HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1998-10-19SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 1
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1998 AT
8:00 PM
Regular Meeting:
San Rafael City Council
Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor
Paul M. Cohen,
Councilmember
Barbara Heller, Councilmember
Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember
Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember
Absent: None
Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager
Eric Davis, Deputy City Attorney
Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk
OPEN SESSION - 7:45 PM:
Mayor Boro announced Closed Session items.
CLOSED SESSION - 7:45 PM:
1. a. Conference With Real Property Negotiator (Government Code Section
54956.8)
Property Address: 1000 Francisco Boulevard, San Rafael
(Scotland Car Yard site)
APN 08-102-04
Negotiating Parties: City of San Rafael and Claire Engleberg,
property owner, Snorre Grunnan, business owner
of Scotland Car Yard.
Under Negotiation: Instructions to negotiator with respect to price
and terms.
b. Conference With Real Property Negotiator (Government Code Section
54956.8)
Property Address: Terrace Lane (Easement), San Rafael
Negotiating Parties: City of San Rafael, Christopher and Carter
Bradshaw, Kimball and Michelle Kaufman, Leonard
and Judy Stein, and Richard D. Murphy, Trustee
Under Negotiation: Instructions to negotiator with respect to price
and terms.
C. Conference With Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation
Significant Exposure to Litigation (Government Code Section
54956.9(b))
and Initiation of Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9(c))
One case.
d. Conference With Labor Negotiator (Government Code Section 54957.6)
Negotiator's Name: Daryl Chandler
Employee Organization: Child Care
Mayor Boro announced no reportable action was taken on Items l.a, l.b, l.c,
and l.d.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:40
PM
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to approve the
following Consent Calendar items:
ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION
2. Approval of Minutes of Special Joint Public Hearing Minutes approved as
of Monday, February 23, 1998, Special Joint Meeting submitted.
of Thursday, July 9, 1998, and Regular Meeting of
Monday, October 5, 1998 (CC)
3. Call for Applications to Fill Seven (7) Positions Approved staff
recommendation:
on the Newly -Formed Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory a) Called for
applications to
Committee (CC) - File 9-2-55 x 9-3-65 x 9-3-40 fill seven positions
on the newly -formed
Bicycle and Pedestrian
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 1
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 2
Advisory Committee. Only
residents or business
owners within the City of
San Rafael may apply, with
one member being a youth
representative. Terms
will be staggered,
starting with three,
three-year terms, two,
two-year terms, and two
one-year terms.
Applications due by
deadline of Tuesday,
November 10, 1998 at 12:00
Noon in the City Clerk's
Office, Room 209; and b)
Set date for interviews of
applicants at a Special
City Council Meeting to be
held on Monday, November
16, 1998, commencing at
6:00 PM, to fill seven
positions.
4. Resolution Approving Contract With Hilton, RESOLUTION NO. 10321
Farnkopf and Hobson, LLC to Develop an RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING THE
Amended Franchise Agreement with Marin Sanitary SIGNING OF AN
AGREEMENT WITH
Service (CM) - File 4-3-306 x 4-3-32 HILTON, FARNKOPF & HOBSON,
LLC TO DEVELOP AN AMENDED
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH
MARIN SANITARY SERVICE
(Period Commencing October
19, 1998, and Ending June
30, 1999).
5. Monthly Investment Report (MS) - File 8-18 x 8-9 Accepted report for
month ending August, 1998,
as presented.
6. "Budget Oversight Committee" Name Change to RESOLUTION NO. 10322
"Strategic and Financial Advisory Board" (MS) RESOLUTION APPROVING
- File 9-2-48
THE
NAME CHANGE FROM THE
"BUDGET OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE" TO THE
"STRATEGIC AND FINANCIAL
ADVISORY BOARD", AND
ACCEPTING THE NEW PURPOSE
OF THE BOARD.
8. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Sign a RESOLUTION NO. 10323
Cooperative Funding Agreement with Association of RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING THE
Bay Area Governments (ABAG) for Development of the CITY MANAGER TO SIGN
A
San Francisco Bay Trail at San Rafael Bay Frontage COOPERATIVE FUNDING
AGREEMENT
Along Shoreline Park (P97-4) (CD) FOR DEVELOPMENT OF
THE SAN
- File 111 x 9-3-66 x 5-1-324 FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT SAN
RAFAEL BAY FRONTAGE ALONG
SHORELINE PARK (P97-4).
9. Report on Investigation of Electric Rate Accepted report, and
took
Restructuring Costs (PW) - File 9-7-3
10. Resolution Establishing Standards for Banners
Downtown (RA) - File 125 X (SRRA) R-140 #8
no action regarding
any changes to the current
electrical supply provider
(P.G.& E.)
RESOLUTION NO. 10324
RESOLUTION
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 2
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 3
ESTABLISHING STANDARDS FOR
BANNERS DOWNTOWN.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAINING: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller & Mayor Boro (from minutes of
meeting of Regular meeting of Monday, 10/5/98
only, due to absence from meeting).
The following item was removed from the Consent Calendar for further discussion:
7. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1733 - AN ORDINANCE OF
THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ADDING CHAPTER 4.20, "CERTIFIED UNIFIED PROGRAM
AGENCY (CUPA)" TO THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE, AND REPEALING CHAPTERS
4.12 AND 4.16 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE (FD) - File 9-3-31 X 1-6-4
Mayor Boro announced he had been absent from the meeting of October 5th, at
which this item had first been presented to Council; however, he had read
the staff report and minutes regarding this item, and was prepared to vote.
Councilmember Heller stated she, too had been absent from the meeting of
October 5th, noting she had read the staff report and the minutes regarding
this item, and felt comfortable voting on this issue.
The title of the Ordinance was read:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ADDING CHAPTER 4.20, "CERTIFIED
UNIFIED PROGRAM AGENCY (CUPA)" TO THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE, AND
REPEALING CHAPTERS 4.12 AND 4.16 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE".
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to dispense
with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title
only, and approve final adoption of Ordinance No. 1733, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
11. TERRACE LANE PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT ACQUISITION: (PW) - File 2-2 x 13-
14.1 X
9-3-40 x 9-3-16
a. PUBLIC HEARING ON AND CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION REGARDING A PROJECT CONSISTING OF THE
ACQUISITION BY THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL OF EASEMENTS FOR A TRAIL FOR
PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN USE AND NON -MOTORIZED CONVEYANCE USE (BICYCLES),
AND RELATED EASEMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR OF
SUCH TRAIL, BURDENING THE PROPERTIES CONTAINING TERRACE LANE IN THE
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
b. HEARING ON AND CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY AUTHORIZING
ACQUISITION BY THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL BY EMINENT DOMAIN OF EASEMENTS
FOR A TRAIL FOR PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN USE AND NON -MOTORIZED CONVEYANCE
USE (BICYCLES), AND RELATED EASEMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE,
AND REPAIR OF SUCH TRAIL, BURDENING THE PROPERTIES KNOWN AS 53, 54,
AND 57 TERRACE LANE (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 012-340-10, 012-340-
08, AND 012-340-16)
C. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN EASEMENT
PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH RICHARD D. MURPHY, TRUSTEE, FOR GRANT OF
EASEMENT, BURDENING THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 227 SPRING GROVE LANE
(ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 012-340-13), AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT OF EASEMENT NECESSARY TO RECORD
PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT ACROSS TERRACE LANE
Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened, and asked for the staff
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 3
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 4
report.
Public Works Director David Bernardi noted there were three items before
Council; the first was a Public Hearing to consider the adoption of a
Resolution declaring a Negative Declaration for a project consisting of
acquiring easements for public pedestrian use and non -motorized conveyance
(bicycle) use, and related easements for construction, maintenance, and
repair of such trail. Mr. Bernardi noted the second item was not a public
hearing, but would afford anyone the opportunity to speak on Council's
consideration of a Resolution of Necessity. He stated the last item was to
consider a Resolution authorizing the execution of an Agreement with one of
the property owners, who had agreed to sell the property at the City's
offer.
Mr. Bernardi referred to the drawings, explaining some of the physical
characteristics of the property related to these issues. He pointed out
Fourth Street, the Miracle Mile, Greenfield Avenue, Spring Grove Avenue,
Spring Grove Lane, Terrace Avenue, and the subject of tonight's discussion,
Terrace Lane. Mr. Bernardi stated the issue now before Council was the
acquisition of three easements, noting what currently exists is a private
roadway easement across four pieces of property known as Terrace Lane. He
reported that easement had been established under a Final Map a number of
years ago, noting it was 30 feet in width, 15 feet on either property. Mr.
Bernardi stated the purpose of this action was to acquire pedestrian rights
over certain parts of those easements.
Mr. Bernardi reported that on Lot 51, known as 54 Terrace Lane, the
proposal was to acquire the full 15 foot easement, because that was where
most of the existing road lies at the present time. On lot 39, which is 57
Terrace Lane, a 5 foot strip would be acquired, which would cover most of
the existing pavement. Similarly, on Lot 40, which is 53 Terrace Lane,
there was another 5 foot strip that would be acquired because, again, that
is the paved area. On Lot 38, which is 227 Spring Grove Lane, he noted the
City would acquire the full width of the easement, because the property
owner had agreed to sell to the City the rights over the full width of the
easement. Mr. Bernardi reported the entire easement length is
approximately 430 feet. Easement square footage for 54 Terrace Lane is
approximately 6,800 square feet, for 57 Terrace Lane it is approximately
750 square feet, and for 53 Terrace Lane it is approximately 800 square
feet.
Regarding the Environmental Review, Mr. Bernardi noted that attached to the
staff report was a copy of the Notice of Hearing, the Environmental
Checklist prepared by Community Development Department staff, and the
Response to Comments made by Mr. and Mrs. Bradshaw in their letter of
October 11, 1998. Mr. Bernardi stated the hearing had been advertised and
posted, as required by law. He explained the reason an Environmental
Review had to be considered was because the California Environmental
Quality Act includes the acquisition of property in the definition of a
"project"; therefore, because we are acquiring property rights, it is
considered a "project", and we have to go through the process of evaluating
the impacts. Mr. Bernardi noted the Checklist had been completed, and
staff was recommending Council consider the adoption of the Resolution
declaring a Negative Declaration on the acquisition of this right-of-way.
