated they could not really have a 2 foot jog behind K-1 from a driveway that is as deep as T-1 the rest of the way, and still have people negotiate it very well. He stated the right hand side of the door would be 42 feet instead of 36 feet from the property line, and the additional 6 feet would be going into the ramp. Vice -Mayor Heller offered Mr. Koorhan the opportunity to make a rebuttal. Mr Koorhan reiterated that they were not opposed to this project, noting they have been looking at the vacant lot for the past seven years, and they are ready for something to be built there. He stated they would support the project if it were not for this one issue, explaining he was not trying to delay the project or hold it up, all he wanted was a resolution of this issue; however, the applicant had not submitted a plan that complies with the Settlement Agreement. Referring to the specific physical dimensions, Mr. Koorhan stated the garage door is to be in the same location in both plans, noting they have agreed, under either plan, to allow the enlargement of the garage door to 20 feet wide because they know this is City Code. Under Plan A, if the applicant wants the door to be 20 feet wide, they have asked the applicant to provide a site plan that conforms to the Settlement Agreement in all other respects, and a schedule for constructing the access so they can advise their tenants when the machinery will be in place, as parking will be more difficult. Regarding the 26 foot back-up room on Plan B, Mr. Koorhan stated they have also agreed that if Plan B is enacted, they would allow the wider driveway, and in addition, allow a grade separation, or grading on their property to remove the grade separation under Plan B, because space T-5 and R-5 are back against the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/2/97 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/2/97 Page 8 building, and there is room to do all of this under Plan B. Mr. Koorhan stated there is a solution to the problem, and they are proposing a reasonable solution, noting they cannot understand why the applicant continues to insist on Plan A, which robs the neighborhood, unnecessarily, of important parking spaces in an area where one cannot find parking, and where the nearest City parking facility with any spaces to speak of is four blocks away. Mr. Koorhan stated parking was critical here, noting that is what the whole controversy has been about for the past two years. Mr. Koorhan pointed out that under Plan A the applicant loses space K-1, but gains space K-1 under Plan B, and with the widening of the access driveway that would be permitted under Plan B, space K-1 would be a full-size space, not a compact space. Therefore, the applicant would benefit under Plan B, and the neighborhood would also benefit. Councilmember Phillips asked if they have had discussions with the applicant, stating he was somewhat baffled as to why this was before the Council, and noting they were much more likely to be able to solve the issue. Mr. Koorhan stated they had been negotiating for the past couple of weeks, but those negotiations had not been fruitful. He reported they had received a letter last week which reiterated the applicant's preference for Plan A, and instructed them to prepare the documentation for it. Mr. Koorhan reported they wrote back stating the applicant's design, with the low grade entrance to the parking garage, did not conform with Plan A, which calls for no grade separation. Mr. Koorhan stated Plan A does not work, but Plan B can be made to work. Mr. Koorhan stated the problem is that the Settlement Agreement was signed on May 1, 1996, and all of these plans were developed subsequent to that. He noted the applicant was well aware of the terms of the Settlement Agreement because he was a signatory to it; therefore, Mr. Koorhan stated it was beyond him why the applicant would proceed to design a project which does not conform to the Agreement. Mr. Koorhan stated he was willing to work with this design under Plan B, allow the grade separation, allow the wider driveway, allow the larger garage door, and make it all work, but for some reason the applicant does not want to do that. He felt the problem had arisen because the Settlement Agreement, which existed in May, 1996, was not adhered to in the subsequent development of these building plans, noting he should have had an on -grade entry if he wanted to do Plan A, because it is not possible to have the garage door in that location and not have a grade separation if he needs his entrance to be below grade. Mr. Kennedy stated the situation was not as simple as Mr. Koorhan makes it sound, noting they have been trying to solve the problem for the past two months, and every time they get close to solving it Mr. Koorhan keeps coming up with more things, and adding more demands. He noted Mr. Koorhan stated he had no problem going with Plan B if Mr. Kennedy would just sign an Agreement, but Mr. Koorhan keeps changing his mind and wanting more money. Mr. Kennedy stated he wants this project to go ahead because it is costing him money, and if the situation were as simple as Mr. Koorhan made it seem, Mr. Kennedy would have signed an Agreement months ago. Roz Katz, resident of San Rafael, stated she was under the impression that prior to June 15th, if the original document had been signed, Plan B would have been acceptable, and she asked why Plan B was not acceptable now, if it was acceptable then? Mr. Kennedy explained the reason Plan B has not been accepted was because Mr. Koorhan has continued to add items, making it more and