Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2003-09-02SRCC Minutes (Regular) 09/02/2003 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 AT 8:00 P.M. Regular Meeting: San Rafael City Council Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk OPEN SESSION — COUNCIL CHAMBER — 7:00 PM: None CLOSED SESSION — CONFERENCE ROOM 201 — 7:00 PM: None Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor Gary O. Phillips, Vice -Mayor Barbara Heller Councilmember Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember Absent: Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:10 PM a) Paving of Second Street: - File 9-1 x 9-3-40 x 11-1 (verbal) Bill Honsinger inquired as to the timeline for paving Second Street. Mayor Boro suggested he consult with Mr. Preston, Interim Public Works Director, at the conclusion of the meeting should he have questions on this issue. b) Stop Signs at San Rafael High School: - File 9-1 x 9-3-40 x 11-9 (verbal) Bill Honsinger requested stop signs be placed at San Rafael High School, (Third and High Streets) and on exiting the parking lot. Staff to pursue this issue with the City Traffic Engineer and report back to Council and Mr. Honsinger. Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar as follows: ITEM Approval of Minutes of Special Meeting of Monday, June 30, 2003 and Regular Meeting of Monday, August 4, 2003 (CC) 3. Summary of Legislation Affecting San Rafael (CM) —File 116 x 9-1 4. Resolution of Appreciation to Dave Donery, Employee of the Quarter for the Second Quarter of 2003 (CS) — File 102 x 7-4 x 9-3-65 5. Resolution Approving the Application for Grant Funds from the Recreational Trails Program (CS) — File 202 x 9-3-65 6. Resolution Approving the Application for Grant Funds for the Local Agency Grant Program — Fiscal Year 2003 — 2004 Under the Habitat Conservation Fund Program of the California Wildlife Protection Act of 1990 (CS) — File 4-10-338 x 202 x 9-3-65 RECOMMENDED ACTION Minutes approved as submitted. Accepted report. RESOLUTION NO. 11407— RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO DAVE DONERY, EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER FOR THE SECOND QUARTER OF 2003 ENDING JUNE 30, 2003 RESOLUTION NO. 11408 — RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FROM THE RECREATIONAL TRAILS PROGRAM RESOLUTION NO. 11409— RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR THE LOCAL AGENCY GRANT PROGRAM — FISCAL YEAR 2003 — 2004 UNDER THE HABITAT CONSERVATION FUND PROGRAM OF THE CALIFORNIA WILDLIFE PROTECTION ACT OF 1990 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 09/02/2003 Page 1 7. Resolution Approving the Application for Grant Funds for the Per Capita Grant Program Under the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002 (CS) — File 4-10-339 x 202 x 9-3-65 x 9-3-66 8. Resolution Approving the Application for Grant Funds for the Roberti-Z'Berg-Harris Block Grant Program Under the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002 (CS) — File 4-10-340 x 202 x 9-3-65 x 9-3-66 9. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1810 —An Ordinance of the City of San Rafael Amending Chapter 3.34 of the San Rafael Municipal Code Establishing a Fee and Service Charge Revenue/Cost Comparison System, by Revising Section 3.34.040 (MS) — File 9-10-2 x 9-3-20 x 240 10. Monthly Investment Report for Month Ending July 2003 (MS) — File 8-18 x 8-9 11. Report on 2001-2003 Budget Objectives (24 - Month Review) (MS) — File 8-5 12. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1811 —An Ordinance of the City of San Rafael Repealing Chapters 10.48 and 10.50 and Section 5.40.110, and Adding New Chapter 10.48 to the San Rafael Municipal Code Entitled "Commercial Peddlers, Solicitors and Itinerant Merchants" (CA) — File 9-10 x9-3-16 13. Report on Bid Opening and Resolution Awarding Contract re Miscellaneous Vehicles to Victory Chevrolet, Inc. in the Amount of $106,910.02 (Bid Opening Held on Tuesday, August 19, 2003) (PW) — File 4-2-327 x 9-3-30 x 9-3-40 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 09/02/2003 Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 11410 — RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR THE PER CAPITA GRANT PROGRAM UNDER THE CALIFORNIA CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR, SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, AND COASTAL PROTECTION ACT OF 2002 RESOLUTION NO. 11411 — RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR THE ROBE RTI-Z'BERG-HARRIS BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM UNDER THE CALIFORNIA CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR, SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, AND COASTAL PROTECTION ACT OF 2002 Approved final adoption of Ordinance No. 1810. Accepted Monthly Investment Report for the month ending July, 2003, as presented. Accepted report on Completion of 2001-2003 Goals and Objectives, as presented. Approved final adoption of Ordinance No. 1811. RESOLUTION NO. 11412 — RESOLUTION AWARDING PURCHASE ORDER FOR MISCELLANEOUS VEHICLES TO VICTORY CHEVROLET, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $106,910.02 (only bidder) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen The following item was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion, at the request of Councilmember Phillips: 2. RESOLUTION APPROVING A PERMIT TO ALLOW ST. ISABELLA'S SCHOOL TO HOLD A CARNIVAL OCTOBER 10 — 12 WITH RIDES PROVIDED BY BUTLER AMUSEMENTS, GAMES, FOOD, BEER AND WINE (CD) — FILE 9-10-5 Councilmember Phillips stated that a member of the community wished to address the City Council on this agenda item. Susan O'Reilly stated she resided at 998 Las Pavadas, on the corner of Las Pavadas and Freitas, and indicated she was one of two from her neighborhood present at a City Council meeting a year ago on this topic. Ms. O'Reilly reported that the carnival took place over five days last year, not three, in that SRCC Minutes (Regular) 09/02/2003 Page 2 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 09/02/2003 Page 3 Butler Amusements arrived and set up on Wednesday and Thursday. Not knowing who to contact, Ms. O'Reilly stated she placed a telephone call to the Principal of St. Isabella School to ascertain whether they could have a couple of the rides moved to a different location. Having left a message on the Principal's machine, she received a telephone call from Monica Rizzo that upset her. She reported having taken photographs on Thursday afternoon of what the ride looked like from her living -room window, which she shared with the City Council. She noted that two more rides were installed subsequent to taking those pictures. On closing the carnival on Sunday evening , Ms. O'Reilly reported that Butler Amusements started taking rides down and this lasted throughout the night. She stated the trucks were extremely noisy and she and her husband had to work that morning. Ms. O'Reilly stated she would not object to having the carnival on the baseball field. She favored schools making money; however, did not like having this carnival in her backyard for five days. Referring to the pictures, she identified a gentleman at the top of the slide watching that children slid down safely, and indicated he had a full view of her yard and the yards of her two neighbors. Diane Allen stated she and her husband reside at 360 Arias Street, San Rafael. She reported having expressed concern to the City Council a year ago regarding parking in the neighborhood; however, evidently, this was not a problem. She believed the organizers of the event made every effort to ensure that parking remained on the site or on Freitas Parkway and not in the neighborhood streets, and for that, they were grateful. This year, she stated there are "No Parking" signs on Freitas; therefore, from Del Ganado to Las Gallinas, parking on Freitas Parkway is prohibited, which would diminish a lot of the parking space. Ms. Allen stated that St. Isabella's does have quite a bit of parking should they use their asphalt area and she indicated she would second the idea of the carnival being on the ballfield. She noted she was out of town at carnival time last year; however, Ms. Allen stated she would be in attendance this year to monitor the situation. For various