Mr. Bernardi stated there had also been a couple of questions raised
regarding access to Open Space lands, as well as noise. He noted these
questions spilled over into the issue of whether or not it is appropriate
to discuss them with consideration of the Resolution of Necessity or
adopting the Negative Declaration; therefore, he was including them only to
be certain they are part of the record. Stating the first question
concerned Alternative Access, Mr. Bernardi pointed out the boundaries of
two pieces of developed property, and the land in between, which is part of
the City owned Open Space that was dedicated to the City under the approval
of the Final Map. He also pointed out a possible route for a trail to be
constructed, in lieu of acquiring access across Terrace Lane. He explained
the trail was approximately 1,500 feet long, the land was very steep, and
it would require the construction of some fairly long retaining walls,
approximately 2 to 3 feet high. He noted that depending upon the slope,
the trail might be shortened to approximately 900 feet. He reported the
cost of constructing such a trail was estimated to be between $90,000 and
$150,000, including tree removal, grading, construction of the retaining
walls, and some type of surfacing on the trail, not necessarily asphalt.
Mr. Bernardi pointed out this clearly was more expensive than the other
alternatives explored with the property owners, which dealt with privacy
issues on Terrace Lane.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 4
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 5
Mr. Bernardi stated another question that had been raised referred to
noise, and asked Associate Planner Bill Tuikka to discuss that issue.
Associate Planner Bill Tuikka reported the Environmental Review involved an
analysis of CEQA related issues, noting one issue that had been brought up
was the significance of additional noise in this area. He stated the State
Office of Noise Control had an outdoor noise standard level of 60 dBA,
which was a weighted, 24 hour average. He noted it had been pointed out in
letters from some of the neighbors that people would be walking on this
easement and speaking, adding to the ambient noise of the area, which was
currently rather quiet. Mr. Tuikka explained a speaking voice was
approximately 55 dBA at one foot away. He stated the decibels would be
reduced by 6 dBA for each doubling of the distance; therefore, if the sound
were 60 dBA at one foot away, it would be 54 dBA at two feet away, and by
the time someone was sixteen feet away, it would be down to an ambient
noise level of 46 dBA, which he noted was fairly quiet. He stated the end
result was that this type of noise did not fall into the area of
"Significance" that would require review under the California Environmental
Quality Act.
In addressing why this issue had been brought before Council, Mr. Bernardi
noted the Environmental Impact Report for the development, in general,
identified pedestrian access to Open Space across private roadways as a
mitigation measure for the potential loss of Open Space access. He
reported that when the Final Maps were recorded, that provision was not
made on this particular part of the Subdivision Map, and pedestrian access
was specifically excluded. He explained coming before Council at this time
was completing the circle, noting the City, in approving the Tentative Map,
made the commitment that there should be public access across these
roadways, but that did not happen, and now the issue was back before the
Councilmembers, and staff was asking them to consider that issue.
Deputy City Attorney Eric Davis asked Mr. Tuikka for the source of the
noise standards he had referenced. Mr. Tuikka stated the General Plan
Noise Background addressed the CEQA Noise Standards and the State Office of
Noise Control Standards, noting these were standards which had been
developed for use in projects, and in determining the level of
"Significance". Mr. Davis asked if those standards addressed what was
normally acceptable? Mr. Tuikka stated 60 dBA in an outdoor area and 45
dBA in an indoor area were considered normally acceptable, and after that
it would require review.
Mayor Boro invited public comment, explaining there would be three separate
hearings on this item. The first concerned the Negative Declaration on the
need for an Environmental Impact Report; therefore, he asked the public, at
this time, to limit their comments to the adequacy of staff's report
concerning the Environmental Checklist.
There being no public comment, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt
the Resolution certifying the Negative Declaration.
a. RESOLUTION NO. 10325 - RESOLUTION ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
REGARDING A PROJECT CONSISTING OF THE
ACQUISITION BY THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL OF
EASEMENTS FOR A TRAIL FOR PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN USE
AND NON -MOTORIZED CONVEYANCE USE (BICYCLES), AND
RELATED EASEMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE,
AND REPAIR OF SUCH TRAIL, BURDENING THE
PROPERTIES CONTAINING TERRACE LANE IN THE CITY
OF SAN RAFAEL.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor
Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Mayor Boro noted the second part of this item was for consideration of a
Resolution of Necessity authorizing the acquisition by the City of San
Rafael, by eminent domain, of easements for a trail for public pedestrian
use and non -motorized conveyances (bicycles), and related easements for
construction, maintenance, and repair of such trail burdening the
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 5
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 6
properties known as 53, 54, and 57 Terrace Lane.
Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened, and asked for the staff
report.
Mr. Bernardi explained this was not a public hearing in the formal sense,
noting the hearing did not have to be opened, but Council would be taking
testimony.
Mr. Bernardi reported an issue had been brought to the City regarding the
use, for pedestrian purposes, over a privately maintained roadway called
Terrace Lane. Subsequent investigation by staff discovered the Final Map
of Oakwood 4 and 5 contained a statement on the Map which was interpreted
to mean that no public access was permitted across Terrace Lane. Mr.
Bernardi reported that Terrace Lane, while privately maintained, was
already incumbered with easements for access, primarily driveway and
roadway access serving two parcels, 53 and 57 Terrace Lane. Mr. Bernardi
noted there were a total of four parcels encumbered with this particular
set of easements.
Mr. Bernardi reported City staff attempted to work with the property owners
along Terrace Lane, and a number of alternatives were explored to provide
pedestrian access, including excavating the hillside adjacent to the
existing driveway, constructing retaining walls and fences. Signing and
pavement striping, and electronically operated gates were also explored;
however, none of these alternatives were acceptable to all of the affected
property owners. Mr. Bernardi felt it should be noted those alternatives
were more expensive than simply acquiring an easement across the existing
roadway. Mr. Bernardi stated an MAI Certified Appraiser was hired to
establish a value to acquire these easements for pedestrian and non -
motorized vehicle use over Terrace Lane, and the appraiser set the value at
$500. Mr. Bernardi reported on June 26, 1998, staff submitted Offers to
Purchase, in the appraised amount, to the four affected property owners for
access rights, noting the Offers to Purchase were rejected by the owners of
53, 54, and 57 Terrace Lane, while the owner of 227 Spring Grove Lane
accepted the City's offer.
Mr. Bernardi stated that on August 25th of this year, staff forwarded a
letter to the property owners who had rejected the Offers to Purchase,
giving them the option to counter-offer on the City's original offer of
$500. However, no counter-offers were received, and on September 29, 1998,
the City made a final offer to the three remaining property owners, again
in the amount of $500. Mr. Bernardi noted that during this time, Mr.
Tuikka and the Community Development staff were working on the
environmental determination, and all notices regarding the consideration of
the Resolution of Necessity were forwarded to the affected property owners,
as required by law.
Councilmember Heller asked if, when an offer by the City has been rejected,
and the City offers to accept a counter-offer from the property owner, does
that usually mean that the "ball is in the property owner's court", and do
they usually come back with a counter-offer? Mr. Bernardi stated generally
there was some give and take in that process, noting the City was somewhat
bound by the appraised offer; therefore, the City had to be careful how it
dealt with counter-offers. However, he pointed out the counter-offers were
not simply rejected "out of hand" if they differed from the appraisal.
Mayor Boro invited public comment.
Lee Rosenthal, Legal Counsel, recommended that before hearing testimony
from the public, Council first hear testimony from the affected property
owners.
Leonard Stein, 53 Terrace Lane, stated he had purchased his home in May of
this year, and he and his family had been living there for approximately
five and a half months. Mr. Stein stated he realized, with all the major
projects going on in this town, the acquisition of an easement across his
property by Eminent Domain would hardly rate as a significant issue for the
Council, and might appear inconsequential, and be adopted without much
thought. However, he wanted to let the Councilmembers know the geography
of the lot, and of his home and its orientation, was such that this was not
just a road that people were walking on, it was his driveway and his front
yard, it was where his children play, and it was just several feet from
their decks and front door. Mr. Stein stated this was a unique situation
for himself and his family.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 6
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 7
Mr. Stein noted Mr. Bernardi had stated that the City had made a
commitment, during the original Subdivision Map, to allow public easements
across this area. Mr. Stein stated this was not true, noting he had
reviewed every document he could obtain in the City records regarding this
matter, calling attention to the most pertinent items. First, regarding
the Preliminary Subdivision Map for Oakwood 4 and 5, he noted there were
several lists of recommendations by the City, one of which was a vague
statement that easements should be established across roadways, and some
have said this was evidence the City intended that easements be granted
across this particular roadway. He pointed out another recommendation was
that private roadways shall be established; however, in looking back over
the history of this issue, some of the Tentative Maps listed an easement,
but on the Final Subdivision Map there were no private easements granted
over this area. Mr. Stein pointed out that in evaluating this issue,
Deputy City Attorney Eric Davis and then Planning Director Robert Pendoley
issued positions, referenced in documents dated June 2 and June 27, 1997,
quoting, "Examination of staff reports and minutes of the Planning
Commission and City Council does not indicate any explicit condition that a
public pedestrian access easement be established over Terrace Lane, as a
matter of the TSM approval process"; and, "The City's files indicate the
Developer's attorney argued, and the Planning Department agreed, in
recommending approval of the Final Map in 1984, that TSM Condition AA
(which asked for easements over the property) was satisfied by a non-
exclusive easement, pertinent to Lots 39, 40, and 41 (which Mr. Stein
explained was the easement the three property owners have over their lots),
and that there was no legal justification to now impose an easement". Mr.
Stein noted those were the words of the City Attorney's Office and the
Planning Department in reviewing this issue in 1997, and those conclusions
were also reflected in additional documents, by way of correspondence with
the neighborhood, inter -departmental memorandum, and the like.
Mr. Stein felt it was unfair for the City to now state it had made a
commitment to establish an easement over the property, based on a review of
the records, and on the opinions of the City's own staff members. Mr.
Stein believed the true purpose of this Resolution was, in fact, different
from that which was stated in the Resolution, noting the Resolution asked
for access of an easement, essentially to connect Spring Grove to Open
Space land; however, he believed it was primarily a desire of local
residents to walk along the loop that connects Spring Grove and Terrace
Avenue, and not for the stated reason of access to Open Space.
Mr. Stein reported that in recent days, allegations have come to his
attention that adoption of this Resolution may have been pre -determined.
He stated he had not had an opportunity to investigate these allegations,
and he hoped they were not true. However, if they did prove to be true, he
stated there would be reason to believe the passage of this Resolution was
a foregone conclusion, prior to this hearing, prior to submission of his
evidence to the Council, and quite possibly, prior to even the published
Notice of Hearing sent to himself and others affected by the action. Mr.
Stein felt that if this were reviewed by a court and determined to be so,
it would constitute a gross abuse of discretion, it would nullify the
Resolution, and could result in significant cost to the City.
Mr. Stein noted that while the issue of damages was not before Council at
this time, he believed there were significant errors and deficiencies in
Mr. Semple's appraisal. Mr. Stein stated he had spoken with several
professional appraisers who are certified in condemnation, and had been
told Mr. Semple's estimation of damages in the amount of $500, which, as
stated in the report, was actually based on a valuation of $1, was
ridiculous and not supportable, and that the true cost of damages to be
borne could be substantially higher, and could amount to what is known as
Full Severance Damages, decided in a trial.