more difficult for them to accept Plan B. As an example, he stated the plan currently calls for 20 feet in the center; however, the City requires 26 feet, and for Mr. Koorhan to make 26 feet work, he would have to get an easement or driveway through the Red Wing property, of which Mr. Koorhan is only a 30% owner (Mr. Healy owns 70%) , which means they would have to move the driveway onto another person's property. Mr. Kennedy stated this was one reason Plan B could not be accepted, noting the Plan would have been accepted two years ago, but Mr. Healy would not give his consent for them to drive on his property. There being no further public comment, Vice -Mayor Heller closed the public hearing. Councilmember Cohen stated he had been the one, to Mr. Kennedy's dismay, who had argued at the last Council meeting that this item should be continued so that Mr. Koorhan would have the opportunity to present his case, stating he believed Mr. Koorhan had the right to do so, and he felt Council needed to hear Mr. Koorhan' s testimony and have an opportunity to ask questions relative to those points. However, having had that opportunity, he found himself unconvinced that Council needs to do anything to overturn the action of the Planning Commission, stating it appeared to him that the final two points he discussed with Mr. Koorhan really are the issues that sway him. First, if Mr. Koorhan I s legal position is as strong as he presents it, he should be able to make that case to the City Attorney's Office and, therefore, establish that access has not been demonstrated, and the grading permit will not be issued. However, if the legal case is not quite that clear-cut, and needs to be resolved in court, this is not the court to resolve the interpretation of the Settlement Agreement. He stated there is another court SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/2/97 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/2/97 Page 9 that has responsibility for that, and if this has to go back to that court, it is an issue between private parties, and needs to be settled in a court that has authority over it. With regard to the parking issue, Mr. Cohen stated he did not see parking as an issue being presented to Council, noting that while the appeal states access issues have not been fully addressed, he felt that if staff had been concerned about a tremendous loss of parking, they would have made parking an issue, since it is one where the City is aware of the constraints of parking in the Downtown, and seeks to expand parking opportunities whenever possible. Mr. Cohen believed that if staff was convinced there was a tremendous loss of parking that could be easily remedied, they would be here presenting the appeal to Council, urging them to force Plan B. Mr. Cohen believed parking was at the heart of Mr. Koorhan I s appeal, but it was not an issue raised in his appeal letter. Councilmember Cohen stated the applicant's attorney made a good point, noting the parking plans presented to Council compared ten spaces under Easement Plan B for the Koorhan properties to seven spaces under Easement Plan A; however, if the clause of the Settlement Agreement which calls for no grade separation between the driveway and the properties is adhered to, then he saw no reason, if the spaces shown perpendicular to the driveway under Easement Plan B do work, why they simply could not be moved to the north side of the access driveway under Plan A. He stated it appeared as though eight, and possibly nine, out of the ten proposed could be achieved. He acknowledged there had been a lot of questions about how turning radiuses work, but assuming Plan B works, he did not see why the same spaces could not work under Plan A, noting eight or nine spaces could be achieved out of the ten, and then the argument would only be about potential loss of this one space, or possibly two. He stated that did not seem to merit Council getting itself in the middle of a dispute between private parties over the interpretation of a Settlement Agreement. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the Resolution denying the appeal. RESOLUTION NO. 9909 -RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION OF JULY 29, 1997, APPROVING FINAL BUILDING DETAILS (CONDITION NO. 47) FOR A FOUR-STORY MIXED USE BUILDING LOCATED AT 729 FOURTH STREET AP 11-275-01. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, NOES: COUNCIL ERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Miller, Phillips & Vice -Mayor Heller Boro 8. PUBLIC HEARING - ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REVIEW REQUESTED BY WESTPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AND GUARDIAN POSTACUTE SERVICES, INC. WITH REGARD TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR SMITH RANCH HOMES RETIREMENT PROJECT LOCATED ON REDWOOD DRIVE NORTH OF SMITH RANCH ROAD, DATED JUNE 3, 1985, AS AMENDED (PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65865.1) (CA) - File 5-1-290 Vice -Mayor Heller opened the public hearing, and asked for the staff report. Assistant City Attorney Gus Guinan reported this was an annual Compliance Statement which is required pursuant to the Development Agreement for this project. He explained the owners of the particular parcels in the project indicate annually their compliance with the original terms of the Development Agreement, and as long as those Statements are factually supported, completed, and approved by Council, the Terms and Conditions of the Development Agreement are continued for one year. Mr. Guinan stated this was a continuation of that same process, the