reasons some neighbors could not be present this evening; however, Ms. Allen reported that one neighbor was very concerned about the fumes and noise from the generator. Others believed minds were made up and there was no point in commenting, which she felt was unfortunate in this society. Ms. Allen stated she would like to see the carnival go ahead with its plans but relocated to the ballfield, thereby, affording consideration to everyone in the neighborhood. Peter O'Reilly, 998 Las Pavadas, stated he had lived in Terra Linda since 1970 and had worked for Guide Dogs for the Blind since 1972; therefore, was familiar with the Terra Linda/San Rafael area. Summarizing the two previous speakers' remarks, Mr. O'Reilly reported seeing from his backyard three-story high, 100 -foot rides for four days, which were removed in the middle of the night on Monday. This was ongoing daily until 10:00 p.m., and Mr. O'Reilly commented the area was residential, not a carnival neighborhood. Monica Rizzo stated she was the Past President of the St. Isabella Parent Club and currently, the Chairperson of the Carnival Committee. She indicated that she had organized the event last year, listened to the neighbors' concerns and they had done their best to ensure the problems were few. Regarding the "No Parking" signs on Freitas Parkway, Ms. Rizzo stated she considered requesting a waiver of the bike lane; however, decided it was not necessary as with so much parking available on the St. Isabella property, it should not be an issue. Ms. Rizzo stated the set up takes place on Wednesday and Thursday with the carnival commencing on Friday. She confirmed they did start their tear down on Sunday evening and she ascertained on Monday morning that someone had requested them to stop, which they did at midnight; therefore, it did not go on all through the night. She stated they could be requested ahead of time this year to cease the tear down at 10:00 p.m. Noting some of the rides are tall, Ms. Rizzo stated that from the top it is possible to see; however, most of the tall rides spin around fast; therefore, while technically, someone could see over the fence and into someone's back yard, she was convinced of her theory that people riding carnival rides have a lot more on their minds than looking over the fence. Ms. Rizzo reported they had a wonderful turnout from the neighborhood, not just from St. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 09/02/2003 Page 3 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 09/02/2003 Page 4 Isabella families or parishioners, rather the neighborhood as a whole, and with the exception of the one telephone call regarding the ride impinging on privacy, every comment she received was positive. She indicated that when Ms. O'Reilly asked about the ride being moved, she (Ms. Rizzo) left a message indicating it had been placed there because it was silent. Ms. Rizzo reported that language had been inserted into the permit this year to the effect that the rides and games from Butler Amusements would be no closer than 50 -feet from the neighbors' fences, which should mitigate the problems. Mayor Boro inquired as to the distance last year. Ms. Rizzo stated that some of the equipment had been right up against the school's fence, which is approximately 6 feet from the neighbors'. Noting the reference from two speakers regarding using the asphalt part of the parking lot, Mayor Boro requested Ms. Rizzo to comment. Ms. Rizzo explained that the vast majority of the St. Isabella property is asphalt; the games and rides being heavy, they could not be set up on the grass as with the field having a slight drainage problem, they would sink. Mayor Boro noted two speakers suggested using the asphalt of the parking lot to set up the rides and as the issue appeared to one of visual clutter and distraction, he inquired whether this was possible. Ms. Rizzo stated that the rides were all on the asphalt last year. One area is used for parking and the remainder goes around the entire school and parish center, and being level, was where the rides were located. Addressing Community Development Director Bob Brown, Mayor Boro stated the comment was that there was an asphalt location which would not intrude upon the neighbors that was not being used. Mr. Brown clarified the comment actually was that should all the rides and games be located on the turf area, the entire asphalt could be used for parking, which would mitigate for the loss of parking on Freitas Parkway. Councilmember Phillips noted Ms. Rizzo suggested that because the rides were very heavy, it was not possible to place the equipment on the ballfield. Ms. Rizzo confirmed the rides are very heavy and as there is a fairly substantial drainage issue with the field, it would not hold them up. Councilmember Phillips inquired whether Ms. Rizzo had considered some of the concerns expressed this evening with regard to the proximity of the fences and backyards. Ms. Rizzo confirmed these were considered and written into the permit. She explained that last year, some of the equipment was placed right up against the school fence; however, this year, the equipment would be 50 feet from the neighbors' fences. She indicated she specifically requested that Butler Amusements not include a shooting game, which is noisy and annoying. Ms. Rizzo stated that last year was their first ever year to hold a carnival at St. Isabella and her first time putting an event such as this together and this year, she is more conversant with what they require and where it is located. Councilmember Phillips inquired whether the placement of those rides of higher elevation would be placed further away from the fences. Ms. Rizzo explained that last year, the very tall slide was very close to the houses on Las Pavadas; however, this year, it would be located back 50 feet from the fence. She confirmed that everything would be moved back 50 feet; they would endeavor to have the smaller, less intrusive equipment closer to the houses and the taller equipment in front of the school, which is not by any houses. As the rides are not the same each year, Ms. Rizzo was not aware of what sizes they would be this year. With regard to the set up and take down, Councilmember Phillips inquired as to the hours for set up. Ms. Rizzo explained they come on Wednesday at 3:00 p.m., set up until approximately 9:00 or 10:00 p.m., returning the following morning and setting up through Thursday. Councilmember Phillips inquired whether Ms. Rizzo would also be willing to restrict set up to similar hours as this was presumably just as noisy. Responding affirmatively, Ms. Rizzo explained it had not occurred to her last year that tear down would continue until late in the evening. She reported that Butler Amusements informed her the day after the carnival that they had been requested to discontinue the evening before, which they did, returning the following morning. Councilmember Phillips stated that perhaps this was a learning experience and should approval be granted this evening, he hoped last year's experiences could be improved upon and reviewed again in the coming year. Restricting the hours he believed, was a step in the right direction and he hoped there would be no further complaints, as he, personally would take a more serious view. Should cooperation with the neighbors not be forthcoming, he believed there would be a problem with regard to the event itself. Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Heller seconded to adopt the resolution. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 09/02/2003 Page 4 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 09/02/2003 Page 5 RESOLUTION NO. 11413 — RESOLUTION APPROVING A PERMIT TO ALLOW ST. ISABELLA SCHOOL TO HOLD A CARNIVAL OCTOBER 10 — 12, 2003, AT ONE TRINITY WAY (APNS: 175-181-25 AND 27) (amended to restrict set up and take down hours to 9:30 p.m.) Being cognizant of the fact that vendors can be requested to come in early with plans, and in light of tonight's comments, Mayor Boro requested that Community Development Director Bob Brown review the plan and assess the layout to ensure it complies with what was specified regarding set back, visibility, etc. Also to ensure those who did park on Freitas would now park on school grounds and not in the neighborhood. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen SPECIAL PRESENTATION: 14. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO DAVE DONERY, EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER FOR SECOND QUARTER OF 2003 (CS) — FILE 102 x 7-4 x 9-3-65 For the benefit of the audience, Mayor Boro explained that each quarter the employees select an Employee of the Quarter and David Donery was the recipient for the second quarter of 2003. As part of his award, Mr. Donery received a star, congratulations from the Assistant City Manager, Ken Nordhoff, Councilmember Miller and Mayor Boro himself, together with a $100 bill. Having chosen recipients for the four quarters of 2003, Mayor Boro stated that an Employee of the Year would then be selected at the annual State of the City dinner and Dave would be eligible for this award, which carried a grand prize of 5 x $100 bills. Mayor Boro stated the Resolution of Appreciation addressed Mr. Donery's many accomplishments: He had been with the City of San Rafael since 1989 and recently, headed up the efforts at Pickleweed. Mr. Donery had done an exemplary job working with the community at Pickleweed in utilizing that Center and working with members of the community with regard to their vision for the community. Quoting from the Resolution, Mayor Boro stated "the place is alive to begin with, but you make it alive in a very special way for all the people in that community." The resolution also addressed Mr. Donery's acts, humor, dedication and respect for the Canal neighborhood, customers, coworkers and community colleagues, which led him to be a trusted and treasured ambassador for the City and the Community Services Department. On behalf of the City Council and the citizens of San Rafael, Mayor Boro congratulated and thanked Mr. Donery. Thanking Mayor Boro, the City Council and fellow employees, David Donery reported he had worked with the City for almost fifteen years, beginning at the age of 23. He stated that in his job at Pickleweed he had the benefit of working with every City department and was exposed to some amazing people each and every day, not only working with them, rather also learning from them. Mr. Donery stated this was truly a reflection on the team at the City of San Rafael and he could not imagine working any other place. PUBLIC HEARING: 15. Public Hearing — Vessel Sanitation and Dock Safety; CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL TO PROMOTE PROPER DISPOSAL OF SEWAGE FROM VESSELS AND TO ENSURE DOCK SAFETY AND ACCESSIBILITY; CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, APPLICANT (CD) — FILE 13-1 x 10-6 x 10-2 Principal Planner Kristie Richardson stated this ordinance had a long and somewhat arduous history and certainly, had evolved on going through the public process. Consistent with General Plan policies to protect water quality in the canal, Ms. Richardson stated the City Council directed staff to prepare a Live -aboard Ordinance in February, 2001. Having drafted an ordinance and holding a community meeting later that year, she stated staff reported back in July, 2002, and suggested taking a different direction with the ordinance given the opposition received to it. Ms. Richardson stated staff believed they could achieve the City's goals while also receiving the support of most boaters. Ms. Richardson reported that the Vessel Sanitation and Dock Safety Ordinance was prepared in collaboration with a small group of boaters who volunteered to assist staff subsequent to the December, 2001 meeting, and whose help had been invaluable in the process. She stated staff had learned a lot and tried to listen to the boating community in drafting the most recent ordinance. As a result, she indicated the ordinance was much better received when a SRCC Minutes (Regular) 09/02/2003 Page 5 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 09/02/2003 Page 6 community meeting was held in May, 2003. Ms. Richardson stated that the ordinance had three basic components: 1. Standards for Docks; 2. Requirements for Vessel Sanitation; and 3. Periodic Vessel Inspections. She reported that two primary issues were raised at the May, 2003 meeting: 1. Some boaters questioned the reason why the ordinance was needed given existing federal and state laws regulating vessel sanitation and sewage discharge. Ms. Richardson explained it was staff's belief that by making discharge of untreated sewage a violation of the City's Municipal Code, together with state and federal law, the ordinance would provide the City with all the various remedies available to it in the Code and would give the City more flexibility in determining what method of enforcement would be most effective to redress a violation; 2. Dock owners were concerned with the proposed standards for docks, in particular dock width, and the potential for non -conforming docks. Ms. Richardson stated that in response, staff had proposed that the standards contained in this evening's ordinance would be applicable to new docks or reconstruction of docks; however, would not require existing docks to be upgraded. Reporting that the draft ordinance was sent to the State Department of Building and Waterways, Ms. Richardson indicated they responded with a letter pointing out that marine surveyors were not licensed; therefore, staff proposed to remove the reference to "licensed" from the ordinance. She stated they also suggested the City might want to use its Police Officers for inspections rather than volunteers from the Coast Guard Auxiliary or the Marin Sail and Power Squadron, as proposed in the ordinance. Ms. Richardson explained this was actually proposed in response to the boating community who believed it might be more agreeable to have inspections by individuals with a marine background rather than Police Officers. Councilmember Heller stated she was curious as to whether a ranger who had boating experience would have the authority to do some inspections. She also inquired whether Code Enforcement Officers would be eligible. Ms. Richardson explained that as the ordinance is proposed currently, the City's Police Officers would not have the authority to inspect as part of the periodic inspections; however, should there be a Code Enforcement complaint, perhaps staff would have this authority. Community Development Director Bob Brown explained that in going through budget cutting last year and again, in the near future, one of the discussion points had been the level of staffing of the canal patrol, and he believed this was one reason staff wanted to avoid requiring the Police Department to have a role. In terms of Code Enforcement, Mr. Brown stated they certainly could inspect for the requirements that boaters maintain the records of the inspection and the use of the pump -out facilities. He stated they could inspect the dock safety requirements; however, they were not trained or qualified to inspect the boats for the marine sanitation devices. Councilmember Heller inquired as to who would be requested to carry out inspections. Ms. Richardson stated that presently, vessel inspection requirements would be carried out by a marine surveyor, someone from the Coast Guard Auxiliary, the Marin Sail and Power Squadron, or another qualified marine expert. Councilmember Phillips stated that the letter received by staff did express some concern about the consistency of enforcement if volunteers were used, and he inquired whether this had been reconciled. Ms. Richardson introduced Attorney Lisa Goldfien, a consultant for the City, who drafted the ordinance and who also received a copy of the letter. Ms. Goldfien stated there probably was some risk. She indicated the ordinance was designed to attempt to generate a solution that would be agreeable to the boating community and be less invasive and intensive than a lot of code enforcement ordinances. Ideally, when this is adopted, Ms. Goldfien stated staff would meet with some of these groups to discuss what the ordinance provides, what is done during a typical inspection and try to obtain a uniform procedure. She indicated they are well versed in this area, understand the boats and the SRCC Minutes (Regular) 09/02/2003 Page 6 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 