Mr. Stein stated it was their intention to work out a compromise with the
City that was reasonable; however, he stated this affected their property
in a dramatic way, one that might not be fully appreciated by the Council.
Mr. Stein stated he did not feel a $500 compromise was in good faith, and
had declined to respond to that offer. He noted he did not want to lay out
$4,000 for a Condemnation Appraisal to arrive at another number; however,
if a compromise could not be reached, he would have no choice but to
litigate for what he believed were his full damages for the loss of value
of his home.
Mr. Stein pointed out Terrace Lane had a steep hillside, which was a steep
fifty- foot drop on the side of the hill, and there were no lights or
fences on Terrace Lane. He believed if an easement were granted across
this property, there would be a significant increase in traffic.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 7
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 8
Therefore, there would be an increase in liability, most likely to the
property owners, rather than the City, if a child on a bicycle should fall.
He pointed out it was pitch black there at night, and someone could easily
step over the side and fall fifty feet, with dramatic consequences. He
stated he had brought this to the City's attention, as had other
homeowners, but no one had ever given them a response. He noted this was
an issue, as well, in granting and selling an easement.
Mr. Stein stated they disputed the adequacy of the Resolution on several
points:
1) The project was not required by Public Necessity. There was no
necessity, as the pedestrians and cyclists could access the Open Space by
way of Spring Grove. He stated this had never been denied to people,
noting there was no mention in any City document of this having been denied
previously; therefore, access to Open Space existed; 2) According to
statements of City staff and the Planning Department, the designation of
upper Spring Grove as "private" merely indicated it is to be maintained by
the homeowners along it, rather than by the City, and not that there is a
legal description of public access to Open Space; 3) The Resolution of
Necessity, as drafted, is incorrect. Spring Grove is defined as Spring
Lane; 4) There is evidence that the City does not intend to put the
property acquired by Eminent Domain to its stated purpose of providing
access to Open Space. Terrace Lane does not lie between the Open Space and
Spring Grove, Terrace Lane and Spring Grove meet at the Open Space, and
Terrace Lane does not interface between the two. Therefore, the stated
purpose of providing access between Spring Grove Lane and the public Open
Space, as stated, cannot be accomplished; 5) Mr. Stein believed a more
troubling issue, which he felt should be brought to everyone's attention,
was that City officials had stated to him that the purpose of this easement
was to "correct an error" on the Final Map for Oakwood Subdivision 4 and 5.
Mr. Stein pointed out this was not the purpose stated in the Resolution of
Necessity, noting this went back to the personal agenda of local
neighborhood pedestrians who wish to walk "the Loop", and are using the
guise of access to Open Space as a means by which to have this Resolution
adopted; 6) The project does not meet the requirements of Greatest Public
Good and Least Private Harm. He noted he had made several proposals in his
letter of October 10th, including their willingness to grant, at no charge
to anyone, an easement to all of the homeowners living below his property,
on East Terrace Lane and Terrace Avenue, noting that offer was also shared
by the other two people involved, who own the original easements. Noting
the City had proposed cutting a trail up the hill, Mr. Stein acknowledged
he was not an engineer, and was not in a position to dispute Public Works
Director Bernardi's figures; however, he stated he had walked the trail,
and a figure of $90,000 sounded unreasonably high.
Mr. Stein believed the proposals they had made could be done at a
reasonable cost, would cause the greatest Public Good, and would cause no
Private Harm, whereas the current proposal would cause Private Harm. Mr.
Stein felt his solution was fair and equitable, and believed Council had a
duty, as a representative of not only the West End Neighborhood
Association, but of all citizens in this town, to consider this as a fair
alternative that best meets the statutory requirements. Mr. Stein urged
Council not to adopt the Resolution, in order to allow all parties ample
opportunity to review these proposals, or other additional compromises that
might arise therefrom.
Mr. Stein asked that Council and City staff make clear to those in
attendance that if the Resolution is adopted, it does not grant public
access to Terrace Lane as of tomorrow morning, but rather upon the
completion of additional steps of Condemnation that still lie ahead. Mr.
Stein stated he and his family have lived in San Rafael for ten years, and
they love this town, noting that when they purchased their home, they
intentionally chose San Rafael as the one town in Marin County in which
they wanted to live. He stated they wanted to raise their children here,
and to be at peace here. Mr. Stein stated they had no personal issue or
animosity toward any of their neighbors who may feel differently than his
family does about the privacy of their home. Mr. Stein noted that if the
Resolution is adopted and the public is allowed access to the street, due
to Condemnation or compromise, his family wished to state publicly that
they would, at all times, treat those who walk by their home with the
utmost respect, asking that the same respect be accorded to them.
Councilmember Cohen stated he appreciated Mr. Stein's closing remarks. He
noted in one of Mr. Stein's previous letters, he referred to a letter from
Deputy City Attorney Eric Davis to Napa City Attorney Thomas Brown dated
June 27, 1997, quoting, "New owners, including the Bradshaws, purchased
properties along Terrace Lane, relying on the absence of any record notice
of public pedestrian easements, etc. across Terrace Lane"; Mr. Stein's
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 8
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 9
letter then continued, "Like the Bradshaws, we purchased this property in
reliance". However, Councilmember Cohen stated that, unlike the Bradshaws,
the Steins purchased this property approximately five months ago. He noted
this issue had been going on since at least 1997, and there had been
discussions with the Bradshaws and other residents in the neighborhoods.
He asked if the Steins had been made aware, when they purchased their home,
that there were discussions going on about the issue of pedestrian access
and pedestrian easement across Terrace Lane? Mr. Stein stated the purchase
of their home had been a big issue for them, and was not something they had
taken lightly, noting they had been aware of these issues when they
purchased the home, and the Bradshaws had been completely upfront with them
about the situation. Mr. Stein stated he took the time to do his due
diligence, reading through 60 pages of documents; going through every
document in the City's files, including minutes of meetings; and reading
every letter in the City's files from neighborhood residents, on both sides
of the issue. Mr. Stein stated he also met with his realtor, Deputy City
Attorney Eric Davis, and Public Works Director David Bernardi in a meeting
prior to releasing their contingencies in escrow. Mr. Stein noted, at this
time, he did not wish to discuss the specifics of what was said in that
meeting, except to categorize it by stating the general tone of the meeting
was that the City was reluctantly involved in what they perceived as a
"neighborhood dispute", and had hoped that a compromise would have been
worked out. Mr. Stein stated there was no indication given to him that the
City considered this type of matter would proceed to these lengths, or that
the City would exercise Eminent Domain.
Mr. Stein reported he had spoken to a Real Estate Attorney with twenty
years of experience in Real Estate Law in Marin County, noting the Attorney
was very familiar with this area. After relaying the entire situation, the
Attorney told Mr. Stein that while anything could happen, in his twenty
years of practicing real estate law in Marin County, he had never seen a
City exercise Eminent Domain in a set of circumstances such as this, noting
he believed it would be without justification, and would expose the City to
significant exposure, cost -wise.
Mr. Stein stated, based upon all these things, they had believed they were
making a safe decision in purchasing their home, and that for all intents
and purposes, this matter had been adjudicated. They had felt any
additional issues could be resolved between themselves and their neighbors,
once they became comfortable with the neighborhood.
Harry Winters, President of the West End Neighborhood Association, stated
the West End Neighborhood Association had urged Council to adopt the
Negative Declaration on environmental impacts, which he noted Council had
just done, and a Resolution of Necessity to provide for public pedestrian
use of Terrace Lane in their neighborhood. He defined this as the short
section of roadway connecting Spring Grove and Terrace Avenue. Mr. Winters
acknowledged the Resolution did have an incorrect reference concerning the
name of the street, noting it spoke of a non-existent "Spring Lane". He
explained that should properly read, "Terrace Avenue", because they were
talking about providing pedestrian and non -motorized access between the
existing public street, known as Terrace Avenue, and the public Open Space
maintained by the City. Mr. Winters explained access to the public Open
Space was at one end of Terrace Lane, and the connection was to Terrace
Avenue. Therefore, the reference to Spring Lane should be changed to
Terrace Avenue. Mr. Rosenthal explained a corrected Resolution had been
prepared, which referenced Spring Grove Avenue and Terrace Avenue.
Mr. Winters reported that in 1984, Council approved the Oakwood
Subdivision, and accepted Terrace Lane as a private road. He stated the
approval also included a provision, which he quoted, "Nonexclusive access
easements shall be established over the private roadways". Mr. Winter
noted, unfortunately, a deed was never delivered to the City for that
nonexclusive access, and the developer's attorney apparently informed the
City that the provisions of the CC & R's for access by the property owners
on Terrace Lane met that requirement. However, Mr. Winters stated it did
not meet the requirement, because the provision in the CC & R's was not
"nonexclusive", it was "exclusive" to those three properties. He stated
the provision in the Conditions was that "nonexclusive access easements
shall be provided". Mr. Winters felt it was obvious that the City, from
the very beginning, meant to provide public pedestrian access across that
roadway. He reported it had taken eight years, from the initial filing of
the Subdivision in 1975, to the final approval in 1984, pointing out the
Association had been part of the entire process, and its many hearings.
Mr. Winters reported that at the City Council meeting on June 2, 1997,
almost a year and a half ago, the West End Neighborhood Association asked
Council to take steps to renew their use along Terrace Lane, and since
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 9
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 10
then, much work has been done by City staff concerning their request. He
stated that had been based on the fact that these were old fire roads that
had been used by the neighbors for half a century, before there even was an
Oakwood Subdivision. He pointed out those were not new roads, they were on
the existing network of fire roads up over what is now the Open Space
portion of the Subdivision.
Mr. Winters believed there were several justifications supporting the
Resolution of Necessity, any of which he felt should suffice. First, he
referred to the issue of public access to the only entry, in their
neighborhood, to the City's public Open Space. He noted the Terrace Lane
property owners, who oppose a public use there, recognized in their letters
that Open Space access was difficult for residents on Terrace Avenue, who
must now make a roundtrip of over one mile to reach the Open Space entry,
which is only a few hundred feet from their front door. He explained they
had to go all the way down to Spring Grove, all the way back up, and then
all the way back, noting this was actually over a mile, having been
measured at 7/10ths of a mile each way.
Mr. Winters reported the Bradshaws proposed the City build a second Open
Space entry; however, he believed that plan was impractical, because the
hillside at that location was extremely steep, and there was an even
steeper cut that was made when Terrace Avenue was improved. He reported he
and his wife had tried to come down that way, but were unable to climb
down, and had to go all the way around to one of the lots with a driveway,
in order to get off the trail.