details of which were laid out in the staff report. Harvey Rich, 97 Bret Harte, President of Westport Development, stated this was a standard request, and indicated he was prepared to answer any questions about his portion of the development. There being no further public comment, Vice -Mayor Heller closed the public hearing. Councilmember Cohen noted he had been a member of the Council for the past six years, and this item has been reviewed every year. He stated there had never been an issue raised about this item, and as it seemed to be a purely administrative function, he asked what Council needed to do to get this item off of future Agendas? He understood the Development Agreement required an annual review, and he did not have a problem with that, as an administrative proceeding; however, he stated it was unclear why we had to go through a public hearing on this issue every year. Assistant City Attorney Guinan stated this was required by State statute. Mr. Cohen asked if this could be done as a Consent Calendar item in the future, and bring it off of the Agenda for public hearing if anyone from the public wished to speak on it? Mr. Guinan stated he would review the matter and report back SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/2/97 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/2/97 Page 10 to Council. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution authorizing the issuance of two Certificates of Compliance. RESOLUTION NO. 9910 -RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF TWO CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65865.1 UNDER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (Smith Ranch Homes Retirement Project) (Certificate of Compliance to Westport Development Company, and Certificate of Compliance to Guardian Postacute Services, Inc.). AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor MONTHLY REPORT: Miller, Phillips & Vice -Mayor Heller Boro 9. CITY WORK PLAN REVIEW (CM) - File 237 Assistant City Manager Suzy Golt presented the September update on the key projects currently underway, noting the report was now monitoring 113 different activities. Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to accept the report. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Miller, Phillips & Vice -Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro Vice -Mayor Heller asked that Item #11 be addressed at this time. NEW BUSINESS: 11. REQUEST FOR CLOSURE OF DOWNTOWN CITY STREETS IN CONNECTION WITH HISPANIC CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 1997 FIESTA DAYS, SATURDAY AND SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 27 AND 28, 1997 (RA) - File 11-19 x 243 Senior Redevelopment Specialist Nancy Mackle reported the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Marin wished to put on the 1997 Fiesta Days event in the Downtown, noting they have met with City staff from the Police, Fire, and Public Works Departments, and also with the nearby property owners, and they have worked out a great plan. Ms. Mackle explained they wanted to close Fifth Avenue from "B" Street to Court Street, beginning at 8: 00 AM on Saturday (September 27th) until 10: 00 PM on Sunday (September 28th), with the actual event beginning at 4:30 PM on Saturday. Ms. Mackle reported there would be no cost to the City for this. Vice -Mayor Heller invited David Chavez, President of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and Steven Bajor with PRO Event to address the Council. David Chavez, President of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Marin, reported the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce had tried to plan such an event in the past, but were unsuccessful. However, this year they have hired Steven Bajor of PRO Event, whom Mr. Chavez identified as the best events producer in the County. Mr. Chavez reported that for the past six years the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce has tried to service the needs of the members of the Hispanic community, and other people interested in supporting Hispanic businesses, and reaching out to the Hispanic community as a client base or an employee base. He stated the Hispanic Chamber felt they finally had an opportunity to do something that would help revitalize their membership, as well as try to bridge the gap among the various cultures in the Hispanic, Iberian American, and Latino communities. Mr. Chavez stated Fiesta Days was designed to be a party, a celebration, and an introduction into the Hispanic culture, and to members of the Hispanic community from throughout the County. He explained the Saturday event would be a fiesta, or street dance, which would take place in the evening hours of September 27th, beginning at 4:30 PM and ending at approximately 7:30 PM. He stated on Sunday there would be a full-blown street fair, noting they hoped to have a traditional market place, fine arts, folk arts and crafts, and fabulous entertainment. Mr. Chavez stated they had gone to a great deal of work to try to get this going, SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/2/97 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/2/97 Page 11 and there was still a lot of work left to do. He felt they had a firm grasp on this now, noting they are very anxious to put this event on, and do the first of what they hope will become an annual event. He explained they had chosen the Mission site because it is so important to most members of the Hispanic community, and because it is also the center of Marin County. Mr. Chavez thanked the Council for the support it has