Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1999-04-19SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/99 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, APRIL 19, 1999 AT 8:00 PM Regular Meeting: San Rafael City Council Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor Barbara Heller, Councilmember Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember Absent: Paul M. Cohen, Vice -Mayor Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 PM None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: PM None CONSENT CALENDAR: 8:00 Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to approve the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Approval of Minutes of Special and Regular Minutes approved as submitted. 2. 4. Meetings of Monday, April 5, 1999 (CC) Resolution of the City Council of San Rafael Authorizing an Amendment of the Agreement Approving Rate Increases to Public Agency Fee Schedule for Specialized Legal Services of the Whitmore, Johnson & Bolanos Law Firm (CA) - File 4-3-145 x 9-3-16 Summary of Legislation Affecting San Rafael "41- n_1 RESOLUTION NO. 10392 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAN RAFAEL AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT APPROVING RATE INCREASES TO PUBLIC AGENCY FEE SCHEDULE FOR SPECIALIZED LEGAL SERVICES OF THE WHITMORE, JOHNSON & BOLANOS LAW FIRM (CM) Approved staff recommendations: SB 1482 (Alquist), Animal Control, Animal Shelters, Limited Extension: SUPPORT; AB 304 (Wildman), Local fiscal relief; property tax revenue allocation: SUPPORT; AB 1194 (Leonard), Local fiscal relief: property tax revenue allocation: SUPPORT; AB 1195 (Longville), Local fiscal relief: property tax revenue allocation: SUPPORT; AB 1141 (Longville), Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights: OPPOSE; AB 1216 (Floyd), Smoking in Bars and Gaming Clubs: OPPOSE; AB 1159 (Granlund), Smoking in Bars and Gaming Clubs: OPPOSE; SB 494 (Figueroa), San Francisco Bay Trails Network: SUPPORT; SB 402 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/99 Page 1 5. N 8 0 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/99 Page 2 City Work Plan Review - File 237 Resolution of Appreciation to Gruppo Lonatese for Complete Payment of Expenses for the Construction of the Lonatese Gardens (CM) - File 102 x 12-5 x 9-3-66 x 8-14 (Burton), Employer - Employee Relations: Law Enforcement Officers and Firefighters: OPPOSE; SCR 8 (Burton), Relative to the State Transportation System: Support; SCA 3 (Burton), Local Government . Special Taxes: Transportation: SUPPORT; SB 315 (Burton) , Transportation Infrastructure Bonds: SUPPORT. Accepted report. RESOLUTION NO. 10393 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO GRUPPO LONATESE FOR THE CREATION OF THE LONATESE GARDENS AND REPAYMENT OF A LOAN OF $20,000. Resolution Authorizing Execution of an Agreement RESOLUTION NO. 10394 - With Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Northern RESOLUTION APPROVING THE California for Beverage Vending Machines for AGREEMENT FOR BEVERAGE VENDING Community Centers and Albert Park Athletic MACHINES WITH COCA-COLA Facilities (CS) - File 4-3-357 x 9-3-65 x 9-3-66 BOTTLING COMPANY OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA. Resolution of Appreciation Thanking Mr. Buck Kamphausen, Owner of Mt. Tamalpais Cemetery, for His Generous Donation of a Burial Plot, Headstone, and Casket (Totaling $15,000) for Officer Charlie (Kato) Samuel (PD) - File 102 x 9-3-30 RESOLUTION NO. 10395 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO MR. BUCK KAMPHAUSEN, OWNER OF MT. TAMALPAIS CEMETERY, FOR HIS GENEROUS DONATION OF A BURIAL PLOT, HEADSTONE, AND CASKET (TOTALING $15,000) FOR OFFICER CHARLIE (KATO) SAMUEL. 10. Resolution Adopting Policy for Disadvantaged RESOLUTION NO. 10396 Business Enterprise (DBE) for Projects Which RESOLUTION REGARDING Involve Federal Funding (PW) DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS - File 232 ENTERPRISE (DBE) PROGRAM AND POLICY FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED PROJECTS. 11. Resolution Authorizing the Expenditure of Funds RESOLUTION NO. 10397 for Goods and Services Needed for the Millennium RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE Party 2000, as Per Millennium Budget (RA) EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS AND - File 8-5 x 104 x (SRRA) R-414 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENTS FOR THE MILLENNIUM PARTY 2000. The following items were removed from the agenda for further discussion: 3. RESOLUTION APPROVING A CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE GRANT OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT AT 31 PALM AVENUE (CA) - File 9-3-16 Mayor Boro announced this item was being removed from the agenda at the request of staff. 7. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE BORROWING OF FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000; THE ENTERING INTO AN AMENDED AND RESTATED JOINT EXERCISE OF SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/99 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/99 Page 3 POWERS AGREEMENT; THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF A 1999-2000 TAX AND REVENUE ANTICIPATED NOTE THEREFOR AND PARTICIPATION IN THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES CASH FLOW FINANCING PROGRAM (MS) Mayor Boro announced this item would be discussed later in the meeting, under "New Business". SPECIAL PRESENTATION: 13. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO MR. BUCK KAMPHAUSEN, OWNER OF MT. TAMALPAIS CEMETERY (CM) - File 102 x 9-3-30 Mayor Boro stated the City wished to recognize Mr. Kamphausen for a wonderful deed he and his company took part in, on behalf of one of the City's employees, Police Office Charlie (Kato) Samuel, who passed away, and Mr. Kamphausen and his company were very generous in providing the burial service, a burial plot, and other arrangements for the family. On behalf of the Council and the City of San Rafael, Mayor Boro presented Mr. Kamphausen with a Resolution of Appreciation, recognizing what he did, and thanking him for his kind deed on behalf of Officer Kato Samuel. Buck Kamphausen thanked the Mayor, City Council, City staff, and Chief of Police for the Resolution of Appreciation, noting it was quite unusual and a little bit of a surprise. He stated Mt. Tamalpais has been serving the community since 1879, with caring, compassionate service, and were always cognizant of families' needs. He stated they were proud to have helped this family, noting he knew they needed everyone's support and prayers. Mr. Kamphausen introduced George and Betty Nelson, the management staff who made it all possible. Police Chief Cam Sanchez stated without Mr. Kamphausen and his staff, these wonderful services would not have been possible, noting the families, and Mr. Samuel's children, were extremely grateful. Chief Sanchez stated the Fire Department had also done a wonderful job during a very difficult time. He related there had been an issue regarding the flags; however, the Department had been able to give Mr. Samuel's wife a flag, as well as one to each of the children. He reported Christopher (Mr. Samuel's son) has taken his flag to school just about every day, and Allie (Mr. Samuel's daughter) sleeps with hers every night. He stated they were all very grateful for the services provided by Mr. Kamphausen, noting Mr. Samuel's mother had asked Chief Sanchez to express her gratitude for such a generous gift. Chief Sanchez thanked Mr. Kamphausen on behalf of the San Rafael Police Department. 12. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO GRUPPO LONATESE (CM) - File 102 x 12-5 x 9-3-66 x 8-14 Mayor Boro invited the representatives from Gruppo Lonatese to come forward, introducing their President, Judy Milani, and Vice -President, Dick O'Brien. Mayor Boro explained they represented an organization which, over the past several years, began working on a parcel of land in Albert Park, transforming it into a beautiful Italian garden. He noted not only did they do the work, but after asking the City to advance them the money, they also did an unheard of thing and paid the City back. Mayor Boro pointed out they also maintain the garden, stating he had occasion to be there on two different days over the past weekend, and believed Gruppo Lonatese had really given the people of San Rafael a tremendous gift, noting it was a truly beautiful garden. He stated at every opportunity he cites what they have done as an example of the community really working for the City, and with the City. Mayor Boro presented President Judy Milani with a Resolution of Appreciation to Gruppo Lonatese, thanking them for their wonderful contribution. On behalf of Gruppo Lonatese, President Judy Milani thanked Mayor Boro, the City of San Rafael, Parks and Recreation, and the Councilmembers for giving them a place to express their appreciation to the many immigrants, and also a place to create a really nice, restful place Downtown. Vice -President Dick O'Brien stated this had truly been a community effort, noting it had not only been Gruppo Lonatese that created this, but the whole community. He reported Ghilotti Construction Company had contributed, McNear Brickyard contributed bricks, and it was a true community effort, which was what made it all worthwhile. He recalled when they became somewhat discouraged, at a time when they did not have much money for the project, if he went to a contractor, or someone else in the community asking for help, he was never once turned down. Therefore, on SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/99 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/99 Page 4 behalf of the community, Mr. O'Brien stated he would like to say "thank you". Mayor Boro announced there would be a brief recess, and cake would be served in the lobby. Mayor Boro reconvened the City Council meeting. 14. PRESENTATION OF STRATEGY FOR CONGESTION MANAGEMENT - FUTURE STEPS (CM) - File 170 x 171 x 221 x 143 Farhad Mansourian, Marin County Assistant Public Works Director and Executive Director of the Marin County Congestion Management Agency, stated he had come before Council seeking their guidance and advice on how to proceed in planning for the County's future transportation. He stated the County believed the Councilmembers, as community leaders, were in a unique position to advise the County on which transportation issues they would like the County to investigate and the process they felt the County should take in order to move forward. He stated the County hoped to turn the success of Measure A into some kind of process so that, in the future, they can come up with a successful Measure B. He stated he was here to take notes, and listen to Council's suggestions and direction, explaining that after listening to all of the Councils, he would make a report to his Executive Committee and, hopefully, they could come up with a set of plans, and move forward. Mayor Boro noted, as the City's representative to Congestion Management, the issue concerning what the next steps should be had come up at a meeting of the group that ran the campaign for Measures A and B, at which Supervisors Kinsey and Murray had also been present. Mayor Boro noted they had suggested that before anyone thinks about running a campaign, they should step back and have the policy -makers, at both the County level and the cities level, really discuss what they want to see happen. Mayor Boro believed this was the first step in that process, and his view would be that at some point, if the Board of Supervisors and the rest of the cities agree, they should reconvene the Transportation Steering Committee, which had been a broad-based coalition of interested parties, augment that with anyone else who is interested in getting involved, and study what they might want to do as far as bringing the matter back to the voters. He stated the problem had not gone away, and it would not go away; therefore, they needed to find a way to deal with it which the people in this County would support. Councilmember Heller stated she had been following the issue of transportation matters as closely as she could during the past year, and in listening to people in the community, she believed they still had to continue working on the issue of multi -modal, and get as many options as they can for everyone. She noted the train was problematic and believed there needed to be a lot of education as to why it is needed, what it is, and how a one-track works. She also felt the education needed to start with the Councilmembers, because many of the community leaders did not understand it. She wondered whether the Commission would be asking for more of a leadership role from the elected officials, noting she had not seen much last time, and no one was asked to go door to door or to really work on it. Ms. Heller stated she was not certain which form of transportation she really championed; however, she did believe we needed localized buses, and very soon. She noted as the population grows older in the community, we would need shuttles and other kinds of local transportation. Councilmember Miller stated his thoughts were along the lines of Ms. Heller's, noting he favored the most holistic approach we can have, especially with local jitney services, theater buses, and buses going in and out of San Francisco and Sonoma. He reported he hears from people all the time who comment that there are no feeder buses, so they have to bring their cars and park in the Downtown. Mr. Miller pointed out the Transportation Center was never intended to be a parking lot Downtown, it was to be a connection. He stated they needed to address the problem locally, so people will be able to get on a bus and not have to take their cars every place along the line. He felt this would be a big selling point for every city. He believed that with the last Transportation Measure, the issue focused on the train, and when he read the articles against the Measure, they were against the train. However, if the accent were on accessibility and availability of bus services on the local level, then we would have a base to reach the voters, and the voters were going to see something that would provide a benefit to them right away. Councilmember Phillips stated he agreed with those comments; however, he SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/99 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/99 Page 5 noted people often talk about the complexity of the issue, and it did not take much for a voter to vote "No" if they were not comfortable with the issue. He felt this was likely what we had run into last time, noting the Commission should try to keep the issue simple, even though it is not. He acknowledged he did not have an answer as to what the right approach would be; however, he noted people had approached him and stated the last Measure had been far too complicated, so they simply voted against the tax. As an example, he stated there were