09/02/2003 Page 7 marine sanitation devices, and she believed they were fairly well qualified to do this. Given this comment and also reflecting on the letter received by staff, Councilmember Phillips inquired as to the appeal process should some inconsistent application be inherent in the system. Mr. Brown stated there was no appeal process, rather the boaters were being requested to undergo an inspection that they did have an operating marine sanitation device. Should they receive an inspection and the inspector is not qualified, they have the ability to call for another inspector, whether it be a marine surveyor or someone else from the Power Squadron. He indicated the City merely requires them to have a piece of paper indicating they had been inspected and did have a sanitation device. Ms. Goldfien added that part of the ordinance is that the City can require proof of the inspection and should it not be produced, the City itself could inspect the boat. In the event someone indicated they went to a marine surveyor and there was disagreement on whether the device worked or not, the City could go aboard with a qualified person and make its own determination. While it is not an appeal process, it is built in as part of the City's ability to require proof of the inspection. Referring to the inspection requirements on page 3 and the second bullet point containing the word "reasonable," Councilmember Heller inquired as to the duration of "reasonable." Ms. Goldfien stated that in this case, staff would just ensure there was sufficient time for the person to receive the notice, probably at least twenty-four hours and up to seventy-two hours. Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened. Chris Quakendahl stated she lives on her boat behind 711 Third Street, adjacent to #1 Third Street. Regarding the Power Squadron, Coast Guard Auxiliary and the equality of inspections, she believed them to be a pretty dignified, mature group overall. They bring in a lot of young people to train for boater safety and are the most important access to keep people out of trouble on the waterways. She indicated that by the time people are at the level of doing inspections they are very mature, well qualified concerned citizens who take themselves very seriously, and she was certain they would meet any requirements or concerns regarding the quality of inspection provided. Ms. Quakendahl stated these volunteers were suggested because people would be more relaxed about inviting them onboard, rather than perhaps inviting a Ranger on board. Regarding the equality of inspection, she stated marine surveyors are commercially trained, as opposed to volunteer training, and have no incentive other than payment. Subsequently, should there be a problem, she believed a Ranger should inspect the boat. Hugo Landecker indicated he was strictly a recreational boater, had owned boats for over 50 years, with some on the San Rafael Canal for 30 years, and he was concerned about the effect the live -aboard community had on local marinas. Mr. Landecker stated that the Draft San Rafael General Plan 2020 treats the local marinas more as a source of affordable housing and forgets that marinas were designed strictly for the recreational boater. While he was not suggesting that living aboard a boat should not be allowed, he commented that marinas should be designed to accommodate live -aboard uses. Mr. Landecker stated that another problem impacting the recreational boater is commercial ventures, such as commercial sport fishing boats, where customers for one commercial sport - fishing boat can easily take up 40 parking spaces, creating problems for all the other tenants of the marina. Realizing that the Loch Lomond Marina is targeted for housing, Mr. Landecker stated he cringes at the impacts the combination of housing and commercial sport fishing would have on the recreational boater in that marina. Indicating that San Rafael lost control of the canal years ago, Mr. Landecker stated he could not visualize how control would ever be regained. He indicated that illegal dock construction abounds everywhere, with docks extending into fairways, and compounded by the fact that boats now moor on the fairways side of some of these illegal docks. In addition, he indicated that some marinas allow 50 -foot boats in a 30 -foot slip, which creates a problem. He stated the City needed to gain control of the canal; however, this ordinance did little in that regard. Mr. Landecker stated there are many houseboats being used as fulltime residences; these vessels are not capable of moving under their own power and he was not privy to their sewage disposal techniques, which may or may not be legal. In addition, houseboat washing machines cause the harbor to fill up with suds and he did not believe this was what the San Rafael Canal was all about. Mr. Landecker stated that marine sanitation devices are never designed to handle that volume of discharge. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 09/02/2003 Page 7 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 09/02/2003 Page 8 While being concerned with sewage disposal by the boating community, Mr. Landecker stated there is a bigger issue in the canal that few were aware of. He explained that some years ago, the City of San Rafael had a Code Enforcement Officer who lived on a boat in the canal, and with whom Mr. Landecker had long conversations. He reported this Code Enforcement Officer took it upon himself to have some fecal coliform counts done in the canal and he could not believe how high the readings were. He informed Mr. Landecker there was a problem in that the fecal coliform count in the San Rafael canal was so high that if every boat had a family residing on it and they discharged all their sewage into the canal, it could not possibly get as high as it was. Mr. Landecker stated it was found that the storm drainage system goes into drainage basins and on taking readings on the effluent in those drainage basins, obtained fecal coliform counts of 30,000 and 40,000 per liter. He indicated that the maximum allowed for water contact sports at that time was 200 per liter. The Code Enforcement Officer attributed this to the San Rafael residents who owned pets who washed their driveways of pet waste into the street. He indicated this flowed into the storm drain system, ending up in these basins and is pumped into the San Rafael Canal. Regarding dock safety in the ordinance, Mr. Landecker stated he was unaware of whether it was considered to require the use of ground fault interrupters. He explained these could be life savers and he suggested this factor be considered in the ordinance. He realized they were sensitive to moist environments, which could be a problem and perhaps the reason for its non inclusion; however, he believed it should be addressed. Mr. Landecker noted that the ordinance required that Marinas maintain restrooms and showers; however, set no standards. He inquired whether one toilet for 100 live-aboards was adequate. Regarding vessel inspections, Mr. Landecker stated he had great respect for the Coast Guard Auxiliary and the Marin Sail and Power Squadron and their dedicated volunteers. Having had them on his boat, he reported they were pretty tough. From his experience, there was no such thing as having a good friend inspect a boat and give the owner a break. Mr. Landecker stated they conduct safety inspections to ensure the vessel meets federal safety and sanitation requirements and when finished, if the vessel passes all the requirements, a decal for display on the outside of the boat is issued. He indicated that this demonstrates compliance and was a good service. He stated that with the marine surveyor or qualified marine expert, no sticker is issued. In conclusion, Mr. Landecker stated that should American citizens be subject to the law enforcement evident on the water, he believed there would be no crime. Having traveled to Hawaii, Canada, etc., he reported having had drug enforcement agencies, U.S. Customs, U.S. Coast Guard, Fish and Game, etc., on his boat. Mr. Landecker commented that (Police Ranger) Mark Hedeen was doing a great job. Matt Butler, Harbormaster, San Rafael Yacht Harbor, stated he had been involved with the ordinance