shown the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in the past, stating that is what kept them going to this point. He also thanked other members of the business community in San Rafael and throughout the County, including the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, and individual businesses and residents of Marin who have continued to support them. Councilmember Cohen referred to the question of the street closures, noting the staff report calls for the closure of Fifth Avenue, while the letter to Economic Development Director Jake Ours also references the closure of a portion of "A" Street. Steven Bajor, representative of PRO Event, reported initially the plan had been to close "A" Street just north of Julia Street, explaining one of the reasons for that was the placement of the main stage at the apex of that intersection. However, in discussions with the Church, a great deal of concern arose regarding the impact on the Mass schedule, which occurred both Saturday and Sunday. Mr. Bajor stated it was their feeling, and they brought this up to the Church, that there is an extensive Mass schedule on both Saturday and Sunday, so they elected to move the main entertainment staging to the intersection of Court Street, at the far end of Fifth Avenue, so there would be minimum impact. Mr. Bajor reported the plans, as agreed upon with the Police Department, still remain for a closure at north Julia Street; however, they are considering the possibility of leaving Fifth Avenue open from "A" Street to "B" Street on Saturday, consolidating the event to provide a minimum amount of impact, while maintaining the handicapped access to the Church. Therefore, though it is still in the plan to close a portion of "A" Street, it is primarily only at the intersection, noting the idea is also to provide as much parking for the small businesses on "A" Street as possible. Councilmember Cohen felt the maximum amount of closure that might be required at any given time should be included in the request before Council, with the observation that closure should be minimized consistent with access needs, and also with a successful event. Then if they decide they need the intersection of "A" Street and Fifth Avenue, or a portion of "A" Street up to Julia Street, the closure would have already been authorized, and the matter will not have to be brought back to Council. Councilmember Phillips asked if there had been any reaction from the B.I.D. (Business Improvement District) or other merchants in the area? Mr. Bajor reported B.I.D. has been very supportive, noting they had been approached early on, and after reviewing the project, they were so supportive they offered the use of their insurance policy; however, because of the amount of "Additional Insured" required, including the Church and Courthouse Square, it appears that their insurance carrier does not write "Additional Insured" into the policy for B.I.D., so the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce will be obtaining their own General Liability and Liquor Liability insurance. However, B.I.D. was prepared to open their doors to them. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to approve the request for closure of Fifth Avenue from "B" Street to Court Street, for the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce 1997 Fiesta Days, from 8:00 AM on Saturday, September 27th to 10:00 PM Sunday, September 28th, with the additional notation that a portion of "A" Street, from Julia Street north, may also be closed, with the observation that working with staff, the promoters will work to minimize street closures, consistent with public access and the needs of a successful event. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor MONTHLY REPORTS: Miller, Phillips & Vice -Mayor Heller Boro 10. DEPARTMENTAL REPORT - PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT (Per) - File 237 x 9-3-86 Personnel Director Daryl Chandler introduced Department staff members Phyllis Huffman and Linda Avanzino, stating the Personnel Department would not be able to accomplish the things they do without their hard work, and publicly expressing his appreciation to them both. Mr. Chandler stated the evolution from a Personnel Department to a Human Resources Department was outlined in the staff report, along with the recommendation to move forward with changing the name to Human Resources Department. He believed SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/2/97 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/2/97 Page 12 the Department's Mission Statement outlined the new trend, in terms of the services they provide, which is to recruit, retain, and develop City of San Rafael employees by providing services that are customer responsive, cost effective, aligned with the overall Mission of the City, and those that incorporate the best practices of the Human Resources profession. Mr. Chandler referred to the Functional Organizational Chart, which shows the areas of responsibility of the Department as it now stands, and using those categories, he reviewed Department activities, highlighting some of the new programs that have been implemented, or are planned for implementation. Mr. Chandler referred to Classification and Compensation, noting this was a traditional function of a Personnel or Human Resources Department, and pointed out that his Department had taken it a step further, noting that through their compensation surveys and the establishment of benchmark determinations within the job classes for those surveys, they work very closely with the employee organizations. He