Mr. Winters stated that as an alternative, the Bradshaws proposed giving
permission for the use of Terrace Lane to the residents of Terrace Avenue,
who were also included in the CC & R's; however, they proposed to do this
by amending the Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions covering all the
properties on Terrace Lane and Terrace Avenue, and permission would
necessarily have to extend to relatives, friends, business associates, and
anyone visiting those residents, who would likely be unknown to the people
on Terrace Lane. Mr. Winters believed such a plan would be impractical.
In addition, Article 4, Paragraph 4 of the CC & R's, which covers
"Amendments" for all of those properties, requires unanimous agreement of
all the owners of those properties on Terrace Avenue and Terrace Lane, and
a number of those owners have already told him they would refuse to agree,
because it would be even more divisive to the neighborhood.
Mr. Winters believed another matter that would justify a Resolution of
Necessity was the serious matter of safety. He stated the only safe
approach for a pedestrian to the homes on Upper Terrace Avenue is up Spring
Grove and across Terrace Lane, noting the alternative route would be a
steep 2/10ths of a mile up Terrace Avenue, which is a narrow road, cut into
the hillside with no sidewalk or shoulders, and two sharp, blind curves.
He stated no one walking to Upper Terrace Avenue should be forced to walk
this unsafe route.
Mr. Winters stated the third justification for a Resolution of Necessity
would be to carry out the intent of the City, while approving Oakwood, to
provide for continued pedestrian access on Terrace Lane. Mr. Winters
reported the Lang family, one of the first families to build on Terrace
Avenue, enjoyed meeting neighborhood members walking by, and visiting with
them. He noted several years later, when the Bradshaws moved in and
blocked Terrace Lane, the Lang's told him the pedestrian visits had dried
up, and they felt much more isolated. Mr. Winters reported the Bradshaws'
original objections to the Association's requests have been offset by their
move to a new house, high on a knoll and inaccessible, out of sight of
Terrace Lane, and having a driveway connecting to the public street on
Terrace Avenue. However, he stated they continue to assert a privacy
issue, and a matter of their safety and security, stating that if they see
a stranger on Terrace Lane, they can call the Police. Mr. Winters stated
any of the neighbors can call the Police if they see a suspicious stranger,
even if they live on a public street. Mr. Winters stated that argument was
moot with regard to Terrace Lane, based on the fact that the public fire
road, in the public Open Space, runs for 200 feet on the backside of their
property, closer and more accessible to their house than Terrace Lane;
therefore, to focus on Terrace Lane for their safety and security, when
there is a public roadway right behind their house, even closer, makes the
argument moot.
Mr. Winters pointed out the issue of property value had been addressed in
the report of an independent appraiser, and he did not feel he needed to
address that issue. He noted Mr. Stein, a recent purchaser of the Bradshaw
property on Terrace Lane, stated they had been fully aware of the entire
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 10
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 11
matter, and the possibility of pedestrian access across the roadway; and in
fact, all the properties on Terrace Lane already had exposure to public
streets and properties. He noted the properties of both the Bradshaws and
the Kaufmans had frontage on the public road, as well as the private lane,
and Mr. Stein's property currently had exposure to public access, with Mr.
Murphy selling the City his easement, which goes right up to Mr. Stein's
property. Therefore, every one of those remaining three properties were
already exposed to public access, and the private roadway was not very
exclusive or unique.
Mr. Winters acknowledged some issues may need to be resolved or addressed
by the City, noting the Kaufmans' question of the liability for public use
on private portions of Terrace Lane was pertinent. However, Mr. Winters
suggested the City, with 180 miles of public streets, would be little
impacted by the addition of 400 feet more, with the public easement over
Terrace Lane.
Mr. Winters noted that regardless of the outcome, the West End Neighborhood
Association wished to express their appreciation for the efforts of Council
and City staff in trying to resolve this troublesome neighborhood problem,
and on behalf of the Association, Mr. Winters thanked Council for
consideration of their request.
For anyone who wished to review the Association's initial request, Mr.
Winters referred to the public record of the City Council meeting of June
2, 1997, and the associated discussion and minutes of that meeting, noting
he encouraged neighborhood residents to state their own views of this
situation. Mr. Winters stated he felt, as he was sure Mr. Stein did, that
when this issue was resolved, there would not be any personal animosity or
issues, clarifying that was not what this issue was about.
Boyd Lang, 76 Terrace Avenue, stated he lived near the first turn in the
trail. Referring to the trail being proposed, he stated he did not believe
it would achieve what everyone in the neighborhood wanted. Mr. Lang noted
he was a General Contractor, and he believed that to support and build a
trail that would be safe and not slide away would be very costly, and just
would not work.
Mr. Lang stated he also believed the Kaufmans, Bradshaws, and the Steins
should be justly compensated if the City was going to exercise its Power of
Eminent Domain, so that if this goes through, everyone can feel good about
it. He believed the $500 offer that had been made by the City was
insulting.
Janice Anton, 19 Greenfield Avenue, stated that when the Bradshaws first
moved into their home, during the Summer of 1995, every day for ten days
she received telephone calls from at least three or four neighbors who were
trying to do what, in their neighborhood, they called the "pooh walk". She
felt the Bradshaws should give the neighbors a chance, and allow them to
show the Bradshaws the kind of neighborhood they are. She stated they were
a very closely knit neighborhood, noting she usually has a sunflower
growing contest, and has children come over to her house all the time. Ms.
Anton stated this was a very friendly, nice neighborhood, and the Bradshaws
should give them a chance to show what kind of neighborhood they are,
before they start thinking the neighbors are going to be taking away their
safety.
Responding to Mr. Winters' statement that safety was a big issue, one which
merits granting the condemnation of this road, Mr. Stein felt that was
specious. He believed people did have access to Open Space, and did not
care about access through Terrace Lane, noting those opposing the
Resolution were prepared to give it away to the people who live below them,
at no cost to anyone, in order to avoid hardship. Mr. Stein believed the
true issue was that people wanted to walk up Spring Grove Lane and down
Terrace Avenue, or up Terrace Avenue and down Spring Grove Lane, not to
visit friends, but because that was a historical loop they have walked in
the past. Mr. Stein stated this was an issue of convenience, and he felt
that to characterize it as an issue of safety was really stretching the
truth, because people walked that loop regardless of any issues of safety.
Mr. Stein stated that when his family moved into their house, they had
every intention of getting along with people, and having an open mind,
although they had felt they needed to be somewhat conservative until they
got to know people. He reported that during the first two weeks in their
house, both of their posted signs were torn up and vandalized, and at least
four people were confrontational and abusive to his wife when she politely
told them the road was private. Mr. Stein noted there were people who have
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 11
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 12
been extremely courteous and polite to them, which he believed was likely
the true character of the neighborhood.
Mayor Boro asked Deputy City Attorney Eric Davis about the letter he wrote
in 1997, which was quoted by Mr. Stein. Mr. Davis explained the point of
that letter to Napa City Attorney Brown had been to render the City
Attorney's opinion that the Final Map of the Subdivision did not confer a
public pedestrian easement across Terrace Lane. He noted he had also
pointed out in the letter that the Draft Environmental Report which had
been adopted for the Subdivision did specifically indicate that, as
mitigation for the potential loss of Open Space access, there should be
public pedestrian access across private roadways. Mr. Davis pointed out
this had been in the Environmental Report; however, it was not carried
through into the Final Map approval process. Mr. Davis stated that had
been the primary point he was making for the City Attorney's office, that
San Rafael could not, subsequent to the adoption of the map and the passage
of several years, impose a public pedestrian easement that had not been
obtained though the Subdivision Map Process. Mayor Boro noted that at the
time this went through the Planning Commission, and somewhere between the
Preliminary Map and the Final Map, the issue had been discussed, and it was
on the Preliminary Maps, as he recalled; but somehow, it was inadvertently
left off the Final Map. Mr. Davis stated there had been evidence in the
environmental process, specifically the environmental document, that there
was an intention that there be a public pedestrian easement across the
private roadways in the subdivision; however, that did not find its way
into the Tentative Map provisions.
Councilmember Cohen stated Council did not have the letter to which Mr.
Davis had been responding; however, as he recalled, Mr. Brown had been
arguing that the City could go back and, to whatever extent the Final Map
was in error, we could undo that many years later, state this was an
easement, and declare it so without any notion of value for taking the
property or the easement. Mr. Rosenthal agreed that had been Mr. Brown's
position.
Mayor Boro noted Mr. Stein had made a comment about what the effect would
be, as far as access, if Council were to adopt this Resolution. He asked
Legal Counsel Lee Rosenthal to explain what would happen next if Council
were to adopt the Resolution? Mr. Rosenthal stated nothing would happen
unless and until the City filed an Eminent Domain action, at which time the
City could ask for possession of the easement rights. He noted once that
was granted, it would not be effective for at least 90 days after service
of the Order for Possession from the Court. Therefore, nothing would be
happening for at least three or four months, until the City had gone
through that Court process.
Councilmember Miller wanted to be certain that if Council were to adopt
this Resolution, that would not prohibit continued discussion, mediation,
or negotiation, and would, in fact, actually encourage it. Mr. Rosenthal
stated that was correct, noting there was nothing that prohibited the City
from further discussing settlement, compensation, liability, or any of the
other issues that had been raised. Mr. Miller asked if the issues raised
by Mr. Stein could still be discussed and brought forward? Mr. Rosenthal
stated that was correct, noting he felt it would be in everyone's best
interest.
Councilmember Cohen pointed out the staff report contained multiple letters
alleging a variety of deficiencies in the City's legal position, or the
action proposed by the City; however, since these issues had not been
addressed by the City's legal counsel, he assumed they did not agree. Mr.
Cohen asked if legal counsel felt those issues had raised any significant
concerns? Mr. Rosenthal stated some CEQA issues had been raised regarding
noise, and those types of issues, and noted they had already been responded
to. He stated there had also been issues raised about other types of
alternatives that might be available, pointing out Mr. Bernardi had
answered those, as had Mr. Winters in his testimony. Regarding the City's
basic right to acquire an easement for public access, Mr. Rosenthal
explained that was a Public Purpose, for which the City could exercise its
Power of Eminent Domain.
Mr. Cohen stated one of the issues he found important hinged on the issue
raised by Mayor Boro in his question to Deputy City Attorney Davis, which
was about the record of this issue. Mr. Cohen acknowledged the record was
unclear, noting he was struck that in the Environmental Review of this
project, there had been discussion of pedestrian access across the private
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 12
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 13
roadways, but for whatever reason, that did not make it onto the Final Map.