since its inception, seeing it go through many drafts and changes, and it was almost to a point now where he could say he could support it wholeheartedly; however, there were a few items he would like to see addressed. Mr. Butler distributed a letter to the City Council dated September 2, 2003, explaining these items: • Page 6 — (e) 1. regarding minimum widths of docks and walkways. Mr. Butler stated that San Rafael Yacht Harbor had in excess of 1,200 feet of main walkways, none of which were five feet wide. He indicated that several of these were walkways under covered sheds where the roof supports stand on the edge of the docks, and it would be impossible to modify those docks to make them five feet wide and still support the roofs. He suggested the ordinance be written in such a way that dock sizes applied to new construction only as it was the word "reconstruction" to which he had an objection. Realizing his definition of "reconstruction" could be different from a Code Enforcement Officer's, he indicated he would like to see it applied to new construction only; Page 6 — (h) — Mr. Butler indicated that the rafting of vessels could be a problem for him as he routinely moves boats out of berths to carry out maintenance on the docks or for dredging purposes, etc., and he rafts them while this is occurring; however, never in the actual navigation channel of the San Rafael Canal, rather within the marina. He indicated he would move them should they be an obstruction to anyone; it rarely occurs for more than twenty-four hours and he did not wish to be in violation of something when a vessel is moved and rafted off to another, while carrying out maintenance in the marina; • Page 7 - (f) — regarding keeping records of those regularly using the sewage pump -pout facility. As stated in his letter, Mr. Butler indicated he supplies bathrooms and a porta potty dump that are available 24/7,and he intended to install a pump -out facility shortly. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 09/02/2003 Page 8 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 09/02/2003 Page 9 Mr. Butler reported he was more than willing to supply anything to any of his tenants or any boaters on the San Rafael Canal they needed to dispose of their sewage. He stated he already supplies waste motor oil and petroleum products disposal to anyone on the Canal, together with paint chips and solvent disposal; however, he did not want to be cited for not having maintained a record book where someone supplied either a phony proof of a pump -out from a different location or claimed they pumped their tank out when, in fact, they discharged it in the Canal or Bay or claimed they went outside the posted limit where it is permissible to dump sewage, leaving him with false records and liable to be cited under Section 17.40.060 of the San Rafael Municipal Code. Should the ordinance be written to state that if someone was found dumping sewage in the San Rafael Canal they would be cited, he would be all in favor. Mr. Butler stated that in the event someone's boat is unlicensed in the marina, they are stopped by the Marine Patrol and issued a citation, and this is what he would like to see happen with the sewage disposal issue. He confirmed he did not wish to be cited for a paperwork violation or for someone else dumping sewage in the water. Mr. Butler believed it was his job to supply the facilities for correct disposal, and should people choose not to, they should be cited. Paul Benson, 15 Elda Drive, San Rafael, stated he had been boating in the San Rafael area for at least 25 years, for the last fourteen years had a boat at Lowry's Yacht Harbor, and he is also a member of Loch Lomond Yacht Club. He indicated that he, too, had been working with City staff, Kristie Richardson and Bob Brown, since the inception in December, 2001, and attended the follow-up meetings. He stated the ordinance had come a long way and was focusing on the issues of the sewage problem in the canal and the docks. He noted the concern for the docks related to new construction as he believed existing docks were grandfathered in. As a boater, Mr. Benson stated he was looking forward to the ordinance helping to clean up and while it perhaps did not go all the way, it was a good start. Christian Byrne, thanked staff and suggested that on page 3, Section 17.40.010, the words "unregulated" and "vessels" be stricken. The first part of the paragraph would then read "San Rafael tidelands, shorelines, waterways, canals, beaches, and salt marshes are vital natural resources which need protection from contamination and deteriorating water quality which would result from discharge of sewage, or solid waste." Mr. Byrne indicated that those penalties would be applicable across the board. There being no further comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. Mayor Boro invited Principal Planner, Kristie Richardson, to address the letter received from Mr. Butler. Ms. Richardson stated that with regard to new construction and reconstruction, staff envisioned reconstruction from the ground up. She stated that perhaps there was a way to better define what was meant by reconstruction in the ordinance. With regard to rafting of vessels, Ms. Richardson stated that the way the ordinance reads presently, the rafting of vessels would be prohibited if they impeded safe navigation and/or access; therefore, should Mr. Butler have a boat rafter that is not impeding safe navigation or access, it would not be prohibited. She believed it important to keep the waterways clear of multiple vessels being tied on. Ms. Richardson stated that the idea behind having the Harbormaster keep a record of pump -out was to make the Harbormaster also accountable, to ensure that tenants in the marina are pumping out. She stated staff believed it important that should someone be paying rent at a marina to dock their boat, the landlord should also be concerned and aware of whether they are pumping out or not. With regard to deleting words from Section 17.40.010, Ms. Richardson explained that the purpose of the ordinance is vessel sanitation and the place where this is being inserted in the Municipal Code relates to vessels; therefore, she was not sure it would serve the purpose of the ordinance to remove those words. Councilmember Phillips inquired whether staff had an objection to "unregulated." Ms. Richardson stated there was regulated discharge that would be permitted, and suggested dropping the word "unregulated." Alluding to Mr. Landecker's remark that restroom facilities have no standards, Councilmember Heller inquired as to who inspects these. Ms. Richardson explained that Mr. Landecker was relating restrooms and shower facilities to live -aboard boats and as pointed out, staff was no SRCC Minutes (Regular) 09/02/2003 Page 9 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 09/02/2003 Page 10 longer proposing an ordinance that would regulate live-aboards. They would be restrooms that would provide services to both live-aboards and recreational boaters and would be at the discretion of the marina operator. Mr. Brown stated that Mr. Landecker was referring to the number of restroom facilities that might be required at the marina and explained he did not anticipate many new marinas; however, in the event there were, these are conditional uses that require a Use Permit from the Planning Commission; therefore, facilities for the boaters would be part of that consideration whether there was a modification to an existing marina or a new one. Mr. Brown stated that should there be a modification or expansion to a marina, staff would certainly look at the adequacy of the facilities. Mayor Boro stated it was assumed that should there be more of a demand than was being supplied, the dock owner would need to respond to those he is renting to. Regarding the item referencing Page 7. (f) in the Harbormaster's letter, Councilmember Phillips indicated he saw his point. He inquired what the purpose was for keeping the records. Responding, Mr. Brown explained staff often gets into situations between property owners and tenants when Code Enforcement attempts to cite or place responsibility. He indicated staff's response is that the ultimate responsibility lies with the property