stated they have built good relationships on the survey activities they have been doing each year. Mr. Chandler noted this past year recruitment efforts have been enhanced. He pointed out they have begun using the InterNet to promote job vacancies, they have established the 24 -Hour Job Hotline for applicants to find out about City jobs, they have attended job fairs to get the word out about current vacancies, and they have actually worked in the community to establish a network of other employers in Marin County to share information about availability of jobs within San Rafael and Marin County. Beyond recruitment, the Department's interests are to retain quality employees, and Mr. Chandler displayed a chart showing the annual Citywide turnover rate. He pointed out that in 1990 the turnover rate was 9.6%, and except for a small glitch in 1995, there has been steady improvement in retaining employees, noting the current turnover rate for 1997 is 5.3%. Mr. Chandler reported Proposition 209, which has been in the newspaper for the past year and a half, does put special limits on any kind of recruitment that might be done for minority candidates; but even so, the City does maintain employment statistics on how well we are doing in creating a diverse work force, and those statistics are reported every other year to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. He reported that since 1988, we have increased our hiring of minority and female candidates into employment within the City of San Rafael, noting we are making good progress. Mr. Chandler stated residency seemed to be a major issue anytime they talk about recruitment, and the availability of affordable housing, whether it be renting or purchasing of homes. He stated a large majority of the City's employees do live in Marin County, and in fact, nearly 25% live within the City of San Rafael. Therefore, Mr. Chandler did not feel the situation was as bad as people think without knowing these statistics. Mr. Chandler reported Benefit Administration covered the gamut of different programs the Personnel Department has, noting the Department has increased its efforts in all of these areas to make the employees more knowledgeable about City provided benefits. He noted one example is that the Department is working with an Employee Benefit Committee, with representatives from all the Bargaining Units on that Committee, to share information. They meet quarterly to discuss existing programs, or to answer questions they or their members might have regarding particular programs. They are also trying to market the Employee Assistance Program, through posters that are distributed and posted in the various departments; the employee newsletter, which is produced by his Department; and through training that is provided by the Employee Assistance Program Provider. Additionally, the Department is sponsoring an Open Enrollment Health Fair, noting they will have representatives from all the health insurance companies at the San Rafael Community Center on September 12th, between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM, where the employees can come and ask specific questions about the different health plans. He stated whether or not the employees choose to make a change to a different health plan, he felt it was a good idea to have these representatives available. He reported that in an effort to share this opportunity, his Department has invited other public agencies in the PERS Health Benefit System in Marin County. He noted his Department has received confirmation from at least six or seven other agencies that will afford their employes the opportunity to attend. Mr. Chandler reported that, historically, the increases of the Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO's), which are more of a managed care system, have averaged only approximately 5% per year. Referring to PERS Care, the self-insured indemnity option, or fee for service plan, which is offered through CAL PERS, Mr. Chandler noted the increase of 9.1% is almost double what the HMO or managed care systems are. Mr. Chandler reported the employees and retirees are primarily enrolled in Health Maintenance Organizations, with Kaiser having the highest enrollment, and Pacific Care, the new name of the merged company of FHP/Take SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/2/97 Page 12 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/2/97 Page 13 Care, having the second highest enrollment. The two other insurance plans most often chosen are Health Plan of the Redwoods (HPR), an HMO managed care plan offered to people who reside in Sonoma and Marin County only, and PERS, the indemnity option which is available. He reported there were approximately eight to ten other health plans available, which are chosen by slightly less than 10% of the employees. Mr. Chandler stated they did not see much change from year to year, with little transition from one health plan to another. He noted September through October 15th was the open enrollment period. Mr. Chandler reported that through the Department's training program they try to provide opportunities for both personal and professional growth, noting the Sonoma/Marin Training Consortium has been a very successful supervisory training program for the City's employees. He stated Brown Bag Briefing programs are offered during lunchtime, and offer a variety of topics of interest to the employees, noting almost seventy employees had attended the recent "Retirement 101" lunchtime briefing. Reporting on the EAP (Employee Assistance Program), Mr. Chandler stated