Mr. Cohen stated he recognized the response to Mr. Brown that the City
could now go back and correct what he saw as a deficiency in the final
approval, noting if the City was going to take the property, it had to give
fair market value for the easement, if we were going to proceed. He
believed this was one of a number of valid reasons for the City proceeding,
to go back and correct what he saw as deficiencies in the way the project
was originally approved, and the way the map was recorded. Mr. Cohen
stated if he had been there at the time, he would have stated that this was
a valid point in the Environmental Review, and that it needed to be part of
the Map.
Mr. Cohen was not certain this point was made within the language of the
Resolution, noting if it was, and if the others were satisfied, that was
fine; however, if it was not, he would like Council to consider finding a
way for the record to reflect that. Mr. Rosenthal suggested adding to the
Resolution a further recital, specifying the history of the fact that the
environmental document for the Subdivision contemplated mitigation
involving public pedestrian access over the private roads, but that this
had not been carried out as part of the Subdivision process. Mayor Boro
felt it was important for Council to do that, stating that was one of the
reasons he would support the Necessity.
Responding to an earlier comment, Councilmember Cohen assured everyone he
had not made up his mind about this issue prior to coming to this meeting,
and any allegation or purported evidence that this was somehow a foregone
conclusion, or that a decision had already been reached in some other
forum, was incorrect and untrue. He stated he had listened carefully and
reviewed the materials, noting he was sorry the Bradshaws were not present,
nor had they sent a representative, or responded to the City's offer and
request for a counter proposal. He stated that had they come and
testified, he would have listened as carefully to them as he had to Mr.
Stein and his testimony.
Councilmember Heller noted she had been through both of the hearings,
visited the site, and read the information presented to the Council, and
she, too, believed what the City was doing was correcting a deficiency that
was inadvertently carried
through by the City. She stated she was always very embarrassed when
something like this happened, even though this happened long ago. She
believed this was something the City needed to correct, stating she would
vote for the Resolution.
Councilmember Phillips stated Mr. Stein, after undertaking extensive
research, missed what seemed to be the fairly obvious point that the
neighborhood's concern with this issue was not disguised or unknown, nor
was the historical use of the walkway unknown, noting it was difficult to
accept that this was not, in fact, considered as a possibility. Therefore,
he did not feel there had been a significant change in the use by the
neighborhood, and if he were Mr. Stein, he would not be surprised with the
discussion and viewpoints. Underscoring earlier comments made concerning
the decision making process, Mr. Phillips stated he believed it was
incumbent upon the Council, when entering into issues such as this, to
carefully consider staff reports and public input, and only after going
through that process, to draw a conclusion. Mr. Phillips noted the
Councilmembers did a fair amount of "homework", and believed it was
incumbent upon them to go through the material provided, ask questions,
visit the site, and do the things that are necessary to prepare themselves
to make a decision. He stated that although, during that process, they
might develop some thought as to how they might consider the issue in the
decision making process, he did not believe that was terribly mysterious,
noting he believed they would be expected to become quite familiar with the
issue before making their decisions. He pointed out this was not to say
there was no latitude.
Councilmember Phillips stated he would be voting, with good conscience,
that the City would be correcting something that should have been corrected
prior to this time, noting he truly did not believe anyone had been
"blindsided".
Mayor Boro stated he was supporting this because he truly believed it was
the intent of the City to have this happen in the way the City was now
attempting to achieve it through this activity. He reported he had a
discussion with Mr. Stein last week concerning this subject, and also with
Mr. Winters, noting in both cases, the discussions included the possibility
of postponing this hearing, which Mayor Boro had pointed out he was not
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 13
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 14
willing to consider, because he felt the issue had been before the City for
quite a while, and it was necessary to go forward. He noted he had not
indicated in what manner the City would go forward, but did indicate the
process should go forward. Mayor Boro stated he also agreed Mr. Stein had
been very truthful and consistent in stating he had really looked at this
issue and done his due diligence, and while Mr. Stein had not believed what
was happening would be happening, he was aware of the fact there was much
concern in the neighborhood about this. Mayor Boro stated it was
unfortunate Mr. Stein had assumed what he assumed; however, he believed
this was the correct way for the Council to proceed.
Mayor Boro stated he believed it was important the Resolution be modified;
first, with clarification of the streets, pointing out where this should
be, and second, with the added clause regarding the past history of this
project, and why the City is finding the Resolution of Necessity, which he
believed was the whole key to this issue. He stated what was promised to
the community did not happen, and should now be happening.
Councilmember Heller stressed that staff should continue to discuss the
settlements and compensation. Mayor Boro agreed, noting if this Resolution
was adopted, there was no reason Mr. Stein, Mr. Bradshaw, and the City
Attorney could not continue to discuss and negotiate, which was his
understanding of what would be happening.
Deputy City Attorney Davis suggested the following language be included in
the Resolution, "WHEREAS the Environmental Impact Report for the Oakwood
Subdivision identified the provision of pedestrian easements across private
roadways, as mitigation for the potential loss of Open Space as a result of
the Subdivision, nevertheless, such a pedestrian easement was not provided
across Terrace Lane on the final Subdivision Map". Councilmember Cohen
asked where the other corrections were located? Mr. Rosenthal stated they
were included under the second recital clause, and in Section 1, Paragraphs
A and B. Mr. Cohen pointed out both references to "Spring Lane" should be
changed to "Spring Grove Avenue" and "Terrace Avenue", and Mr. Rosenthal
concurred.
Referring to one of Mr. Stein's earlier comments, Councilmember Cohen
stated he was confident he and his fellow Councilmembers took very
seriously the various Police powers of the City, and its authority,
particularly when it comes to issues of private property. He noted that
although this project might be smaller than several large projects now
underway within the City, he assured everyone he and his colleagues took
this matter very seriously, and recognized there were serious impacts on
individuals' lives, including the property owners in question. He stated
they took this issue no less seriously than those other projects, even
though it involved only a short piece of roadway, and the issue of
pedestrian access. Mr. Cohen stated he had considered the record, the
testimony, his travels to the site, and discussions with a variety of
people, including those who spoke during this hearing, and found he was
convinced there is Public Interest and Necessity.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the
Resolution finding the Public Interest and Necessity requires the
acquisition of a public pedestrian easement over the property commonly
known as Terrace Lane, in San Rafael, Marin County, as amended.
b. RESOLUTION NO. 10326 - RESOLUTION FINDING THAT THE PUBLIC
INTEREST AND NECESSITY REQUIRES THE ACQUISITION
OF A PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT OVER THE
PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS "TERRACE LANE", SAN
RAFAEL, MARIN COUNTY (As Amended to Include a
Second Recital to Read, "WHEREAS, the
Environmental Impact Report for the Oakwood
Subdivision Identified the Provision of
Pedestrian Easements Across Private Roadways as
Mitigation for the Potential Loss of Open Space
as a Result of the Subdivision; Nevertheless,
Such a Pedestrian Easement Was Not Provided
Across Terrace Lane on the Final Subdivision
Map ") .
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Mayor Boro noted there was a third item regarding this issue, which would
authorize execution of an Easement Purchase Agreement with Richard D.
Murphy, Trustee, for a grant of easement burdening the property known as
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 14
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 15
227 Spring Grove Lane. Public Works Director Bernardi stated the
Resolution and easement Purchase Agreement were attached to the staff
report, noting the Purchase Agreement had been executed by the property
owner. Mr. Bernardi stated the new purchasers of the property had also
consented to the sale.
Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt
the Resolution authorizing execution of an Easement Purchase Agreement with
Richard D. Murphy, Trustee for Grant of Easement burdening property known
as 227 Spring Grove Lane, and authorizing execution of a Certificate of
Acceptance of Grant of Easement.
C. RESOLUTION NO. 10327 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN
EASEMENT PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH RICHARD D.
MURPHY, TRUSTEE FOR GRANT OF EASEMENT, BURDENING
THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 227 SPRING GROVE LANE
(ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 012-340-13), AND
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF CERTIFICATE OF
ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT OF EASEMENT NECESSARY TO
RECORD PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT ACROSS TERRACE
LANE.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
12. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF HISTORIC LANDMARK STATUS FOR EXISTING
CHANGEABLE COPY MARQUEE SIGN LOCATED AT THE FORMER "BERMUDA PALMS" MOTEL,
737 FRANCISCO BOULEVARD EAST, APN 18-011-64 (CD) - File 13-14-2 x 125 x
10-6 x 10-11
Mayor Boro announced this item had been carried over from the City Council
meeting of September 21, 1998, at which time the public hearing was opened.
Associate Planner Bill Tuikka reported that on September 21, 1998, Council
considered the adoption of Historic Landmark Status for the Litchfield roof
sign and the changeable copy marquee, located in front of the former
Bermuda Palms Motel. He noted at that meeting the Council voted to adopt
Historic Landmark Status for the rooftop sign, but did not reach consensus
on the marquee. Mr. Tuikka recalled several Councilmembers stated they
would be willing to consider Historic Landmark Status for the marquee, if
the marquee was devoted to messages from community oriented organizations
100% of the time that it was displaying messages. Mr. Tuikka reported the
item was continued, in order to give the applicant time to discuss this
with the hotel operator and the other Trustees. Since that time, the
property owner has agreed to post community messages 75% of the time.
However, the City Attorney's office provided staff with possible First
Amendment issues, which would result from conditioning Landmark Status
based upon limiting messages on the marquee to only non-profit agencies.
Mr. Tuikka reported the City Attorney indicated Council could consider
Landmark Status for the marquee solely upon criteria set forth in the
Municipal Code, relating to the historic viability of the structure, and
that no conditions relating to content or the type of messages should be
placed on the marquee, or considered as part of that determination.
Additionally, the City Attorney recommended the Planning Commission remove
the condition requiring messages from non-profit agencies from the Sign
Program, if the marquee does receive Landmark Designation. Mr. Tuikka
stated staff also recommended that in conformance with Condition #2 of the
Planning Commission's Sign Program, the Sign Program be brought back to the
Planning Commission for review if the marquee was not designated as a
Historic Landmark. Mr. Tuikka noted the criteria for Landmark designation
was outlined on Pages 2 and 3 of the staff report.
Councilmember Cohen stated his only question was why this had not come up
earlier. He felt the City Attorney made a good argument, and noted that
when this issue was brought before the Cultural Affairs Commission or the
Planning Commission, they should have known this. He stated that in the
future, when these types of recommendations are being made, the issues
needed to be looked at before coming to Council, noting the City had now
added further delay for the applicant, which he felt was unfortunate. City
Attorney Gary Ragghianti stated he had not attended the Planning Commission
meeting, and when this Condition was brought to his attention, he
immediately expressed grave reservations about it. He noted that had this
been brought to his attention at the time the Condition was proposed, he
would have had the same reaction. Mr. Ragghianti apologized for any
inconvenience to the applicant.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 15
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 16
Mayor Boro invited applicant Perry Litchfield to comment on the issue of
the criteria for the changeable copy sign.
