Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1993-03-15(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/15/93 Page 1 IN CONFERENCE ROOM 201 OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, MARCH 15, 1993, AT 7:00 PM CLOSED SESSION 1.DISCUSSION OF LITIGATION AND LABOR NEGOTIATIONS - File 1.4.1.a No. 93-6(a) - #1 - Hendricks & Horne vs. City of San Rafael, et al No. 93-6(b) - #7 No reportable action was taken. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, MARCH 15, 1993, AT 8:00 PM Regular Meeting: San Rafael City Council Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor Dorothy L. Breiner, Councilmember Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Michael A. Shippey, Councilmember Joan Thayer, Councilmember Absent: None Other Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager David B. Walker, Assistant City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE I.SAN QUENTIN EXPANSION - File 10-2 x 10-6 Harry Winters, member of the group of citizens against the expansion of San Quentin Prison, stated his group's intention was to request an agenda item be placed on the next Council meeting with regard to this subject and to request the City Council to adopt a Resolution to the Marin County Board of Supervisors, asking them to withdraw their invitation to the State to do this expansion of San Quentin. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to approve the recommended action on the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 2. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of Approved as submitted. February 16, 1993 (CC) 3. Approval of Partial Street Closure for Approved staff recommendation. Downtown Farmers Market Festival from April 1, 1993 Through October 14, 1993 (RA) - File 11-19 x (SRRA) R-181 4. Report on Bid Opening and Award of Contract - ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8843 - Alexander Avenue Retaining Wall (PW) -AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR ALEXANDER File 4-1-458 AVENUE RETAINING WALL, PROJECT #006- 4069338000 TO GEO-EX (lowest responsible bidder, in the amount of $26,900) 5. Resolutions Accepting: (PW) a. Grant of Easement for Construction and Maintenance of Storm Drain - Northgate Shopping Center - File 2-4-16 x 2-2 x 9-3-40 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8844 - ACCEPTING GRANT OF EASEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF STORM DRAIN - NORTHGATE ONE SHOPPING CENTER (AP #175-321-31) b. Grant Deed for Street Right -of -Way on ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8845 - Northgate Drive - Northgate Shopping ACCEPTING GRANT DEED FOR STREET Center - File 2-2 x 2-4-16 x 9-3-40RIGHT-OF-WAY - NORTHGATE ONE SHOPPING CENTER (AP #175-321-31) 7. Authorization to Call For Bids for Street Approved staff recommendation to Resurfacing Project - 1993 (PW) - call for bids for street resurfacing (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/15/93 Page 1 (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/15/93 Page 2 File 4-1-459 x 4-1-460 x 9-3-40 - 1993 8. Resolution Authorizing Execution of Agreement ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8846 - Between City of San Rafael and Quail Hill AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN Townhouses, Inc., for Resurfacing Private THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AND Streets Within the Quail Hill TownhouseQUAIL HILL TOWNHOUSES, INC., Subdivision (PW) - File 4-1-460 x 4-1-459 x FOR RESURFACING OF PRIVATE STREETS 9-3-40 WITHIN THE QUAIL HILL TOWNHOUSES SUBDIVISION (Quail Hill to pay the City 150 overhead & administration charge) 9. TS86-5 - Resolution Authorizing the Mayor and ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8847 - City Clerk to Execute an Agreement Providing AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY a Six -Year Extension of an Agreement toCLERK TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT Provide Below Market Rate Housing - Spinnaker PROVIDING A SIX YEAR EXTENSION Point Unit #5 (Pl) - File 229 x 5-1-263 OF AN AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE BELOW MARKET RATE HOUSING - SPINNAKER POINT UNIT #5 10. Fourth Amendment to Agreement With CH2M Hill ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8848 - to Prepare an Environmental Impact Report APPROVING A CONTRACT AMENDMENT (EIR) for Shoreline Business Park (Pl) - WITH CH2M HILL TO PREPARE AN File 4-10-257 x 9-3-40 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SHORELINE BUSINESS PARK (HOME DEPOT) PROJECT (Fourth Amendment - $9,000) 11. Resolution of Appreciation for John Volpe, Member, San Rafael Police Department Marine Auxiliary (PD) - File 102 x 9-3-30 14 15 Authorization to Apply for Community Develop- ment Block Grants (CDBG) (CM) - File 147 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8849 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR JOHN VOLPE, VOLUNTEER MEMBER, SAN RAFAEL POLICE DEPARTMENT MARINE AUXILIARY Approved staff recommendation to authorize staff to submit CDBG applications, as proposed. Legislation Affecting San Rafael (CM) - Approved staff recommendations to: File 9-1 a. SUPPORT AB 61 (ALPERT) and SB 174 (MARKS) - Public Library Learning and Literacy Expansion Act of 1994. b. SUPPORT AB 418 (FRIEDMAN) - Bank and Corporation Tax. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen (from minutes of 2/16/93 only due to absence from meeting.) The following Consent Calendar items were removed for discussion: 6.ACQUISITION OF ISTEA FUNDS FOR MERRYDALE OVERCROSSING PROJECT (PW) - File 4-8-23 x 4- 13-80 x 11-16 x 9-3-40 Councilmember Breiner stated she wanted to be sure there was nothing that could cause the City any jeopardy by this transaction. She noted she understood that this would be a switch of funds and then whatever profit comes from this will go into the Lucas Valley Interchange project; however, she had some concern about this with regard to Federal requirements being recognized at both ends of this transaction. Public Works Director Bernardi responded the Merrydale Overcrossing Project is already 510 Federally funded, and the City has already met all of the requirements for ISTEA, as well, so by adding the $1 million the percentage of Federal funding increases. Mrs. Breiner asked if this also applied to the funds for the Lucas Valley Interchange Project? Mr. Bernardi responded affirmatively; however, he noted because of the time limits on spending the money, the $1,112,500 will go into the Merrydale Overcrossing Project and will free up $112,500 of the City's Traffic Mitigation Fee funds which will go to the Lucas Valley Interchange Project. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to accept the report reallocating the $1,112,500 in ISTEA funds from the Waldo Interchange to the Merrydale Overcrossing Project in exchange for $1,000,000 of local funds currently (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/15/93 Page 2 (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/15/93 Page 3 allocated to the Merrydale Overcrossing Project, and the $112,500 gain to be allocated to the Lucas Valley Interchange Project. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 12.RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE A PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN MORRIS HOZZ, SELLER, AND MARIN COUNTY OPEN SPACE DISTRICT AND CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, BUYERS, AND ACCEPTING GRANT DEED FOR PORTION OF SUN VALLEY OPEN SPACE PRESERVE; AP #177-240-14 AND #177-240-20 (CM) - File 6-36 Councilmember Shippey asked if they had made any progress towards recovering any of the funds from the participants in this fraudulent transaction? City Manager Nicolai responded that County Counsel was pursuing this and would continue to do so and any funds recovered from this will be redistributed back to both the Open Space District and the City equally for what is being spent to close this transaction. Councilmember Shippey moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to adopt the Resolution authorizing the execution of a purchase agreement and accepting grant deed for portion of Sun Valley Open Space Preserve. RESOLUTION NO. 8850 -AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF A PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN MORRIS HOZZ, SELLER AND MARIN COUNTY OPEN SPACE DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, BUYERS, TO PURCHASE APPROXIMATELY 42.83 ACRES OF LAND IN SUN VALLEY FROM THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LANDS, AND ACCEPTING GRANT DEED AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 13.RESOLUTION APPROVING EXTENSION OF THE EARLY RETIREMENT PROGRAM (CM) - File 7-1-26 x 9- 3-11 Councilmember Breiner asked if some of the calculations in this program included: 1) The cost of losing experienced workers with training; and, 2) Some changes were made for sick leave pay-off which might be more costly in the future. She stated there was also a potential inflationary factor that would be built into this even if there were new employees coming in at the entry level. If the entry level position wages are not as competitive as they might be, she stated they might need to raise those up to hire the best workers, and the City might not be saving as much as is calculated in this report. She noted, in terms of the retirees in this program, the City will be having more health insurance costs to be covering them earlier. She asked if some of these figures had been calculated into this report. Assistant City Manager Suzanne Golt responded it was impossible to include the cost for training, for example, for a new hire. She stated this was incorporated into the Supervisor's pay rate. She noted she did not think the health premiums would be any more expensive for the new hire than it would be for an existing longer-term employee. Ms. Golt stated this was a list of 50+ employees who were eligible for the Early Retirement Program, but in reality she thought there might be just a few who actually will avail themselves of this program, so there should be a reasonably small impact upon the City. Ms. Golt did state that wherever a department has an employee who takes advantage of this program there will be some added burden for the supervisor to train them, etc., and additionally, in terms of bringing new employees in, it might not be possible to bring a new employee in at the entry level of a salary range, if that position is not competitive within the market. She stated that, even so, they would still save money because they would not bring a person in at the top step, which has not been the City's practice in the past and present, so even though it might reduce the level of savings, there would still be some savings there. Mrs. Breiner asked if this was really sufficient to offset the loss of a very experienced person? Ms. Nicolai stated the estimate of $281,000 is based on presuming everyone eligible avails themselves of this program and then they fill all the positions at the lower level. Ms. Nicolai stated one of the things they would be looking at in the meantime, if an employee chooses to do this, they still have the option of either not filling this position at all, which was the assurance during the original go - round, and secondly, if