the provider presents quarterly training, noting some of the programs concern professional growth, on such issues as Conflict Resolution, while some of the topics are on personal growth type issues. Mr. Chandler stated Sexual Harassment Training was a training program that had been conducted for all City employees last year, and Performance Appraisal Training had been completed for all supervisory employees this past year. He reported other training opportunities the Department intends to offer during this fiscal year include a workshop on the FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) and California Family Rights Act leave, and the Public Sector Application and Application Testing Procedure, so employees who may be interested in promoting or moving up in their career will have a better understanding of that process. He reported the Department is currently researching Customer Service training, and in October there will be a formal training program for those employees covered under the Department of Transportation's Drug and Alcohol Testing Program. Mr. Chandler stated Employee Relations was an area that, quite possibly, is the one people hear about most, particularly if things are not going well. He noted this is an area that probably has had one of the most significant changes recently, in that his position has been designated as the lead negotiator for negotiations with the labor groups. He stated ongoing responsibilities continue to include grievance and discipline consultation with Department representatives, and MOU interpretations for those same Departments. He noted they meet on a fairly regular basis with the MAPE/SEIU unit on different issues that come up between labor and management. Mr. Chandler reported on-going responsibilities for Policy Development have included a recent vacation cap policy and acceptance of that policy by most of the Employee Organizations, and working with the MAPE/SEIU unit on the DOT (Department of Transportation) drug testing procedures. Mr. Chandler reported the Family Medical Leave Act, which is Federal legislation, and the California Family Rights Act, which is a California legislation relating to the same issues, have really increased their work activity regarding leave administration. He pointed out the leaves can be for the care of a family member, to be at home with a newborn or adopted child, or for a personal illness. Referring to his chart, he noted that in 1994 there were seven occasions when employees had requested this type of leave, in 1996 the number increased to twenty-two, and so far, through August, 1997 of this year, there have been fifteen recorded instances of this type of leave, where the Department is involved in notifying the employees of their rights, advising the Departments of their obligations under the law, and then monitoring and keeping track of the individual time off from work under this type of leave. Mr. Chandler stated the Department's 1997/98 goals include Council's motion for recognition of the Department as a Human Resources Department; a successful Open Enrollment Benefits Fair; on September 18th they will begin negotiations with the Child Care unit, and hope that they will be able to conclude those in short order; the Annual Update of the Compensation Survey should be completed by the end of this fiscal year; continued work on enhancing Customer Service, not only to the internal customers, the Departments themselves, but also the external clients, the applicants seeking information about job opportunities; upgrading the Department's Personnel computer system, noting the Information Systems Division has established certain standards, and his Department hopes to have the equipment to meet those standards shortly; the training programs that will be offered this fiscal year, which he mentioned earlier; and reinstituting an Exit Interview program so they can gather information about why people might be leaving, and see whether or not they might offer some help in future recruitments for those job classes. He stated his Department would also like to work with one particular Department on a pilot program for delivery of services, where they would sit down with that Department, have them set the expectations in terms of the Level of Service they want from his Department, and then throughout the year measure their successes in achieving the delivery of that service. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/2/97 Page 13 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/2/97 Page 14 Councilmember Cohen thanked Mr. Chandler for a very informative presentation. Mr Cohen noted Mr. Chandler had pointed out a 10% enrollment in "other" health insurance plans, and asked if the City needed to continue to have such a range, and if there was an administrative burden in offering such a wide variety of health plans, and if this was something the City should be looking at in trying to reduce the number to the core that 90% of the employees are using? Mr. Chandler stated currently, as long as we are under the PERS umbrella for the health insurance program, we do not have very much influence. However, he agreed there were too many, noting there are probably twelve or so different Health Maintenance Organizations, yet the basic benefit is the same. Therefore, he did not believe it made sense to offer so many, unless it was necessary because of regional location, or difficulty in finding connections with the hospitals and doctors, which is not the case here. Mr. Chandler also felt that if the number of plans was lowered, it might help the competitiveness of