Ronald Silveira, Attorney for the Litchfield family, stated he had read and
considered the staff report, and now wished to purvey the original
sentiments and position of the Litchfield family, which were made
consistently throughout this process. Mr. Silveira stated they felt very
strongly that the marquee had the same standing and historic dignity as the
roof sign, in terms of its stand-alone architectural motif, and the
historic significance of its signage design. They also believed that worth
was enhanced in reference to what they perceived to be the historic
significance of the premises, and memorialization of Mr. Whitey
Litchfield's original vision and concept of the Bermuda Palms, which was a
very significant recreational and social facility for the entire community.
For those who did not perceive that same type of assessment, he requested
they give some consideration to the sentiments of the many who did,
especially with regard to the concept that if Landmark designation was
declined, what they deemed to be a significant remnant of the past would be
forever removed.
Mr. Silveira believed the criteria of San Rafael's Ordinance had been met
by the marquee, which he described as the gateway entrance to what was a
rather glamorous premises at one time. He noted there were many in the
community who wished the marquee to be memorialized. Mr. Silveira stated
they agreed with the sentiments of the City Attorney, noting discussions
had taken place on many levels, from the Cultural Affairs Commission,
Planning Commission, and City Council, with respect to such things as the
content of messages, and he acknowledged the concept and criteria now
before Council with respect to Historic Designation. However, he wished to
communicate to the Council the collateral benefit to the community, to the
extent that the Litchfield family was committed to the continued community
service usage of this sign, if given Historic Status. He reported the
operator had committed to providing the Litchfield family with control over
the signage, and the purveying of community oriented messages. He stated
the Litchfield family was amenable, and would provide a written waiver of
their rights and entitlements, with respect to free speech on First
Amendment and Constitutional grounds, so as to facilitate the determination
of the Council for the preservation of this sign.
Mr. Silveira stated he did not know if perhaps Council might be distracted
with what could be deemed precedential problems, with respect to this
designation occurring outside the merits of the City's Ordinance. He noted
he kept coming back to the notion that Council should be committed to the
criteria, and he believed the criteria was met with this marquee, and that
there was collateral benefit by virtue of the unilateral and unconditional
commitment of the Litchfield family to provide community service messages
on this marquee, which was a unilateral "perk" to this community. He
stated the only reservation the Litchfield family would ask of Council was
to afford them some latitude with respect to future site-specific messages
on the marquee, if it was deemed to be historically worthy of such
designation.
Mr. Silveira noted that in searching his memory for possible precedence in
this community, he was mindful of the transfer of the old Tamalpais Theatre
in San Anselmo, from the Bloominfeld family to Mr. Mac Donald, in
approximately 1986 or 1988. He felt it was ironic, in that context, that
the Town of San Anselmo was very mindful of the historic motif of the
marquee, which is very similar to the motif of the marquee at the Bermuda
Palms Motel. He pointed out it was the Town of San Anselmo which fostered
the notion to preserve the marquee on the old theater building, noting that
while it was no longer used as a theater, the theater marquee was
preserved, purveying the goodwill and community service messages of the
community to the Central Marin community. Therefore, Mr. Silveira believed
there was collateral benefit to the historic designation now before
Council. He recognized the Councilmembers were the decision -makers, and
they were the ones who applied the criteria to the signage. He stated that
if the sign did not strike their aesthetics, if it did not strike their
architectural notions, he could only reiterate his request that Council
please consider the aspects "beyond the horizon", for those in the
community who believed this marquee had equal dignity and equal standing
with the roof sign. Mr. Silveira stated he felt it was a unitary concept,
and he, for one, would want as much of the old Bermuda Palms preserved as
possible.
Perry Litchfield, applicant, thanked the Councilmembers for their action at
the last meeting, in granting Historical Status to the roof sign. However,
he stated he felt some anger after having read the current staff report,
which he described as being basically "black and white" from the report he
had read in September. Mr. Litchfield clarified what they were discussing
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 16
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 17
was a sign that had been erected by his father in 1949, at the same time
the Litchfield roof sign was put up, noting its primary purpose at the time
had been to promote events at that facility. Mr. Litchfield suggested
those who have grown up in this community might share his anger when they
read such things in the staff report as, "The marquee is a poor, not
significant example of exterior advertising that was popular in the 140s
and 150s, when signmakers were using flashing lights and changeable copy".
Mr. Litchfield stated the sign, to some, might not be beautiful, although
it looked better to him than an "Office Max" sign, or a "Toys 'R Us" sign,
pointing out it shows uniqueness at the entrance to the City, just as the
Litchfield sign does.
Mr. Litchfield stated they were now considering making a decision about the
removal of a sign that people who have lived in this community for quite
some time have looked at for nearly 50 years. He noted that since being
used to advertise activities for the club, which was now shut down, it has
been used almost primarily for charitable or community events. He stated
he had a commitment from the operator to continue to do that, and he had
tried to give the City as much as he could in the way of a percentage to
allow that to happen, while still maintaining the idea that once again,
just like the Rafael Theatre, the club would be open, and something would
be happening there. Mr. Litchfield acknowledged the club was closed, just
as the Rafael Theatre has been closed for nearly 10 years; however, he
noted the sign was going to stay on the Rafael Theatre, pointing out that
as we now see that reader board, there are usually messages on it. Mr.
Litchfield stated there could continue to be messages conveyed to the
community as they come into San Rafael, about events and charitable
activities, noting they were open to whatever parameters the City wanted to
place to ensure this would occur. He stated to do away with the marquee
was essentially stating that when you come into San Rafael, you will see
Ford, Toyota, Infiniti, and Volvo, and he asked if that was really the
community people wanted to enter, if we really wanted to be that type of
city, or if we wanted to have some kind of uniqueness? Mr. Litchfield
noted the reader board was going to be restored to its original state as
soon as the City allowed them that status, and from that point forward,
they could convey messages for events such as the Classic Car Show, the
Cancer Society, and other organizations that have traditionally advertised
over the years on that sign. He believed that to take it away would be
taking something people were accustomed to seeing when they come into San
Rafael, and he did not believe that was what anyone wanted to do, at least,
he hoped it was not.
Mr. Litchfield urged Council to take into account the fact they were
willing to waive any First Amendment rights there may be concerning free
speech, noting he and City Attorney Ragghianti had already discussed that
issue. He stated they would provide the City with whatever condition it
needed in order to ensure the sign would be used in the way the City wanted
to use it. He stated they wanted that sign, noting his father had always
wanted the sign, and it was a message from the past. He pointed out that
one day it would also convey messages about activities on the site, but for
now, they wanted the opportunity to continue to allow charitable
organizations and community activities to be announced. He asked, if it
were taken away, what would the City have along the corridor?
Mr. Silveira stated he had not wanted to purvey to the Council that he was
conceding an architectural downfall to the marquee, comparative to the
Litchfield sign. He recalled that in 1985, Mr. Litchfield was engaged in
litigation with the City of San Rafael concerning the Sign Ordinance, and
the protection of these signs. Mr. Silveira stated he had secured and
solicited expert forensic opinion with respect to the architectural merit
of the on-site signage, and was memorialized by correspondence from Michael
S. Bell, Assistant Director of Cultural Affairs for the San Francisco Art
Commission, dated July 15, 1985. Mr. Silveira cited Mr. Bell's letter to
the San Rafael Cultural Affairs Commission, which had been incident to a
submission made by Mr. Litchfield at that time, in furtherance of the
protection of the signs, and quoted, "The Litchfield signs (Mr. Silveira
pointed out the plural use of the word 'signs') are of an age during which
most of our Nation's truly fine quality neon was being made. Today, while
through new techniques they are enjoying a revival of sorts, the
craftsmanship is horrendous in comparison. These monumental neons, when
put beside most of the cluttered signage of our age, stand out as both
effective, and as attractive visual statements on the aesthetic side, as
well". Mr. Silveira stated this was an opinion from a consultant in the
field, which quite obviously varied significantly from the staff report,
noting that when we delve into the realms of subjectivity, there can be
very many views. He felt this
correspondence was in corroboration of the view of many people, including
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 17
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 18
himself, who felt there was as much stand-alone architectural design worth
to the marquee as there was to the roof sign.
Councilmember Cohen asked what had happened in 1985 regarding the
submission to the Cultural Affairs Commission and City Council, at which
time Historical Landmark designation was requested? He stated he assumed,
since Council was only now hearing about this issue, that it had not been
granted. Mr. Tuikka reported an application had been submitted to the
City, but was never acted upon. Mr. Litchfield explained the submission
was made to the Cultural Affairs Commission during the time a disposition
of litigation was pending. Notwithstanding the disposition of the
litigation, the submission was made to the Cultural Affairs Commission;
however, in view of the disposition of the litigation, they had not felt
the need to further proceed with that application.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed.
Councilmember Miller stated when he became a Councilmember, first being
appointed to serve an unexpired term, and later elected to Council, he made
up his mind that if he ever made a mistake, he was going to admit it. Mr.
Miller stated at this time he wanted to admit to having made a mistake,
regardless of how well thought out it had been, regarding the commitment of
100% of the use of the sign for non-profit and community messages. Mr.
Miller noted, as City Attorney Ragghianti had properly pointed out, this
was really a matter concerning the First Amendment, and quite properly, the
message content of the sign should not be a condition of Landmark Status.
Therefore, Mr. Miller stated that because of that mistake, he felt he had
to do a public "flip flop", explaining that if he looked at this issue only
in terms of the Historical Landmark Status, as defined by the City's
Ordinance, and on what had been expressed this evening, he would have to
agree with the staff report, and would not vote for it.
Councilmember Heller stated the comments she has heard from the community,
which had swayed her earlier vote concerning the Litchfield sign, were that
the Litchfield sign, not the marquee, was what the community looked at, and
looked for. Ms. Heller stated, in her mind, the marquee would fail the
criteria the moment the Days Inn sign was installed above it, noting it
would then become a modern sign, as well as give that business an edge over
everyone else, because the City would not allow others to have marquee
signs that could be changed every day. Therefore, she did not see this as
an historical sign, especially with a modern advertising logo on it.
Councilmember Phillips agreed with the comments of his fellow
Councilmembers, and with the recommendation of the staff report. He
acknowledged he has often come over the hill and enjoyed what he saw on the
marquee sign; however, in and of itself, he did not believe the sign was
particularly attractive, and looking at it from an historical standpoint
was quite a stretch, pointing out the staff report made it
fairly clear the sign was not historically significant. Mr. Phillips
believed it might be a good advertising media, but noted that was not the
issue before Council. Therefore, he concurred with the staff report.