there was some way of reorganizing and reclassifying or doing something entirely different is also an option. She noted they did expect that a very few number of the employees who are eligible will avail themselves of this (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/15/93 Page 3 (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/15/93 Page 4 opportunity, but this is also just one way of dealing with attrition vs. lay-offs. Ms. Nicolai noted there were some ways of reorganizing through this program that staff would be looking at also. Mrs. Breiner asked if Council would have the option, after the Resolution is passed, of knowing fairly quickly how many will be availing themselves of this option. She asked Ms. Nicolai if it was staff's intention that on a regular basis this program would become available again? Ms. Nicolai responded the first offering was in December for those they knew were in positions that would not be filled. She stated this time it was positions that they knew they could account for a savings. Ms. Nicolai noted it depended on whether they wanted to make a similar offering in the future depending on the budgetary circumstances and their need to handle it this way. Mrs. Breiner asked out of the number of positions available for the Early Retirement Program, what was the actual number of people who would be taking this offer? Ms. Nicolai responded there were three offered and two people actually took the offer, whose positions were not replaced. Councilmember Cohen asked if the City had a Retiree Health and Benefit program? Ms. Nicolai responded affirmatively. Mr. Cohen then stated that presumably that cost would be increased by an early retirement program, due to providing more years of retiree benefits, in addition to the benefit package for the new employee. Ms. Golt responded affirmatively. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to adopt the Resolution approving extension of the Early Retirement Program. RESOLUTION NO. 8851 -ADOPTING AN EXPANSION OF THE EARLY RETIREMENT PROGRAM AND THE PROGRAM'S QUALIFICATIONS AND CONDITIONS AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 16.PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO JOHN VOLPE, MEMBER, SAN RAFAEL POLICE DEPARTMENT MARINE AUXILIARY - File 102 x 9-3-30 Mayor Boro presented a Resolution of Appreciation to John Volpe, Volunteer Member of the San Rafael Police Department Marin Auxiliary as a crew member on the City's patrol/rescue boat "Mission City". Mayor Boro read the Resolution stating that Mr. Volpe on January 30, 1993 at approximately 10:45 AM went into freezing cold water to rescue an individual, Mr. John McKee, whose small fishing boat had capsized. He spent approximately 10 minutes or more in the water to save this man's life. 17.PUBLIC HEARING - DA 93-1 - BAYPOINT LAGOON DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT UNITS 1 AND 2, FREEZING PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ENTITLEMENTS AT THE BAYPOINT LAGOON PROJECT, INCLUDING ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 1562, UP 88-100, UP 91-9, ED 88-101, ED 91-15, FS 89- 3, TS 91-2, AND PPP 91-5 (Pl) - File 5-1-292 x 10-3 x 10-5 x 10-6 x 10-7 x 9-3-17 Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened. Planning Director Pendoley explained that several months ago the Council entered into a settlement agreement in the lawsuit of Hendricks vs. the City of San Rafael and as part of that settlement, Council committed to entering into the Development Agreement which was before them that evening. He stated the Development Agreement was a type of regulation established by State law and essentially it was a contract that freezes development approvals for some extended period of time in return for concessions or commitments by the property owner. He stated this Development Agreement did not change any of the approvals the Council had previously granted in any respect and freezes them exactly as Council approved them. He noted it did, however, have an important benefit, in addition to settling the lawsuits because it does establish new controls on below market rate agreements that they would not have otherwise. He stated these had to do with the timing of the delivery of the units and remedies to assure that those units get delivered. Mr. Pendoley stated this was considered at a public hearing before the Planning Commission several weeks ago where they unanimously recommended approval. Councilmember Breiner asked Public Works Director Bernardi with regard to a reference on Page 7, ". . a 7+ foot mean sea level (MSL). . .", after a period of years and stated she thought they were doing a 9+ MSL for some of the other developments in that area. Mr. Bernardi responded the Ordinance reads it was +9 on the mean sea (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/15/93 Page 4 (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/15/93 Page 5 level, if it is not protected by levies. He noted this site was protected by levies and they required that they be built to +7 after 30 year settlement, so in anticipation of that they will fill the site to probably +9 and maybe +10 in anticipation of that amount of settlement taking place; however, the final grade after the settlement takes place would be a minimum of +7 MSL. Mayor Boro asked for testimony from the public on this matter and since there was no response, the public hearing was closed. Councilmember Breiner clarified an issue she asked about in Closed Session, with regard to the Below Market Rate Units, whether for sale or for rental, will they be kept to the Below Market Rate designation for a period of not less than 