some who did not like the bike path and decided they did not need that, and he believed perhaps the Commission gave them a reason to vote against the Measure by giving them so many options, and causing them to believe the Measure favored some select group. He agreed with Councilmember Heller's recommendation of having more people involved, and going out into the communities to support the Measure. Mr. Phillips believed we were going to see more and more traffic in San Rafael, and this was an issue that was on everyone's minds, noting the issue may even gather some momentum because of recent events in San Rafael. Mayor Boro reported there was a group called SMART, the Sonoma/Marin Area Rail Transit group, comprised of four representatives elected from Marin and four from Sonoma, who were really going to flush -out the issue of the train, and come up with answers concerning such issues as its practicality, cost, and so on, so people will have something to look at. He felt one thing that had not been played up in the last election was that, unlike any other community that is looking at rail transit, we have one real asset, the right-of-way which is zoned from Corte Madera past Willits. He pointed out that in other communities that would be a big obstacle, and it could take many, many years to make that happen, but in our community, we already have it. However, he stated it would have to be determined whether people would really use it, and if there really was a need. Referring to the comments about buses, Mayor Boro explained that in the past the group had purposely stated they did not want to deal with Golden Gate Transit; however, people were now questioning that position, noting they provide a good service, and suggesting perhaps their expertise should be brought into the discussions. Mayor Boro believed the Commission should consider looking at what Golden Gate Transit is doing inter -County, as well as locally, and see if there might be a way in which they can assist. Mayor Boro stated he had studied the exit polls, and he did not believe there was any one element that people were against, noting the majority supported the multi -elements. He noted the biggest issue was the concern, "How do I know that if I vote for this today, that fifteen or twenty years from now, what you are promising me is really going to happen?" He asked, if they are going to be operating under the same constraints this time, trying to achieve 50% of the vote, which is non-binding as far as future Boards are concerned, then how are they going to assure people that what they vote for today will actually happen? He believed this was an area that needed to be worked on. Councilmember Heller believed another item, which had come up near the end and perhaps confused people, was the issue of the Novato Narrows. She felt there had been division in the community, with some saying they wanted to do one area first. Ms. Heller stated transportation was so convoluted, it was difficult to understand the issues and the funding. She felt that was something that needed to be included this time, working with Petaluma and Novato. She would also like to see them look at the Caltrans Study, noting they have stated it would cost approximately $216 million over eleven years, just to fix the small stretch of highway, and she felt that was unreasonable. She believed we needed to work with Novato and Petaluma, to bring them in, and see if they will help support anything else that happens. Mr. Mansourian provided an update of the projects happening in the Novato Narrows, and those which will be happening, hopefully soon, in San Rafael. He reported CMA was the agency the State and MTC look up to, in terms of decision making in prioritizing County transportation issues. He described the following projects CMA had basically adopted as the top Countywide projects. He referred to the Gap Closure Project, the southbound project that will connect the existing gap from Civic Center Drive to Lucky Drive. He stated this project was fully funded, at a cost estimated to be $76 million, and Caltrans promised the EIR/EIS would be out in final form sometime next month. He noted they were working very closely with the City's Public Works Department staff and Caltrans to make sure local operational issues are fully taken into account. Mr. Mansourian reported construction was scheduled to begin at the end of the year 2000, and the project has been divided into two halves; the first segment will be from Lucky Drive to I-580, and the second phase will be from I-580 to the Civic Center. He stated Caltrans had estimated the first phase could take as SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/99 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/99 Page 6 long as three years, noting he and Public Works Director Bernardi would be meeting with them, and would try to make sure every opportunity is seized to keep the construction to a minimum. Mr. Mansourian reported the County's Number Two project was the reversible lane option, explaining at night, with removable barriers, they would be able to designate a northbound HOV lane. He noted this project was estimated to cost $43 million, of which they now had $13 million. He stated they were hoping that if the Sales Tax Measure passes, $30 million could then go toward completing that project. Mr. Mansourian noted as part of the component of the Gap Closure Project, they were also widening and improving the I-580 approach. He pointed out the southbound Highway 101 approach to I-580 was one lane, with a very sharp curve, which was especially dangerous for the large trucks. He stated this would be replaced with two lanes, and a much smoother curve. The third Countywide priority is the Novato Narrows. Mr. Mansourian explained they had worked with Novato and Petaluma last time, and were very clear that until the Gap Closure and reversible lane are funded, they could not go further, noting Novato officials have agreed to that, and so far, only a very preliminary study has been released concerning the Novato Narrows. Mr. Mansourian publicly congratulated Mayor Boro and the City of San Rafael, noting the City had recently received a half million dollar project in a program called TLC, a Bay Area competition program, in which only a dozen projects in the Bay Area received funds. Mayor Boro invited members of the public to address the Council. Steve Levin believed there were hundreds of people who would automatically vote against anything that had any kind of rail system attached to it. He noted in looking at the East Bay, they knew they did not want anything like that here. Mayor Boro thanked Mr. Mansourian for his presentation to Council. OLD BUSINESS: 15. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF SAN RAFAEL NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING TECHNIQUES AND RESOLUTION ADOPTING A POLICY AND WARRANTS FOR SPEED HUMPS IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS (PW) - File 11-9 x 11-1 x 11-11 Public Works Director David Bernardi noted that at the March 15th City Council meeting they began a process to present, over a series of Council meetings, a number of different traffic calming techniques, and on March 15th Council reviewed and adopted a warrant and policy for residential stop signs. He reported tonight they were presenting warrants and a policy for speed humps in residential neighborhoods. Mr. Bernardi stated the basic problem in residential neighborhoods is speeding, and while Police enforcement was effective, and Sergeant Tom Smiley was instrumental in putting together a grant program to fund two full-time Motorcycle Officers and a radar trailer, they have been effective in reducing speed when they are in place, but they cannot be everywhere. Mr. Bernardi stated one tool they believed would be very effective was the speed hump, which basically makes the road physically hard to drive on. He explained this device was one of the most popular among residential neighborhoods, and like every other device, had its benefits and impacts. He stated its primary purpose was to lower the speed along particular portions of roadways, and discourage the diversion of traffic. He pointed out many vehicles divert up Irwin Street, go around Belle Avenue past Coleman School, and continue north; however, they should really be on Grand Avenue. He stated they proposed to place a series of speed humps on Belle Avenue, near Coleman School, to address this diversion issue. Mr. Bernardi explained the speed humps were approximately three to four inches in height, twelve to twenty feet in length, and were basically flat curves. He noted they would be striped, and there would be adequate signing. Staff believed that if they were placed between 150 and 300 feet apart, depending on various parameters, they would be very effective. Mr. Bernardi distributed a revised "Exhibit All to the Councilmembers, and also referred to a picture of what the speed humps look like, as well as an explanation of where speed humps should be placed, which he noted had been taken from Federal Highway Administration manuals. Traffic Engineer Nader Mansourian stated staff had spoken with many jurisdictions who have used speed humps during the past five to ten years, SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/99 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/99 Page 7 reviewing the information in those cities' policies and criteria, and tailoring it to fit the needs in San Rafael. He reported the policy would be to install speed humps where the following occur: 1) The roadway should have a volume of between 1,000 and 5,000 vehicles per day; 2) If there is an accident caused by speeding, the speed hump would basically fix the problem. The criteria would be three accidents per year; 3) Speed was looked at in three different ways, one of which was the 85% percentile. He explained a radar survey is done to determine the speed at which 85% of the drivers are comfortable, and if 85% of the drivers travel at speeds over 30 miles per hour, and 50% of the drivers exceed the posted speed limit, or if the top 15% exceed 35 miles per hour, and if one of those situations occurs in combination with the volume and any other two criteria, that would justify the City looking into the installation of speed humps. Mr. Mansourian stated if it was determined that those criteria had been met, then the following four criteria must also be met: 1) There must be visibility for stopping sight distance, which is usually 150 feet, or a radius of 300 feet on a curve; 2) The slope of the roadway should not exceed 5%; 3) Of major concern to the Traffic Coordinating Committee was the response time for emergency vehicles. He referred to a study that had been conducted in Portland, Oregon, where they studied the emergency routes and determined, on average, the response time was nine to ten seconds longer with the speed humps. Therefore, Mr. Mansourian noted the Fire Department should concur and approve the location of speed humps; 4) In addition, two-thirds of the neighborhood must agree to the installation of the speed humps, and to their location. Mr. Mansourian reported one of the problems other cities have experienced is when they lay out the speed humps, people want them moved so they are not in front of their driveways. He noted the City would need to monitor the effectiveness of the distance between the speed humps, as well as the drainage, lighting, and utilities. Mr. Mansourian stated speed humps basically had their own signage, and most of the cities post advance warning signs, such as "bumps ahead", prior to the driver entering the street. He noted there had been an area of Santa Rosa in which they had a severe speeding problem, as well as bypass traffic, and as soon as the speed humps were installed the bypass traffic disappeared. However, Mr. Mansourian stated speed humps have their own problems, pointing out the pros and cons. First, he reported the cost for speed humps was not as bad as other alternatives, noting they cost approximately $1,500 for each hump, $250 for signage and maintenance, and they should last for twenty years. Some advantages are that they reduce overall speed, discourage cut -through traffic, reduce the need for Police Officers for enforcement of speed, they are effective and inexpensive, increase pedestrian safety, they are neighborhood friendly, and they define a livable and safe neighborhood. Disadvantages include increased emergency response time and longer travel time, they can cause traffic to shift to parallel residential roadways, increased noise and air pollution, and some loss of on -street parking. Mr. Mansourian noted speed humps could also be very painful to people with spinal injuries, and it has also been experienced that if drivers do not like the speed humps, they honk their horns as they drive over them, making the neighbors unhappy. He reported speed humps have also done damage to fire trucks, noting in Sacramento a Fireman had been ejected and injured, and in addition, bicyclists do not like them. Mr. Bernardi stated staff felt the policy being presented was worth pursuing, and recommended Council adopt the policy and warrants, as indicated in the staff report. He noted they also recommended studying the Belle Avenue area, which they believed was a good candidate for this type of traffic calming technique. He asked Council to adopt the Resolution for the street hump policy and warrants, and to authorize staff to study, analyze and determine the appropriateness of installing speed humps on Belle Avenue in the vicinity of Coleman School. Councilmember Miller asked, in terms of noise with the bump versus the hump, did the hump cause the same noise level, and how much of a noise was produced? He asked if it would be invasive into the homes in the neighborhood every time a car travels over the humps? Mr. Mansourian stated the neighbors would hear the sound of the engines decelerating and accelerating; however, the humps were very smooth, and there would not be noise as the drivers traveled over them. Mr. Miller stated he would like Fire Chief Marcucci to comment regarding the fire engines traveling over the speed humps. Fire Chief Marcucci reported the Fire Department has had some experience with the humps in Contempo Marin; however, he pointed out that was a vastly different situation than what was now being recommended, noting the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/99 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/99 Page 8 Department had found the humps in Contempo Marin to be more disruptive, and slowed the response times. Chief Marcucci stated the Department believed the proposal before Council was a good alternative, pointing out that when the fire trucks get into the residential neighborhoods, they usually slow down anyway, because when small children hear the sirens, they sometimes run out into the street, and the Firefighters have to be very cautious about that; therefore, their speeds are usually