owner and to evaluate the conditions in the various marinas along the canal, they differ significantly in the level of maintenance and quality. Mr. Brown stated staff believes it important that the Harbormasters who are paid to monitor the boats in their marina at least have some involvement that their boaters are keeping records. It is not up to the Harbormaster to certify and verify the accuracy of the records, rather ensure the boat owners are aware of the regulations and keep records, providing a copy on a periodic basis. Councilmember Phillips inquired whether the records would be reviewed or followed up on. Mr. Brown explained that should staff have reason to believe a boat was discharging sewage illegally, they would request a copy of the records. Should the records not be available, this would be an immediate violation and cause for a search and inspection of the vessel. Should they have the records, a determination would be made as to whether there was additional physical evidence a violation had occurred, and seek to search and inspect. Mr. Brown stated it was an initial check to determine whether or not there was a probable cause to inspect the vessel. Should the vessel have the records, Councilmember Phillips noted the Harbormaster did not need to also have them. Mr. Brown stated that if compliance was not forthcoming from the vessel owner, staff turns to the Harbormaster. Councilmember Phillips commented that should the vessel owner not have the records, the Harbormaster probably did not either. Mr. Brown stated that supposedly this was true. Attorney Lisa Goldfien explained this was just another means of ensuring compliance. She stated there had been difficulty in the past enforcing the existing laws and she did not believe it an easy problem to address. She indicated staff was attempting to generate some new mechanisms for addressing the problem of sewage discharge and to have the Harbormaster maintain records gives an incentive to tenants to follow the rules and assists staff in terms of having the records available for inspection. Councilmember Phillips clarified that the Harbormaster was expected to inform the boat owners of the necessity to keep records, and provide him with a copy, or else. Mr. Brown stated that the Harbormasters maintain constant contact, receiving monthly rental checks; therefore, they could obtain a copy of the sewage pump -out use with the rent check monthly. Councilmember Miller suggested having the fact that they must maintain these records written into the lease; therefore, not having the records available would afford the Harbormaster authority to remove them from the dock. Mr. Brown stated this would be at the discretion of the Harbormaster. Councilmember Miller stated he would presume the Harbormaster was a man of goodwill and wished to maintain his business. He indicated that in this way, the burden of proof and the activity would be on the boat owner and not the Harbormaster. On reading the ordinance, Mayor Boro stated he was surprised the Harbormaster was not being required to obtain the certification and have proof rather just hoping it occurred, with the City periodically checking. It was his facility and he rented it, and apparently, there were five different yacht clubs involved in this, one of which had a concern. Mayor Boro stated it appeared to him this was a means of attempting to close the loop. He noted the Staff Report indicated that within ninety days, vessel owners or occupants would be required to obtain an inspection of their vessel by the Coast Guard, with re -inspection every three years, and in the interim this had to be filed with the Harbormaster. Mayor Boro noted the Harbormaster's role was very passive; however, should someone provide him with a false record, he believed the Harbormaster would wish to deal with it and believed the requirement with respect to disposal of sewage was part of running the property. Mayor Boro stated it could be argued that the SRCC Minutes (Regular) 09/02/2003 Page 10 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 09/02/2003 Page 11 Harbormaster should be responsible for ensuring the boats comply; however, they were just being required to obtain a copy of the certificate, putting the burden on the boat owner. He commented that the Harbormaster had at least a role to collect the records. Referring to Page 6 (e) 1. — "Reconstruction" — Councilmember Miller stated this could be modified to include "where structurally" possible. Ms. Richardson indicated there also was some concern with the expense of having to meet the standards. She explained that should someone simply need to replace a portion of their dock, based on "structurally feasible" they would be required to meet the standards entirely, which would come at great expense. Mayor Boro inquired whether the words "complete reconstruction" or "full reconstruction" should be inserted. Ms. Richardson indicated this could be done. Returning to the record keeping issue, Councilmember Phillips indicated he was still confused as to how the Harbormaster would enforce this. It would be fine if the vessel owner provided the records; however, should this not take place for whatever reason, he inquired whether it would be incumbent upon the Harbormaster to "chase them down." Mr. Brown stated this would be the case and as suggested by Councilmember Miller, indicated it could behoove marina owners to insert this requirement in their lease. Mr. Brown agreed with Mayor Boro that concern had not been expressed by other marina operators. Councilmember Phillips inquired whether this was an issue that had been discussed and deliberated on since 2001. Mr. Brown confirmed that Mr. Butler, Harbormaster, has brought this up a number of times. He confirmed for Councilmember Phillips that the other five harbormasters had not expressed concern to staff, nor had it come up as an issue. He reported having spoken a great deal to the Harbormaster at Loch Lomond who had actually provided assistance to staff in putting the ordinance together. The following amendments to the ordinance were noted: Page 3 — Section 17.40.010 — Remove "unregulated" before discharge; Page 6- 2 (e) - Insert "complete" before reconstruction; Page 7 — Section 17.40.050 (a) — remove "licensed" before marine surveyor. The title of the ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH REGULATIONS FOR VESSEL SANITATION AND DOCK SAFETY" Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to dispense with the reading of the ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only, and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1813 to print, as amended, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen NEW BUSINESS: 16. CITY EMPLOYEE VAN POOL PROGRAM PROPOSAL (CM) — FILE 7-4-8 x 9-1-2 City Manager Rod Gould explained this was a proposal to initiate a City Employee Vanpool Program. He explained that some years ago, Council directed staff to look at ways of reducing congestion and improving air quality in this area, and staff's research indicated that vanpooling is a proven method of doing this. Mr. Gould reported that last spring he began discussions with a resident who was very interested in helping the City encourage vanpooling, and was aware that Mill Valley had run such a program for nine years with great success. Reporting that several steps were taken to ascertain its viability, Mr. Gould stated an informal survey of employees was conducted to ascertain interest in vanpooling. Results indicated a number were, many of whom live to the north of San Rafael, and while realizing it would be somewhat inconvenient, they were willing to use the program for a number of reasons, including cost. Mr. Gould reported that with the opening of the new Public Works headquarters, a good portion of employees had been separated from the City Hall base, which broke up one of the carpools that had run for some time. He indicated there is an interest in re-establishing vanpools, with one for City Hall and the work centers in close proximity, i.e., Library, Falkirk and the Blue SRCC Minutes (Regular) 09/02/2003 Page 11 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 09/02/2003 Page 12 House, and another at the new Corporation Yard in East San Rafael Reporting