40 years. Mr. Pendoley responded affirmatively and stated that was the condition to one of the amendments to Ordinance 1515, which is the rezoning. The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR BAYPOINT LAGOONS" Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only, and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1645 to print by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 18.CONSIDERATION OF HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY (CM) - File 13-2 x 115 City Manager Nicolai gave a brief explanation of the staff report, noting this was to prevent confusion due to the fact that this was a very controversial issue. She stated staff has outlined the pros and cons of the proposed Joint Powers Authority to handle the hazardous and solid waste issue within the County to carry out the AB 939 requirements set up by the State of California. She stated staff had reviewed this for many months, along with Councilmember Thayer who has been on the Countywide Committee that has worked on this, and have basically put together a Joint Powers Authority Agreement that is circulating through the various jurisdictions, proposing a 23 -member JPA Board with San Rafael being a member of one of seven of the Executive Committee. She stated the amendments to the JPA, since they originally reviewed it, have been that the City was given a seat on the Executive Board, although the legal analysis does point out very clearly that there is no particular authority to that Executive Committee, but it does do much of the ground work, just as staff would often do. In addition to that, she stated they expressed concerns about not having a specific work program budget, which was not addressed and was intended to be dealt with after the JPA was created. Ms. Nicolai stated they had the City Attorney's Office review some legal issues which were outlined in the staff report and expressed her concern that these things should be corrected prior to passing this JPA agreement. Ms. Nicolai stated they had also been looking into whether San Rafael could go on its own versus being a member of the JPA. She stated there probably was no other jurisdiction in Marin County that has this as a serious option and this lead to them giving it more scrutiny than some of the other jurisdictions have done. She noted staff felt that if a JPA were set up and structured with a work program and a budget that was efficient, we would benefit from it as a member from San Rafael. She stated there was a lot of controversy about the current programs being operated and what was impossible to evaluate was if we do a cost benefit analysis of trying to do it on our own versus what we think the JPA will do, this would be just guessing at the outcome of this, which makes it very difficult to do. Ms. Nicolai stated the bottom line recommendation was the Council should definitely not adopt the JPA as proposed tonight. She stated she would like to send a strong message back to the Committee that a couple of steps be taken. She noted if there will be 23 members who get together and can resolve a work program and budget, then this should be done before we adopt the legal document, and correct any legal inadequacies, there being some controversy between what the City feels are legal inadequacies versus what the County Counsel does, and this should be resolved. In addition, she stated she did not understand why they could not work on a scope of the JPA in a timely fashion, such as a two-month period, and a proposed preliminary (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/15/93 Page 5 (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/15/93 Page 6 budget, which would give us some solid information to do a cost benefit analysis as to what it would be like for the City to do this on our own. The document before Council outlined the steps to be taken to do this on our own, and we would have to give the County 60 days notice of withdrawing from the current agreement, in addition to having someone revise the plan that was submitted to the State of California, even though the State has not reviewed the one already submitted. She stated there were some current things going on in the State Legislature which might modify the requirements of AB 939 which could have a large impact on what the JPA has to do and what the costs would be. She stated if these issues were resolved in a timely fashion it would, first of all, give us a clear indication of whether the JPA is a workable group and of what the scope of the services and the budget are going to look like so we have a clearer understanding of the JPA if we become members of that process. She noted it should not take a whole year to find this out. Ms. Nicolai stated that if the Council concurs with this, and if a viable JPA were created, it would benefit our rate payers, as well as rate payers throughout the County to do certain things cooperatively without wasting money and time to duplicate them jurisdiction by jurisdiction, particularly in Marin because we are small enough and the scope of some of these services makes it ridiculous to have someone assigned to each of them individually, and/or need to hire somebody. Then we would have a much better way of comparing what we could do on our own if we still feel dissatisfied with it, compared to what the Committee is coming up with, instead of guessing what we think they would do. Councilmember Thayer commended Ms. Nicolai for her comments with regard to showing some restraint at this point until we get some things resolved. She stated that the public has the right to know that by the year 1995, according to State Law