vastly reduced at that point, and there should not be any adverse effect on the equipment, especially if the humps are painted and there is signage, as is being recommended. He stated he did not see that the speed humps would cause any difficulty for the Fire Department. Councilmember Heller asked if, in the first year, staff was looking at using only the one area near Belle Avenue, and then, if this proved to be a successful trial, going to the Neighborhood Associations and asking for their street candidates? Mr. Bernardi stated they had already received a number of requests from various neighborhoods, and there were a number of locations where speed humps could be considered; however, staff would first take some time to study Belle Avenue, and the effects of the speed humps. He stated staff would like to return to Council seven months after the device has been successfully installed, and based on the information they would have at that time, staff could give Council an indication of other places in San Rafael where speed humps might be considered. Mr. Bernardi also believed that once the humps were installed on Belle Avenue, San Rafael was small enough that the word would get around, and people would go and look at them and see what it was like. He stated staff anticipated they would be working with the Neighborhood Associations as time goes on. Referring to the experiment on Belle Avenue, Councilmember Miller asked about the painting. Mr. Bernardi reported the striping pattern would be similar to an inverted "V", with a "V" in one direction on one side, and in the opposite direction on the other side for the opposite traffic, so it would be very clear where the hump is. Mayor Boro invited public comment. Lynn Koeger, resident of Belle Avenue, stated the neighborhood had been working for some time with the Public Works Department to not only address the speeding issues, but also numerous issues associated with the small streets around Coleman School. She noted they had initially asked for a stop sign; however, they were not a candidate for it because they did not have enough traffic. Therefore, they were promised the City would find some other method of decreasing the speeding on Belle Avenue, and she was very happy that promise had been kept. She noted it does become a thoroughfare, because there are no stop signs on Belle Avenue. She stated she initially became interested in the traffic problems because she provides child care, and one of her children was nearly hit at the crosswalk on Belle Avenue near Coleman School. On behalf of her neighbors, Ms. Koeger stated they were all very happy the City would be meeting with them to consider the pros and cons of the speed humps, and appreciated the City following through on this, and she looked forward to hearing more about it. Dick Watts, Sun Valley Neighborhood Association, thanked the Department of Public Works for their proactive and innovative approach, stating those in his neighborhood were very appreciative. Steve Levin, Chair of the Coleman School Site Council, invited staff to attend a Site Council meeting, noting they would next be meeting the first Monday of May, and he felt it would be helpful if staff could attend and explained this to them, and showed them how it would work. Mayor Boro noted Council was being asked to adopt a Resolution authorizing the speed hump policy and warrants, clarifying that the implementation would be limited to just the one street, after which staff would report back to Council; in addition, staff would work with Council and the neighborhoods before any further installations. Mr. Bernardi stated that was correct. Councilmember Phillips referred to Exhibit A of the staff report, with regard to residential streets, noting it addresses accidents, and the criteria of three accidents within a twelve month period, then states " Proposed speed hump locations shall be evaluated to determine that such installation will not introduce increased accident potential for the street". He stated if that was one of the criteria, he needed clarification as to how it would increase, and whether there were other concerns, in other areas, which might increase the possibility of accidents. Mr. Mansourian stated there were many factors, such as the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/99 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/99 Page 9 curvature in the roadway, visibility, the possibility that some cars may see the humps in the roadway and slam on their brakes, causing rear -end accidents, and the nearness to crossing or adjusting roadways. He stated staff had included the slope of the roadway into the warrants, noting if the roadway is too steep, it would cause more accidents, because the cars would lose control. Councilmember Phillips noted the report had also stated 67% acceptance, and that two-thirds of the property owners would have to approve the speed humps. He asked if that was something we really wanted to have included, and if it might be very onerous to try to get 67%? He asked if perhaps it should be 50%, or within a specific timeframe, wondering if we were setting ourselves up for failure with regard to that kind of response? Mr. Bernardi stated staff wanted to make sure there were more than 50% of the homeowners who supported the concept of having speed humps; however, 67% was just a number, and it could be 75% or 60%, whatever the Council chooses. He explained staff just wanted to have a sufficient number of residents to ensure there was overall acceptance. He pointed out that in other surveys they have conducted, where they have used a 50% criteria, many times the responses are 50/50, and they do not know which way to go. He stated, in this instance, they just wanted to have a little more positive reaction to the speed hump, noting the 67% was an arbitrary number on staff's part. Councilmember Heller asked if they were considering responses only from those on the block in question, not surveying the entire neighborhood? Mr. Bernardi stated they would be seeking reactions from all those who would be directly affected. Mayor Boro asked if 67% was used in other cities? Mr. Mansourian stated it was, noting it was the number used by most of the other agencies. Mr. Phillips asked how onerous a task it would be for staff to obtain that kind of response, noting there would have to be 100% of the people responding to determine whether they had 67% approval. Mr. Mansourian stated staff would go out and meet with the neighborhood, and would send questionnaires to each of the homeowners, which would be sent back with their responses. He stated he assumed that in those instances where a response is not given, they would have to research to determine whether to consider it a "No" or "Yes". He pointed out that would be tested with Belle Avenue, noting they would go and talk to those in the neighborhood. Mr. Phillips asked if there would be outreach to the community, educating them as to what this is all about? He believed there was a stigma against speed bumps, and people become annoyed by having to drive over them; however, he pointed out these were considerably different, noting he was pleased we would be testing them, because he, himself, had an aversion to the bumps, but acknowledged the humps might not be as bad, and may be a ready solution to the problems of speeding. Mr. Bernardi stated staff would also be talking to the press about this, to make certain there was wide -spread coverage of the testing. Mayor Boro felt Councilmember Phillips had raised a good point, agreeing that 67% was a tough number, especially if it has to be of all the residents, versus those who take the time to vote. He believed if everyone was being polled, and some people did not care to vote, he would assume that meant they did not care, not that they were against it. He asked City Manager Gould to comment. Mr. Gould suggested the City hold a neighborhood meeting wherever we are planning to do an experiment, explain the process as best we can, distribute the questionnaires, and ask the help of the Neighborhood Association in getting them back to the City, and then, based on the questionnaires we receive back, if more than 50% of the people respond, and two-thirds of those are favorable, the City would go ahead with the experiment. Mayor Boro concurred. Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the Resolution for warrant and policy for the installation of speed humps in residential neighborhoods. RESOLUTION NO. 10398 - RESOLUTION REGARDING RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC CALMING TECHNIQUES AND APPROVING THE RESIDENTIAL STREET SPEED HUMP WARRANTS AND POLICY (Amended Exhibit "A": d) acceptance if more than 50% of the people respond, and 2/3rds of those are favorable, the City will go ahead with the experiment) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/99 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/99 Page 10 NEW BUSINESS: 16. DISCUSSION OF DRAFT COUNCIL PRIORITIES FOR 1999/2001 (CM) - File 9-1 x 9-1-2 x 9-3-11 City Manager Gould stated he was seeking Council's direction on the second iteration of the draft City Council policies for 1999-2001. He reported the departments were busy preparing their budget submittals, and it would be helpful if the Councilmembers could give their directions so he and the department heads could be responsive to them in the budget submittals Council will see in the coming months. Councilmember Phillips addressed "Collaborative Neighborhood Improvements", which refers to strengthening ties to San Rafael neighborhoods. He asked what was being considered with regard to that statement? Mr. Gould acknowledged it was a nebulous statement. He explained that as they ventured further into Community Policing and Community Fire Servicing they wanted to be meeting regularly with the Neighborhood Associations, and also improve the City's WEB sites. He stated he did not have all the specifics of this item, but noted at least one of the Councilmembers had stated this was something they would like to see emphasized; therefore, it was included in the priorities. He stated it could be omitted if it was too vague. Councilmember Phillips stated he believed it was a good point and had merit, noting he would leave it to Mr. Gould to "flesh out" this item , noting it gave plenty of room, which was probably what they needed to have right now, so it does not exclude something Mr. Gould might find appropriate. Councilmember Phillips referred to "Development and Housing", which states, "Seek opportunities to assist the Film Institute with debt retirement and office space acquisition", and asked for clarification. Mayor Boro reported this was an item he had brought up during an earlier study session, noting the Film Institute had initially hoped to locate their office space on-site; but the cost became too heavy, and they were unable to do so. At that time, the City offered them a loan of approximately $200,000 if they located on-site; however, since they were not able to afford to build, even with that type of loan, he and City Manager Gould met with representatives of the Film Institute and informed them that if they were in a position to purchase a building in the Downtown, or, if the City was in a position, as we go through future approvals of projects in the Downtown, we would look to see if we could provide some benefit for their operation. He noted space in one of the new projects might be one example, or an outright loan if they actually found something in the Downtown. Mayor Boro explained this item was included just to keep it in the forefront, and to deal with any opportunities that may arise. Councilmember Phillips asked if that would be more of a Redevelopment Agency item, or was it, in fact, a City Council issue? Mayor Boro felt that if, through the Planning process, they were going to be dealing with a plan that might come before them, it might be more Council than Redevelopment. He noted, in either event, they should keep this item out there. Councilmember Phillips noted something that has concerned him for some period of time was the Macy's site. He stated he would feel more comfortable if he saw, in writing, that it was, in fact, something the City was going to actively oversee and pursue to its final resolution. He believed it was on track; however, he was still uncomfortable about the project, and hoped it would be of high enough concern, as it was a significant enough impact to the Downtown, that Council would consider its placement on the list of priorities. Mayor Boro agreed. City Manager Gould suggested wording to the effect that the City would facilitate the demolition of the Macy's site, noting he fully understood Mr. Phillips' concern. Mayor Boro reported he had spoken with the developer last week, and had been assured they were in the process of doing the work related to the toxics on the site, removing materials from the building and tiles from the ceilings, and that within the next six to eight weeks the physical demolition should occur on the building. Councilmember Miller referred to "Prudent Response to Social Problems", noting the definition of the Third Street site. He stated he would rather see that identified as the P.G. & E. site, so there is no confusion over any definitive street on the site. Mr. Gould explained the P.G.& E. site had been termed the Third Street site because P.G.& E. has other holdings in the City, and even in the Downtown; therefore, the Request for Proposal refers to it as the Third Street site. Councilmember Miller felt everyone had become so focused on St. Vincent's SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/99 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/99 Page 11 that it seemed to have been forgotten that it was only part of a bigger and larger complex problem, namely the homeless. He stated he would like to see the entire relocation project in the context of a homeless policy. Mr. Gould asked if Councilmember Miller was calling for a separate Council policy to develop a City policy regarding the homeless? Mr. Miller stated whether or not it was separate, he would like to see something so St. Vincent's was not a single -focused issue, noting it could carry and be the generator of many multi -services and relationships throughout as the City looks at this problem. He noted they have stated the homeless are always going to be with us, and he felt this had to be looked at in a larger context than just simply moving St. Vincent's from here to there. Mayor Boro stated he would be willing to look at this again, to reflect what it might mean; however, he was concerned with having a policy, noting the City agency was not responsible for dealing with the homeless, with respect to providing services in this County. He explained that was a responsibility of the County of Marin, noting they were funded and staffed to do that. He stated that if the City wanted to address how it works with the homeless providers and how we treat homeless