Councilmember Cohen reported he had spent time during the months this issue
had been before Council, looking at and studying the marquee, absent any
issues about content. He did not believe the issue before Council involved
collateral benefits, or an agreement about how the sign might be used.
Therefore, he agreed with staff that Council had to consider the language
in the Municipal Code concerning how a decision on Landmark Status is
reached. Within that context, he was not swayed that the marquee,
particularly as modified, was historically significant.
Mayor Boro stated he agreed with Councilmember Cohen's comment. He noted
Council had granted Historical Status to the Litchfield sign, which he felt
was truly a tribute to the Litchfield family, and to Mr. Litchfield's
father. He believed the Litchfield sign was the one thing people looked
forward to seeing, especially when it is lit up, noting it truly marks the
entrance to the City. Mayor Boro felt the Litchfield sign had a lot of
historical value, but stated he could not come to the same conclusion
regarding the marquee.
Mayor Boro asked Community Development Director Brown to explain what would
happen next, if Council chose not to grant Historical Status?
Community Development Director Brown explained the Conditions of Approval
of the Sign Program indicated if one of the signs was denied Historical
Status, then the applicant would have to return to modify the Sign Program,
noting this would go through the Design Review Board, and then to the
Planning Commission for revision.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 18
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 19
Mr. Litchfield noted this had been an eight or nine month process, and the
Days Inn people had been waiting to put their signs up. He stated that to
now tell them they had to start all over again before they could put their
signs up seemed to be a little ominous. He asked if there was some way
this process could be expedited, so they could at least get their signs in
place?
Community Development Director Brown stated the City would certainly "fast
track" this item through the Design Review Board and Planning Commission.
He noted at the last Planning Commission meeting, where this item was first
presented, Mr. Litchfield had asked the Commissioners if they would be
comfortable by-passing the Design Review Board, and coming directly to the
Planning Commission with a modified Sign Program; however, the
Commissioners indicated they would not be comfortable with that, stating
they wanted the design input from the DRB members. Mr. Litchfield stated
he had thought the Planning Commission indicated they would be comfortable
with this item going only to the Design Review Board, and ending the
process at that point. However, if that was not the case, he stated they
were just looking for a process that would not take a year or more to put a
sign up. Mayor Boro stated it should not take that long; however, he
stated that in the spirit of what Council was about to agree to, he hoped
the marquee would be down before the new sign goes up. If it is not, he
stated he would then appeal it to the Council, asking that the marquee be
dealt with before the new sign goes up. Mr. Litchfield assured Council
that was not his intent. Mayor Boro stated he wanted them to be able to
install the new sign as quickly as possible, but at the same time, he
believed that as the new sign goes up, the marquee should be coming down,
and he asked Mr. Litchfield to work with the City on this. Mr. Litchfield
stated they would, noting the only question was how they could expedite the
process to determine what the sign program actually would be. Mayor Boro
asked Community Development Director Brown to assist in moving this item
through the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission, noting there
should be no need to come back before Council unless there is a problem.
Councilmember Cohen felt the City probably could have cut a good deal of
this discussion short if, at the time the Cultural Affairs Commission first
came up with the linkage to content, the City had stated that this would
not be viable, noting the issue might not have even gotten this far. He
believed the City had strong obligations to expedite this issue, since it
was allowed to go on longer than it might otherwise have.
Councilmember Cohen directed staff to expedite the matter to the greatest
extent possible, perhaps even taking the unusual step of asking the Design
Review Board and Planning Commission to factor that in with how they agree
to approach the issue, and agreeing to also expedite their considerations,
working with the applicant to get this done quickly. Mr. Brown stated he
would relay Council's direction.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the
Resolution denying Historic Landmark Status for the changeable copy marquee
at 737 Francisco Boulevard East.
RESOLUTION NO. 10328 - RESOLUTION DENYING HISTORIC LANDMARK STATUS FOR
THE CHANGEABLE COPY MARQUEE SIGN AT 737 FRANCISCO
BOULEVARD EAST, APN 14-204-11
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
OLD BUSINESS:
13. UPDATE RE: ST. VINCENT'S/SILVEIRA WORK PROGRAM (CD) - File 9-2-45 x 4-10-
ina x in -9
Community Development Director Bob Brown reported there have been three
meetings of the St. Vincent's/Silveira Task Force, which he believed have
gone quite well. He noted there has been a great deal of public
involvement, and the Task Force was working very effectively together.
Regarding the work program, Mr. Brown pointed out there were two versions,
the "Plannerized" version, which is the very linear version, and a more
organic version the facilitator is actually following, which Mr. Brown
noted would require some explanation, as it involves the use of words and
concepts with which they have not previously been familiar.
Mr. Brown reported they have been involved in what the facilitator calls
"telling the story", noting this is a fairly lengthy process, as they have
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 19
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 20
been doing such things as reviewing with the Committee all the previous
environmental studies, having had an update prepared of the habitat and
wetlands study, reviewing the applicable City and County policies, and
Council's direction through the M.O.U. (Memorandum of Understanding). Mr.
Brown stated at this time the Task Force was also moving into the next
phase of the process, which is identifying the interests.
Mr. Brown noted that in between meetings there were things going on that
have been described as "shoe leather" visits and "group memory", explaining
that for those Task Force members who cannot attend the meetings, the
Committee is sending delegates to them, to help keep them up to speed. In
addition, in between each meeting they are preparing, rather than minutes,
what they call the "group memory" and communiques, so there is a constant
updating of the interim decisions of the group.
Mr. Brown reported there would also be what is called "looping out" to
constituency groups, explaining the idea was to try to avoid surprises. He
stated they have members on the Task Force who are supposed to be
representing constituency groups, but they wanted to make certain, through
each step of the process, that those representatives, and other Task Force
members, are going out to the constituency groups, touching base with them,
and bringing back their reactions, so when they get to the end of the
process, they hope there will not be any surprises with the community
groups.
Mr. Brown explained that in the next phase they were entering, which was
identifying the interests, there was an incredible desire for the Task
Force members to lay out their issues, noting that would be happening at
the next couple of meetings. Mr. Brown believed many of those interests
would eventually be worked into criteria, by which they would judge the
success of the solutions they come up with. He stated, basically, the
intent was that in order to get a true consensus solution, they had to
respond to everyone's interest, noting the extent to which they could do
that would be the measure of their success, or as the facilitator calls it,
their "elegant solution". Mr. Brown reported the facilitator has indicated
these two phases of the process generally take approximately 80% to 90% of
the time, leaving the creativity portion of this to the end of the process,
where they will essentially be brainstorming various alternative options,
and evaluating those against the Council's and Board of Supervisors'
direction, and whatever criteria is derived from the Committee's issues and
interests. He stated that ultimately, there would be a commitment to the
Committee's results, not wanting to see a minority report, as before, but a
true consensus proposal.
Mr. Brown reported the next meeting would be in November, which would be
another all day session, primarily involved in allowing the property
owners, environmentalists, and other advocacy groups to actually present
what they see as their interests.
Mayor Boro noted the next Task Force meeting would be held on Saturday,
November 14th, from 8:30 AM until 6:00 PM. He invited anyone who might be
interested to attend.
Council accepted report, without motion.
MONTHLY REPORTS:
14. DEPARTMENT REPORT - DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES (MS) - File 237 x 9-
3-20
Assistant City Manager Ken Nordhoff reported that in July, the
Administrative Services Department had been restructured into the
Management Services Department, with three main Divisions: Financial
Services, Information Services, and Human Resources and Risk Management.
He pointed out the Management Services Department was not the Finance
Department, Administrative Services, Data Processing, nor the Personnel
Department.
Mr. Nordhoff stated their Departmental Mission had been developed over the
past couple of years, which was to provide high quality, responsive
communications and solutions to the line departments, and to provide
timely, accurate, and responsive information to the public, where
appropriate. He reported they now had a staffing level of 20.69 people,
noting the department was involved in many special projects in the City
Manager's office, along with their traditional divisional responsibilities.
Mr. Nordhoff reported the Management Services Department had a budget this
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 20
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 21
year of approximately $4.2 million.
Referring to this year's goals for the Financial Services Division, Mr.
Nordhoff reported they would be looking to the newly formed Financial and
Strategic Advisory Board in bringing back solutions laid out in the Five-
year Financial Forecast. He explained there was a sub -committee working on
this, and he would be coming back to Council with items of recommendation.
He stated they were also in the process of updating the Business Cost
Study, noting this was a very critical document with respect to
establishing fees, and some of the comments heard earlier reflected they
could do more in this area. Mr. Nordhoff reported they would also be
revising the Investment Policy, implementing a two-year budget cycle,
putting additional emphasis on measurement of the objectives the Department
has been presenting to Council during the past few years, and also in
enhancing the document.
Mr. Nordhoff reported the City had been under the CMSI/BRC application for
many years, noting Assistant Financial Services Director Dennis Shives and
his staff would be pinpointing some of the major requirements, with respect
to replacing the financial applications. He stated the Department would
also be implementing a new Business License system next Spring, and
preparing the Annual Financial Report, pointing out the Department received
award recognition for that last year, and hopefully that would continue.
Reporting on the Information Services Division, Mr. Nordhoff stated there
was an Information Technology Group, which includes most of the people at
City Hall; in addition, they have almost completed the Wide Area Network,
having installed a number of satellite locations. He noted we now have
communications to the Recreation Centers and some of the Child Care
Centers, and they are working on finishing up the Fire Station sites. He
offered to demonstrate to the Councilmembers how this works, pointing out
we also have E -Mail capability, and noting any of the Councilmembers who
were interested in that could become established if they chose to do so.
Mr. Nordhoff stated they were working on a number of application solutions,
and hoped to have a bid out for Recreation systems, which would replace the
BRC systems. He noted this has been a high priority for Community
Services, as they are trying to enhance what they do and who they reach,
and they realized technology was the key to that. Mr. Nordhoff reported
bids would go out this week, and they hoped to have a solution before
Council within the next 60 days.
Mr. Nordhoff stated they were working with the Public Works Department and
the County of Marin on a GIS grant the County received, noting they were
starting the basic elements of a fully integrated Graphic Information
System, which he believed would be immensely valuable to the City, as well
as the rest of the County in the coming years. He pointed out Community
Development Director Bob Brown has been working on weekends developing an
RFP for permit tracking and parcel management, and they would also be
monitoring business licenses and fire permitting, because much of what goes
on is very integrated, in terms of that data base. He reported this would
be "on the street" very shortly, noting Mr. Brown would like to have an
automated program upstairs by the end of this year.
Mr. Nordhoff stated there has been a lot of talk about Year 2000
compliance, and reported there was a subcommittee actively working on this
issue. He noted this was not limited to just computer systems, but a host
of things such as traffic signals, fire breathing apparatus, and many
things we do not expect as having a lot of technology built into them.