that staff conducted research with various organizations that promote this type of transportation systems management, Mr. Gould stated they supplied lots of literature on how to run such programs, with strong encouragement to follow through. He indicated that staff tried to use what was learned from other experiences in the private and public sectors to develop the Vanpool Program Policies attached to the staff report. These include an agreement that each vanpool member would sign and a guaranteed ride home program, so in the event of working late or an emergency situation, there would be an assurance of a ride home. Regarding vehicles, Mr. Gould stated that in the case of the Corporation Yard, recently a vehicle due for replacement was replaced with a slightly used 7 -person passenger van with very low mileage that could be used as the vanpool vehicle at the Corporation Yard. He noted that on the Consent Calendar this evening an item was approved which would replace a number of vehicles, including purchasing one for Code Enforcement. Mr. Gould reported this was paid through a state grant that Community Development achieved; therefore, this fully funded Chevrolet Trailblazer could also be used for vanpooling from the City Hall location. He indicated that both vans were purchased and could be used for other purposes during the day. Mr. Gould happily reported receipt of an anonymous donation of $14,000 to fund the operation of these vanpools through the Partnership Program of the Marin Community Foundation. He indicated this was expressly for the purpose of paying the operating costs. Mr. Gould reported having received a telephone call today from Mr. Dick Sadler who pointed out an error in the Fiscal Impact section of the report. He explained that while it is believed it would cost approximately $1,000 annually for regular maintenance on each vehicle, the cost for gasoline was somewhat understated, being more in the region of $2,100 per year. Therefore, the annual operating cost for each vehicle would be $6,000 instead of the $4,300 listed. Mr. Gould indicated that the $14,000 received as a grant would cover these costs for a little over two years, rather than the 3 years shown in the staff report. Should it please the Council, Mr. Gould stated staff could move forward with the program, announce it to the employees and commence meetings to determine those interested and get it organized and operating very shortly, and he recommended this action. Under the Program Policies — Maintenance — Councilmember Phillips quoted "Vanpool members are responsible for fueling the vehicle" and requested further explanation. Mr. Gould stated this indicated physically fueling at the Corporation Yard, not paying for it. Noting the operating expenses would be paid for a couple of years, Councilmember Heller stated that subsequently, it would become an equity issue of giving something free to a small group of employees that others would not receive. Understanding it was just two vans, she commented that in the event those vans were full, thus prohibiting other potential riders, a free ride was being given to one group while others paid several hundred dollars annually to get to work, and she had a problem with this. Mr. Gould explained that the surveys conducted to date indicate the number of people who could actually take advantage of the Vanpool Program would be slightly less than the capacity of these two vehicles. He believed the demand would probably be met should Council approve a two -van Vanpool Program. Secondly, should the Council desire in a couple of years to adjust this policy and require that vanpool employees pay a portion of the cost, this could be done. He noted Mr. Sadler had this equity concern, and Mr. Gould indicated that Mill Valley's program was free to the employees to provide the additional incentive, because going to a vanpool meant a loss of flexibility and convenience. Dick Sadler, 34 year San Rafael resident, stated that his experience with vanpooling 27 years ago did not make him an expert; however, his involvement was so deep, he believed he had an understanding of the concept more than most. He reported that twenty-seven years ago he was responsible for putting together the Second National Vanpool Conference in San Francisco and was responsible for writing a U.S. Federal Department of Transportation Demonstration Grant for $300,000. (He noted this figure would equal $1 - $2 million in today's economy.) Mr. Sadler stated that at that time he was deeply involved with the concept of how to get people out of vehicles into a vanpool, and on discussing this with Mr. Gould this afternoon, this was his concern. He indicated that developing a concept on the surface disturbed him as this was a free ride for the employees. While there were grants to help cover the costs, Mr. Sadler stated that not everybody could participate, due to family considerations, etc. There also was the question of other employees who could not be involved in the program not getting a free ride, and with gas prices a significant burden, this could pose a problem. Reporting that statistics were also discussed, Mr. Sadler believed the figures presented were SRCC Minutes (Regular) 09/02/2003 Page 12 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 09/02/2003 Page 13 lower than what would be experienced. He explained that 250 working days multiplied by 80 miles round trip equals 20,000 miles per year. The Federal Government allows a reimbursed per mile cost of 36.5 cents per mile, and this multiplied by 20,000 equals $7,300. A further statistic obtained from AAA today demonstrated a figure for a similar vehicle to San Rafael's (2003 Chevrolet Trailblazer) to be $10,000 annually; therefore, he believed the costs would be more than those included in the report. Mr. Sadler stated that should the City decide to proceed, it should be very careful to maintain statistics during the period the program is running to have full knowledge of the costs and whether it should be continued. Mr. Sadler stated that an administration fee at least should be required from the employees to be involved; it would tie employees closer to the program and was warranted. Councilmember Phillips stated he suspected the costs were not quite as high and the point was well taken with regard to record-keeping. He complimented Mr. Gould for bringing this idea to Council; it was something that should be tried and encouraged, noting it would not be an easy task getting people out of their cars. He favored giving the idea a try and keeping track of the costs, perhaps charging a modest amount. While supporting the idea, Councilmember Heller stated the equity issue should be carefully evaluated. She would be interested in seeing what other cities and government entities do and whether they ever had a problem with equity. She stated she had never heard of a free program to get people to and from work in that it was the employees' responsibility to get themselves to work. Councilmember Miller stated he had heard of free programs, i.e., a lot of businesses provide bus tickets, including Marin County. He noted from Mr. Gould's presentation that there would not be so many participants at the beginning to overfill the busses. He believed it to be a great program and was the type of encouragement that should be given to get people out of their cars, and he complimented Mr. Gould for bringing the program forward. Mayor Boro inquired regarding the Marin County van program. He stated his concern was that this was somewhat counter to what the City was starting to see and talk about regarding benefits. One of these was the potential of having employees share part of the cost of benefits. While he was all for people taking the van and not driving their cars, Mayor Boro stated it was fine for now having the $14,000 to get the program off the ground, together with having purchased the cars. However, three or four years from now, the funding would be depleted, the cars worn out and something had been started that the City would be requested to continue and the resources may or may not be available. Mayor Boro stated he was interested in ascertaining why at least there would not be some level of fee that would go towards the replacement of the