the premium rates. However, this is something PERS currently dictates. Mr. Chandler reported the City has recently, with the last contract negotiations, had language added to all the bargaining units which states they would allow the City to seek other alternatives outside the PERS umbrella, as long as the City did not change the benefit level. Mr. Chandler stated preliminary research had been done on this, but he did not have many bidders who wanted to take over the program for us, noting Health Net was the only one that would do that for us. However, while Health Net would offer an indemnity option, a PPO, and an HMO, and would cover all the options, at the time that they made their presentation the cost difference was not significant enough to recommend making a change. Mr. Chandler stated this would be something they would continue to look into. Referring to training for the Department of Transportation drug testing, Mr. Cohen asked how many of the City's employees fell under this regulation? Mr. Chandler estimated there were under 40 employees, primarily related to the Corporation Yard. He explained the Department of Transportation regulations relate to particular pieces of equipment that exceed certain weight limits, and at the present time the two pieces of City equipment that are affected are the Vactor, which is used by the Streets Division and the Sewer Division, and the Water Truck, which is used by the Parks Division. Mr. Chandler noted the other pieces of City equipment which exceed the weight requirement are the Fire Engines, but they were exempted by law, so they are not covered. Mr. Cohen asked why there were so many people involved, and if it was just that for flexibility purposes we needed to have that many people capable of driving these particular pieces of equipment, and therefore, have to apply this regulation to that number of people? Mr. Chandler stated this was correct, noting the regulations specify "subject to the use of the equipment", rather than the frequency of that use. Therefore, working with Public Works Director Dave Bernardi, Assistant Public Works Director Matt Naclerio, and MAPES/SEIU, they identified the job classes that were affected. He noted that within those job classes there is an opportunity to exempt certain individual employees if that is necessary, but stated they do have to go by the job class, and the available use of the piece of equipment. Councilmember Phillips noted he liked Mr. Chandler's presentation, noting it was very professional and easy to use, and thanking Mr. Chandler for his assistance. Vice -Mayor Heller referred to Mr. Chandler's comments about employee residency, particularly the 24.6% figure for San Rafael versus the Marin County figure, and asked if at some point Mr. Chandler could look at the San Rafael residents and see if they are old time employees or new hires? She stated she was curious as to whether the newly hired, younger employees could afford to live here, or if they were the ones being forced north into Sonoma. Mr. Chandler stated he would look into this. Vice -Mayor Heller also thanked Mr. Chandler for his presentation, noting she had always found his Department very easy to work with. Roz Katz, resident of Terra Linda, asked if the City, as a government entity, was exempt from SB 198? Mr. Chandler explained this was the Senate Bill regarding the Injury and Illness Prevention Program, and stated the City was not exempt from this, noting that through the Assistant City Manager's Office and Worker's Compensation Program, the City does have a program and a policy handbook. Ms. Katz asked what the City's Worker's Compensation rating was, and how many people are on Worker's Compensation disability? Mr. Chandler stated he did not have this information, as Worker's Compensation was not a program under his responsibility and, therefore, not something he dealt with on a day-to-day basis. Vice -Mayor Heller stated if Ms. Katz wanted those questions answered, City Manager Gould would be able to provide her with that information tomorrow. Ms. Katz suggested the City review its SB 198 policy, stating the City may find that by making some changes they may have less injury in the workplace. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, that Council accept SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/2/97 Page 14 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/2/97 Page 15 the report, and approve the name change from Personnel Department to Human Resources Department, as requested. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor COUNCIL REPORTS: Miller, Phillips & Vice -Mayor Heller Boro RELOCATION OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL DINING ROOM - File 9-2-49 Councilmember Miller reported he has been invited by the City Attorney to be a resource for him in his discussions on September 4th with the St. Vincent de Paul Society. Mr. Miller stated this request came primarily because of his experience in the Church, and dealing with the St. Vincent de Paul Society in particular, as well as his experience with the government as the Chief Federal Officer at the installation of the Title VII dining sites throughout California, and his experience as a Councilmember. Mr. Miller stated that in order to prepare himself sufficiently for the meeting, and act as an even better resource, he requested that City Manager Gould contact the City of Phoenix and arrange for Mr. Miller to go down and visit the St. Vincent de Paul Society in Phoenix. Mr. Miller reported he met with the Management Analyst and the City Coordinator of Homelessness, and