Referring to the WEB page, Mr. Nordhoff reported they were working through
the Information Services Committee to better coordinate this, deciding what
direction to take in the future, and how it will be administered
internally. He noted staff was particularly concerned that we provide data
which is alive and fresh, pointing out there are good sites and not so good
sites, and the City wants to achieve excellence. Mr. Nordhoff reported
there were a number of small user applications, such as a product called
Time Slip, where staff essentially does time and labor billing for many
major development projects in the Community Development Department. He
explained this had come out of the Cost Study last year, and was just being
put into place, noting it would allow the City to provide customers with
itemized billings of what they have paid the City, and what staff has spent
its time doing.
Mr. Nordhoff stated the Division was looking at the next phase of its
Strategic Plan, which lays out a lot of major BRC replacement solutions, as
has been discussed in the past. He noted this involved significant effort
from staff, as well as a significant financial contribution; therefore, the
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 21
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 22
Division would be looking for grants and other things to help augment the
cost of those solutions.
Mr. Nordhoff reported the print shop was also under the Information
Services Division. He stated they had recently completed a study on
copiers, and were planning to enhance the level of that service, and also
develop a charge -back system to the Departments, so they can choose the
kind of reproductions they want, and what they are willing to pay for
those. In addition, the print shop staff is being trained on a number of
design products, trying to enhance the level and sophistication of many of
the brochures and publications that are put together.
Reporting on Human Resources and Risk Management, Mr. Nordhoff stated there
were seven labor contracts coming up over the course of this next year,
which will be a major endeavor, noting Management had begun negotiations
with the first of these contracts. Mr. Nordhoff stated staff was also
working on implementing the Organizational Development monies Council
approved for this budget year, reporting in-house training, management
leadership, and customer service training were currently underway. In
addition, he reported the City was experiencing over fifty recruitments
every year, which was a very time consuming process.
Mr. Nordhoff reported staff would be reviewing Section 1251s, which are
pre-tax plans employees can take advantage of with respect to Child Care
and specific health contributions. They have also just finished reviewing
deferred compensation providers, noting staff would be back before Council
with a revised plan that will require approval, under new regulations the
first of the year.
Reporting on Risk Management, Mr. Nordhoff stated staff would be putting
out an RFP for a Claims Administrator, and he hoped to have a
recommendation for Council within the next month or so. He reported staff
was also working on a Workers Compensation Procedures Manual, and the
City's Wellness Fair was coming up next week. Mr. Nordhoff also stated a
series of volunteer efforts were underway, noting they hoped to have City
Hall at the Mall up and running by the first of the year, which was a major
undertaking; they are putting together a Newcomers Kit to welcome newcomers
to the community; and planning special events, such as Spring Clean-up Day
and Bulb Planting.
Mr. Nordhoff stated Management Services was an eclectic group, as they have
so many different things they are involved with; however, he stated he had
a nice combination of new staff and veterans, whom he believed had a lot of
energy, and were committed to a high level of service.
Councilmember Cohen referred to the Y2K issue, stating he appreciated the
fact that staff was on top of this, in terms of internal issues. He
acknowledged this was more than just a Management Services issue; however,
he felt that since Mr. Nordhoff's department was likely the most
knowledgeable about it, he would be looking at them to take the lead. Mr.
Cohen believed the next step would be to look at external exposures,
stating once we decide our "house is in order", our Code is in order, and
all our imbedded chips are okay, then we needed to take seriously the
possibility that perhaps not everyone was going to achieve that level of
addressing the problem prior to the Millennium, and we needed to look at
the impacts of that. Mr. Cohen stated it was hard to know how seriously to
take some of the "Millennial predictions" of potential disaster; on the
other hand, he did not want to be sitting here in the dark on January 1,
2000, finding they were right, and that we had a public safety crisis on
our hands. Mr. Cohen felt we should look at both major and minor issues;
obviously such major allegations as P.G.& E. not being able to deliver
power, and minor issues such as how the City's vendors were doing,
particularly those vendors the City relies on for a variety of inputs to
our business processes, who may have some exposure regarding this issue.
Mr. Cohen asked what the City was doing to assure ourselves that our
vendors were doing all they can to address this issue? He agreed the City
needed to get its own solutions in order first, but he also believed these
were issues the City needed to look at. Mr. Nordhoff stated those issues
had already been discussed briefly, although at this point, staff was
focusing internally. He acknowledged staff needed to get a more
comprehensive view, noting that although they were aware of the major
entities, such as the utilities, telephone company, and the banking
systems, there were many vendors the City interacted with, and staff was
not sure what their issues might be in providing services to the City if
their delivery systems crash. Mr. Nordhoff stated staff would intensify
its efforts and look externally.
City Manager Rod Gould reported the City was currently planning the next
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 22
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 23
Citywide disaster drill, and the scenario would be the Y2K problem, with an
assumption that the major utilities crash, and we are forced to deliver
City services and cope with a variety of problems under that scenario. In
addition, Mr. Gould reported the Marin County Grand Jury has been looking
into this issue, and has asked all governmental agencies in the County to
submit reports on what each is doing to deal with the Y2K problem, noting
the City was complying with their request for information and follow-up.
However, as far as vendors are concerned, Mr. Gould acknowledged that was a
new area for staff to consider. Councilmember Cohen stated this issue had
been brought home to him this afternoon at work, when their Controller
asked him to respond to a questionnaire regarding Y2K, which had been sent
by their insurance provider. Mr. Cohen stated his initial reaction was
that he could wait a little while to address the problems, noting that
while the company had a design application they needed to review, and
programs they had designed that might need to be rewritten a little to make
certain they were in compliance, their issues were fairly standard.
However, the Controller pointed out it would also apply to such things as
their Trust Funds, which run on a mainframe, and are a major source of
their revenue stream. Therefore, Mr. Cohen acknowledged the problem would
affect not only the applications internal to his business, pointing out if
someone who is a major source of their revenue stream has a problem in
January, their revenue could stop, so the issue affects not only what they
are putting out, but also inputs to them. He felt that once the City had
its own systems in order, we had to look at the potential threats involving
outside sources.
Mayor Boro thanked Mr. Nordhoff for all the work he has done, stating he
has made great strides, which were appreciated by the entire Council.
Mayor Boro noted that while the City had hired a lot of people, we still
seemed to have a high turnover. He asked that Daryl Chandler, Assistant
Director of Management Services/Human Resources & Risk Management Division,
review the turnover issue, and the reason for people leaving the City.
Mayor Boro also noted there has been some discussion concerning the labor
negotiations coming up next year, pointing out there were two issues that
would have to be decided. First, they would have to decide whether the
City was going to use an outside negotiator, and stated he would like to
discuss the pros and cons of that question. Second, he believed what had
really helped in achieving results the last time the City engaged in
negotiations was the spirit of cooperation that was started right from the
beginning, with a collective meeting of all the key players, from staff as
well as the union, and it was very productive. He asked Mr. Nordhoff and
Mr. Gould to consider that, and perhaps plan on a work session with Council
in February to discuss the issue.
Referring to labor negotiations, Councilmember Heller asked if all seven
employee groups would be renegotiated next year? Mr. Nordhoff stated six
of them would be; Police, Fire, two MAPE, Police Mid -Management, and Fire
Mid -Management.
Councilmember Phillips stated he was continually amazed by the
professionalism shown by Mr. Nordhoff's department, under his leadership,
noting it was truly fantastic. He stated the City was very fortunate to
have had Mr. Nordhoff work through the many issues that he has with such
success, and he had complete confidence in Mr. Nordhoff's ability to carry
some of these major tasks to completion. He stated he was still somewhat
surprised with the undertaking of the replacement of BRC, noting that would
be a big project.
Regarding the labor issue, Mr. Phillips recalled they had discussed this
several years ago, including some of the commitments the City had made, as
well as the outcome it was trying to achieve. He stated he would like to
see that summarized, and perhaps even promoted to some degree, noting the
City did what it stated it was going to do, and it had not been a lot of
promises not intended to be kept. Mr. Nordhoff stated that information was
going to be summarized for all the bargaining groups, and would be used as
a reminder of all the City has accomplished during the last three years,
pointing out there had been significant strides.
15. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT - File 9-3-11
City Manager Rod Gould reported that when he was praising the Police
Department for some very good detective/patrol work, in both the Canal
shooting and the Office Depot burglary, he neglected to mention that the
Office of Transportation and Safety Grant, for which Council adopted a
Resolution, was granted last week. He explained this meant the Police
Department would be able to go from two to four Motorcycle Officers
enforcing the traffic laws, noting Motorcycle Officer Charles "Kato"
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 23
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 24
Samuels was now back on the motorcycle full-time. In addition, Captain
Mike Cronin is working with the Patrol staff, to begin writing tickets
again; therefore, Mr. Gould expected more than a doubling of traffic
enforcement, beginning in January, which he believed would be felt in the
neighborhoods.
Mr. Gould noted that through the offices of City Attorney Gary Ragghianti,
the City had been attempting to get a meeting with Judge Lynch, to discuss
what has or has not occurred since the Council's July 9th special meeting
regarding the St. Vincent de Paul Dining Hall relocation. He reported such
a meeting has been scheduled for this Saturday, noting he and Mayor Boro
would be representing the City, and there would also be representatives
from St. Vincent's. Mr. Gould stated he would report to Council the
outcome of that meeting.
Mr. Gould recalled that in this year's Budget Hearings, Council gave staff
clear direction to find some alternative to either the City paying the full
cost of landscaping and maintaining the medians, or putting that cost
strictly on the property owners in the area. Mr. Gould reported tomorrow
he, Councilmember Heller, and Public Works Director Bernardi were meeting
to discuss alternatives, noting they hoped to return to Council in November
with updates about things that are now occurring in some of the
neighborhoods, which he believed spoke to the spirit of the Council's
direction, and also to present alternatives for Council to begin thinking
about, because this item needed to be addressed.
COUNCIL ER REPORTS:
16. CITY COMMENDATION IN APPREHENSION OF "FIREPLUG BANDIT" - File 102 x 9-3-30
Councilmember Cohen reported the recent apprehension of the "Fireplug
Bandit", who had robbed several banks in the Bay Area, including one in San
Rafael, was due in part to a citizen who followed him out of the bank after
the robbery in San Rafael, and provided a description and partial license
plate number of the robber's car. Councilmember Cohen asked if the witness
was a resident of San Rafael? Mr. Gould stated he believed that was
correct. Mr. Cohen stated if the witness was a resident of San Rafael, he
felt a City commendation and public recognition was in order. He asked
City Manager Gould to follow-up on this.
There being no further business to come before the City Council, the meeting was
adjourned at 10:50 PM.
JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1998
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 24