people, that would be fine; however, he would be very concerned about a policy that might lead to funding requirements, and things the City had to do, when the City was not the lead agency. Councilmember Miller agreed, noting he was looking for the City to become a mediating structure, not the provider of the services. He stated he was trying to draw out the broader issue, and define the City's proper role in that, noting he would like more thought to be given to this. City Manager Gould asked if Mr. Miller felt the City did an inadequate job in collaborating and cooperating with the County and other non-profit agencies in dealing with the homeless, and wanted the City to spend more time on these issues? Mr. Miller stated he felt this was probably the key social issue, throughout the City and particularly in the Downtown, and he believed this should be looked at in a more holistic manner, rather than just the St. Vincent's issue. He stated he did not see the City being terribly proactive. Mayor Boro stated there were a multitude of agencies serving the homeless, and perhaps it would be of interest to the Council and, hopefully, the rest of the community, to see if they could, collectively, find some solutions to the problem. He stated perhaps the City could take a role in seeing if the problem could be dealt with a little more collaboratively between the agencies. He noted St. Vincent's was dealing with a particular problem, and Ritter House deals with a particular problem; however, there was the collective problem of the homeless people in the community, and their impact on the community. He noted it might be that the City could not do any more; however, he acknowledged it might be worth looking into whether, as a City, we could take some kind of lead. Mr. Gould noted his only hesitation, given the fact this was such a broad issue, and so multi- faceted, was that the City not wade into it. He stated if this was to be a Council priority, then they would have to put some other things aside, and go after it in a concerted fashion. Mayor Boro stated Council was not looking for Mr. Gould to solve the problem; however, he suggested perhaps sometime during the coming year there could be a study as to what the issues are in San Rafael, how they are dealt with, what the roles of the different agencies are, and how effective they are. He pointed out the City has been trying to get these agencies to work together, collaboratively, but noted we have been unsuccessful in that. He stated the Marin Community Foundation also tries to do that, but is not successful. He believed people who respond to surveys and people the Councilmembers talk with are concerned about the homeless, and when they bring up that concern, the Councilmembers do not know what to do. He believed the City had to be very careful of the way it goes, stating the City was not going to get into funding or programs for the homeless. Councilmember Heller stated she did not really know what the County does, although she knew they were responsible for dealing with those social problems, noting they receive funding from the State, as a direct arm of the State, but the City does not. She stated perhaps Council could have someone from the County come and explain exactly what they do and what their programs are. City Manager Gould clarified that Council wanted to clearly delineate the roles of the various agencies involved in dealing with the homeless, and seek any opportunities the City might have to collaborate with them to enhance their effectiveness. Councilmember Miller stated he also wanted to see the City encourage the other agencies to collaborate with one another, noting he wished the City to adopt a mediating role among the various agencies. City Manager Gould stated he would draft a policy which incorporates these recommendations, and prepare budget options to determine which are closest to Council's direction, to SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/99 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/99 Page 12 ensure that what staff goes after in the next two years is consistent with Council's direction regarding this matter. Mayor Boro recalled there was a Blue Ribbon Task Force that worked on this issue four or five years ago, and the Task Force had recommended there be a permanent homeless shelter, which was now being built in Novato, to assist people who wanted to get back on their feet and become productive members of society. They also recommended there be five day -service centers throughout the community of Marin. He noted there was currently only one, here in San Rafael. Mayor Boro stated was not just a San Rafael problem, it was a County problem, as there are homeless throughout the community. He believed one of the concerns many of our citizens have, as does the City, is that we offer a lot of services because we have the agencies here. He stated he would like to look at some of our neighbors to the north and south, and see what their roles might be, noting he believed they also had problems. He stated he would be willing to go back and suggest that those who endorsed the five day -service centers look at what Rob Simon is doing, and perhaps consider opening a day -service center in southern Marin. City Manager Gould referred to a suggestion concerning facilities, particularly Library facilities, noting he would like Council's direction on whether they would like to proceed at this time with the follow-up to the Thompson survey on community attitudes toward services, and especially in those cases where the community is not satisfied, whether or not Council wished to consider further tax measures. He stated he felt the timing was wrong to proceed with the follow-up, and suggested the matter be tabled for six months, and reviewed at that time. Councilmember Heller agreed, noting people were confusing the City's Library with the County Library. She felt there was too much going on right now to proceed with the study, and she would like to see it rest for six months. Councilmember Miller stated he would like to go further, noting it was so confusing out there, with the various agencies and school districts studying their options and the tax measures, that he would like to see the follow-up postponed indefinitely. Councilmember Heller stated she did not agree, as she felt the Council needed to find out if there was a need and desire to expand Library services. Mr. Miller stated he would suggest waiting a year, as he did not believe six months gave them any time at all. Mayor Boro stated he was not in favor of doing anything right now for two reasons. First, he agreed with Ms. Heller's comments about the confusion with respect to Library services; and second, the City had a Paramedic tax to get passed this year, and he felt that was the most important thing to work on. As far as going out in the future, he noted that in a survey of 400 frequent voters, on average, 78% and higher were happy with the services the City provides, and while that did not mean they would not like more, the question was whether they would be willing to pay for it. Mayor Boro believed the real question was whether there was more than just the Library, noting he would want to be very careful, because they were not going to go to the voters every other year and ask for a tax. He stated if the City did get into a special kind of tax, he would want to structure a survey that would look at the multitude of things the City was not providing, but felt should be out there, and then see if they can go after whatever it might be, rather than just focus on the Library. He noted he did not think the Library was the biggest problem we had in town, pointing out, for example, we had a lot of potential trouble with our infrastructure. Mayor Boro suggested waiting six months to a year, then bringing this back, noting he believed the survey would be focused more on needs and interest in taxing for certain public services, with the Library being one of them. City Manager Gould stated he would share with the Department Heads the edits Council has provided, and they will incorporate the draft priorities in the budget options being prepared for Council. 7. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE BORROWING OF FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000; THE ENTERING INTO AN AMENDED AND RESTATED JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT; THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF A 1999-2000 TAX AND REVENUE ANTICIPATED NOTE THEREFOR AND PARTICIPATION IN THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES CASH FLOW FINANCING PROGRAM (MS) - File 8-13-9 x 8-14 Mayor Boro asked, if this was such a good idea, why had the City not done it before, and also what types of money would be generated over two or SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/99 Page 12 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/99 Page 13 three years? He asked Mr. Nordhoff to explain the concept and how it works. Assistant City Manager Nordhoff stated this was a program that had been in place in California for approximately eight years, noting that, essentially, the City would be looking to borrow money, based on a formula allowed and under the IRS, to cover cash flow deficits in the General Fund. He explained, in looking at the way the City spends money each month in the General Fund, for Police, Fire, and all the services provided, and comparing that against the revenue flows in which the City collects money, they do not add up. He stated that where staff typically finds we are spending more than we are collecting and, in essence, temporarily dipping into our reserves, are the Fall months of October and November. He explained that was because the bulk of the City's property taxes, or 55%, come to the City in December, with another 40% being received in April; therefore, the revenue cycles do not match up. He reported we also had other tax sources, such as Occupancy Tax, which is quarterly, and Business License Tax, which is annual, noting what is collected each month and what is spent are not the same. Mr. Nordhoff stated the Federal Government allows us to borrow Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes to cover those cash deficiencies. He explained the State has put together a pooled program so that the City becomes a member of a Joint Powers Authority, and participates in a Statewide issuance of these TRANS, Taxable and Revenue Anticipation Notes. He noted they run anywhere from twelve to fifteen month cycles, at the City's discretion, and in essence, the City pledges tax monies from the next fiscal year, all the General Fund Revenues, to cover the cost of the notes. He explained the reason the City would do this is because we would be able to keep the interest, taking the money that we borrow and investing it, probably investing it at between 1.50% and 1.75% higher than it is going to cost us to borrow the money. Mr. Nordhoff pointed out that under most Federal IRS laws, the City is not allowed to keep that money, and any excess is considered 100% taxable, and due back to the IRS. He explained this meant that with other types of bond issues, calculations had to be made periodically to determine whether or not taxes were owed; however, with this specific type of transaction, the City is allowed, under the law, to keep all the excess interest earnings that we make, which he estimated to be between $60,000 and $70,000 over the next year. Mr. Nordhoff stated he did not know why this had not been done in the past, other than there had not been an opportunity to pursue it. He noted his staff would very much like to see funding for a new (financial) system, and while they realized that might not be the highest priority in the City, they felt this might be a tool, as management rewards entrepeneurialship, and perhaps this might be an opportunity to pursue that, and set aside some money to replace the 1983 BRC Financial System. Councilmember Heller asked how long it would take, at $60,000 per year, to replace the BRC system? Mr. Nordhoff stated they had not gone out to price the system; however, the things they have seen other cities doing in the marketplace today, for similar sized cities and packages, were costing approximately $200,000 to $300,000; therefore, this might be a three to four year process, although that did not mean we could not continue the program after that, and put that money to other uses. Councilmember Phillips asked what we would invest the funds in? Mr. Nordhoff stated they would probably be invested in guaranteed investment contracts, which are typically held by life insurance companies, set for specified periods of time with specified rates of return. He noted there would be some other options, but he believed that would be the most common. Mr. Phillips asked if they would be for short periods of time? Mr. Nordhoff stated they would be no more than twelve to fifteen months, depending upon the duration of the notes, pointing out we would be in a very short-term market. He stated the City was not committed to pursue this program until we looked at the final figures prior to the note issuance in June, which was the trigger date as to whether we go or do not go, and our commitment does not take hold until we make that final decision. Mr. Phillips asked, even after the $38,000 fee, would we still net out? Mr. Nordhoff stated that was correct, reporting the actual cost of issuance last year was just slightly more than 1/3 of 1%, which was a very small amount of money. He noted there were typically 60 to 70 agencies involved in this, and it quickly gets up into the millions of dollars, so they can spread the cost. Mr. Phillips asked if there was a downside, or any reason for us not to be doing this? Mr. Nordhoff stated he believed the risk was very low, and the greatest downside he could see was if somehow next year's SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/99 Page 13 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/99 Page 14 revenues dried up, and the City was unable to pay the notes back when they were due; however, he stated he could not anticipate this would really occur. Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 10399 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE BORROWING OF FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000; THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF A 1999-2000 TAX AND REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTE THEREFOR AND PARTICIPATION IN THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES CASH FLOW FINANCING PROGRAM. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen COUNCIL ER REPORTS: 17. None. There being no further business, the City Council meeting was adjourned at 9:40 PM. Mayor Boro announced the Councilmembers would meet in the Conference Room 201 to reconvene the Study Session. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1999 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/99 Page 14