was given a tour of the wonderful twenty -story Phoenix City Hall. Mr. Miller stated it was very interesting to get that City's point of view, as well as the views of St. Vincent de Paul Society. Mr. Miller reported the City of Phoenix hosted him, and brought him to St. Vincent de Paul Society in Phoenix, an operation that expends $11 million per year, with a congregate dining program on which they spend approximately $1,160,000 per year. Mr. Miller stated it was interesting to note they also operate out of 22 sites, and they claim approximately 80,000 volunteer hours. Mr. Miller stated that seeing how they operate, and their macro level of operations, allows one to see the problems and opportunities very readily, pointing out there were some things that were very similar to what we have here. Mr. Miller stated of the twenty-two sites, St. Vincent de Paul Society operates only five of the sites itself, noting the Number One site was in the Redevelopment area of Downtown Phoenix, which the City of Phoenix has already bought up and demolished, leveling a good block and a half area all around it, so this dining facility sits almost in the middle of a "no man's land". He stated that facility would be moved when the City of Phoenix begins development along the west side of their Redevelopment area. Mr. Miller stated he found very interesting, and very apropos to what we are doing, the absolute organizational capacity that is used, noting organizational capacity was demonstrated not only in terms of working toward a business plan, but also in terms of marketing their services out. He stated this was a very important role, and something he felt we could share with St. Vincent de Paul. Mr. Miller reported on the concept of "scattered sites", what we would call "satellite sites", noting this played a very important role, not only in terms of the delivery of services and being able to reach out to a more defined market group, but it also speaks well of the impact those services have when they are put into a community. Mr. Miller stated they face the same kinds of problems we do, only more intense. He stated the ideas of organizational capacity and scattered sites gave him a considerable amount of information he could filter and share in the discussions with the relocation of the St. Vincent de Paul dining room. Mr. Miller stated the trip had been fascinating, and reiterated it had been made at no public expense. Vice -Mayor Heller noted the immense size of Phoenix, and the huge problem they will be having in the next few years doing in -fill, pointing out they have just constantly spread out, and will have to redevelop all 100 square miles of that city quite soon. She asked if the satellite sites work fairly well there because of the immense size of the City? Mr. Miller stated that was correct, noting the satellite sites serve approximately 200 meals, and they are quite dispersed, with some in outlying cities such as Mesa and Tempe. He reported some of the satellite sites are run by churches, some by cities, and others by different entities, and it gives the agency the opportunity to get 90% of their meals from USDA because they are preparing and then filtering them out. Mr. Miller stated the kitchen at the site where they do the preparation is the largest commercial kitchen west of the Mississippi River, and the Fry's Food chain donates a lot of food. He stated it was a very fine operation, and reported he was interested in the cost, but their cost of $.57 per meal is a skewed cost, because they do SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/2/97 Page 15 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/2/97 Page 16 not do market value of labor, nor do they factor in the facility costs. He noted another interesting thing is that they do not always have to take the meals out, as some of the other sites come in and gather the meals. Mr. Miller stated the newly appointed director does not come from the human -sector side, he comes from the finance side, because his job now is to develop a full-blown business plan. Councilmember Cohen recalled two or three years ago, the last time a site selection was unsuccessful, the issue of satellite services was put on the table, and a property owner near the proposed site took it upon himself to go to Phoenix and look into the program, and brought back all the information for St. Vincent de Paul Society to examine. They stated they would look into this, but when he and Mayor Boro were involved in the mediation and asked about this issue, St. Vincent de Paul Society agreed it was an interesting idea, but stated they did not have a lot of energy to spare. Mr. Cohen noted Mr. Miller had done more in three weeks than St. Vincent de Paul had done in at least three years, even knowing that this model was out there. Mr. Cohen stated he would support St. Vincent's looking at this model of service delivery, noting he felt that until they did look at an alternate model of service delivery the City was not going to get over the hurdle we have with them. Mr. Cohen stated he would encourage them to do that, although he would not delay any of the things we have underway while they undertake the study of this issue, because they have had ample time to do so. Councilmember Miller stated it was his understanding the City Attorney was very intense in making sure this proceeds on, which is why he preceded his remarks that this study had been done as a resource for the City Attorney. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1997 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/2/97 Page 16