vehicle. Regarding the replacement of the vehicle, Mr. Gould stated that both vehicles were being put into the City fleet, which was shrinking by three vehicles; therefore, without any additional budget allocation it was possible to set aside in the current budget sufficient funds to replace both vehicles at the end of their useful lifespan. To take depreciation out, Mr. Gould stated this would be done whether or not they were used for vanpooling as they would be in service for City functions and money would be set aside for their replacement when the time came. Mayor Boro stated that time would be sooner because of the commute, together with City business; therefore, the vans would wear out faster. Concurring, Mr. Gould stated that the bulk of the money would be available when they needed to be replaced and he did not believe it would make a huge difference in the replacement schedule of these vehicles. Should Council wish to impose a fee for participation in the vanpool, he indicated this could be done, subsequently ascertaining whether there still was sufficient interest. Having worked in Southern California, Mr. Gould reported that from the early 1980s through the early 1990s, they were under something called Reg 15, which was legislated by the Air Resources Board, and forced any employer with over 50 employees to regulate the employees to ensure there was no less than one and one half persons per vehicle coming to and from work. He reported that these types of incentive programs were highly common in Southern California, both private and public. Mayor Boro noted that the private sector was receiving tax incentives from the federal government to do this. Mr. Gould stated that to comply with Reg 15, they were not. Mayor Boro stated he was aware tax incentives were available presently for private employers who could motivate their employees, pay them, and get a tax credit. Mayor Boro stated his big concern was not the idea, rather that it was just there. Regarding the SRCC Minutes (Regular) 09/02/2003 Page 13 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 09/02/2003 Page 14 equity issue, he suggested there be some nominal fee, and he questioned the effect of the depletion of the $14,000, which was not budgeted. While not arguing with the idea, Mayor Boro stated he was surprised it was a complete free ride and was his reason for inquiring as to what Marin County does. Mr. Gould suggested that should Council desire he could bring the item back at a later date with more information on how the programs are run in other places. He noted the person who conducted the research was presently on medical leave; therefore, he did not have that information. He commented that charging $50 - $100 would not replace the vehicle for 10 — 12 employees who staff believed would actually take advantage of the program. Councilmember Phillips suggested that perhaps this be done to jumpstart the program; thereafter, with 6 people committed and accustomed to it, at that point in time to offset part of the cost might not discourage the pattern that had already been developed. Mayor Boro stated he did not wish to hear that this was part of an MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) and it could not unilaterally be done. He commented that the City's "hands appeared to be tied" on mostly everything that is done and in the past a lot of ability to make change had been given away. He suggested perhaps doing this with the understanding that the City had the option of inserting some type of fee in the future. Mr. Gould stated neither the Wellness Program nor Employee Assistance Program were part of the MOU. He noted that the polices afford the right to terminate or make changes at any time and it would not become a labor relations issue. Should he be surprised by far more demand for these two vehicles, he would return and explain this, as there would be an equity issue. Mayor Boro noted that grants were available from the Air Quality Control Board and he believed funding could be obtained from them for vanpooling. He believed the capital cost was fine; however, to go from spending approximately $200 per month to maintain a vehicle to nothing, was quite a benefit. At the same time, it was getting people off the road, to which all were committed. He requested that staff maintain records and update Council, together with apprising them of what happens elsewhere, i.e., the County of Marin. Mayor Boro believed Marin County did offer bus tickets, especially to students. Mr. Gould stated he would be in a position to answer that question by the end of the week. Community Development Director Bob Brown reported that Marin County does not have a vanpool program. He explained that any carpool for County employees of two or more are sold gasoline at the County's rate, which is a minor subsidy. He stated they also offer bus tickets to employees, together with preferred parking. Councilmember Heller inquired whether San Rafael offered such a subsidy for carpools, to which Mr. Gould responded negatively. She inquired whether this would be a benefit to encourage carpooling. She clarified this did not mean instead of vanpooling, rather in conjunction with. Mr. Gould stated that in offering both there would be a tremendous incentive to choose carpooling. Realizing that some people could not take a van, Councilmember Heller stated there could be another department where 3 — 5 people could ride together who were unable to take the van for different reasons. While not dispensing with the benefits of the van, she suggested evaluating a program such as this also. Mr. Gould stated that should the program be approved, when employees are apprised, if it were found that a number could not take advantage of it, but would be interested in a carpool, perhaps he could return with that proposal to augment it. Councilmember Phillips suggested reporting back in 6 months on the status. Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to approve the City Employee Vanpool Program Policies. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY MANAGER'S REPORT: Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro None Cohen 17. League of California Cities Annual Conference: - File 9-11-1 x 9-1 Noting the Annual Conference of the League of California Cities begins next Sunday, City Manager Gould indicated that the bulk of the discussion would center on a Resolution by the Board of the League of California Cities, to go before the General Assembly, as to whether or not the League of California Cities and its members should support an initiative that would amend the State Constitution to prevent the State Government from taking local revenues SRCC Minutes (Regular) 09/02/2003 Page 14 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 09/02/2003 Page 15 without a vote of the people Mr. Gould stated this would be the League's first attempt at such an issue; it is extremely expensive and arguably, it does not make a lot of good sense from a fiscal standpoint to further encumber the State General Fund. However, he noted many had concluded that cities and counties had no choice but to defend local revenues in the face of a state that is quite able and willing to help itself to local revenues, ongoing, on getting into trouble, and this year was no exception. As the San Rafael representative, Mr. Gould stated Councilmember Heller would be requested to cast a vote on behalf of the City. He indicated a Resolution would be brought before the full City Council at a later date to decide whether or not to provide backing; however, Mr. Gould hoped Councilmember Heller would vote in favor of taking this action to allow all the cities to back the initiative and move forward with it. He believed there was little choice; otherwise these types of state raids would continue to be experienced for years to come. Mayor Boro stated he was surprised counties did not express opposition to the State on the upcoming Special Election in view of current financial difficulties. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: 18. None There being no further business, the City Council meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 12003 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC Minutes (Regular) 09/02/2003 Page 15