AB 939 mandate, we have to divert 250 of our waste from the landfill and by the year 2000, it will be 500. She noted that if these goals are not reached, it will be a $10,000 a day fine and to meet that mandate they are deciding whether to enter into a JPA with other jurisdictions. She stated there was a problem with entering into a JPA with other jurisdictions; and the County at this time, in that San Rafael is already at the 25% mark and we are well on our way to meeting the 50o goal, even though it will be difficult to do so. Other jurisdictions within the County have not yet met this goal. Mrs. Thayer stated her greater fear since our rate payers' tipping fees are being used for this program is that they will probably receive a raise of 20o to 400 of the administrative costs of the JPA, and she stated she was reluctant to pass this on because she thought our rate payers may be subsidizing other jurisdictions and it is not fair to this City. She stated she felt that the JPA, with regard to San Rafael, might duplicate efforts that have already been done. She stated there are household hazardous waste collection days at the County for which our rate payers are paying for now and the County is only diverting 10. She stated that she hopes that the County and the other jurisdictions through this JPA come up with something far more efficacious than household hazardous waste collection days. Mrs. Thayer stated there were many legal questions surrounding the JPA and it cannot act as the lead enforcement agency and at the same time pass upon rates. She stated she also had some problems with it from the viewpoint that it will be a rate setting body and yet there will be no accountability to the public because there is no public body involved in this, like the Water Board where the rate payer can vote all its members off the Board. She stated this has been removed from the democratic process which she does not agree with. Mrs. Thayer stated she felt that our participation on the current JPA, to only have one vote out of 23, even though we are going to be one of the prime movers, was of great concern to her. Elissa Giambastiani, Executive Director of the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, stated the Board of Directors of the Chamber of Commerce asked her to speak to the Council to express their concern about this particular JPA. She stated they wanted Council to know that they are not opposed to a JPA, but they think this one has some very serious flaws. She stated the process by which the JPA was disseminated throughout the County was flawed. She noted the Advisory Committee responsible for creating the JPA was by-passed, and had not even finished their work prior to it being sent to the cities. Mrs. Giambastiani stated the JPA proposes to conduct activities that are already being performed by the County Department of Environmental Health or by the private sector. She stated she received a program matrix in the mail today that was sent out to the County Board of Supervisors showing what was going to be diverted from County programs into the JPA and although they separated the LEA, so that is not part of the JPA, it appears that no County funds are going to be expended in any of this and that all of the funding will be coming out of either tipping fees or permits. She noted she wondered why all these programs are being diverted into the JPA. She stated the taxpayers have no idea of how much and/or what they are paying for which was something she personally objected to very strenuously. She stated the (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/15/93 Page 6 (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/15/93 Page 7 League of Women Voters had voiced its concern about the voting, the cost, the scope of this and the fact that the JPA can set its own rates. Mrs. Giambastiani agreed with Ms. Nicolai with regard to waiting to join this JPA now as opposed to going ahead and then trying to change it from the "inside". This should be done prior to joining the JPA, including the costs and make everything clear prior to joining this JPA. She stated she felt this really needed an open forum where all these issues could be discussed and they have not been. She indicated she felt the Council could take the lead in asking to change it first, not later and get everything clarified now. She noted if this is done after the fact, it will take a two-thirds vote to try to change anything, which will be virtually impossible. Ms. Patty Garbarino, representative of Marin Sanitary, stated she supported all of Ms. Nicolai's comments on this subject. She stated she discussed this issue with the author of the AB 939 legislation who stated he modeled his legislation after their program. She stated they were fortunate to have one of the highest diversion rates in the State, other than Mariposa County which, with this legislation, was able to have a diversion rate of approximately 40%. She stated she wanted the Council to know that Marin Sanitary does support whatever the Council does tonight and Marin Sanitary workers and management were there to help in whatever way they could to meet the recycling goals. Ms. Garbarino then noted that on Pages 3 and 4 of the report, while it was true that San Rafael's solid waste revenue is 20% of the budget at the County, it still remains that San Rafael represents 40% of their budget and because the County does now receive money from other sources, the sludge stream, that part of the report could be perhaps sending the wrong message to the County about San Rafael's dollars. Ms. Garbarino stated the other issue she had was that San Rafael's diversion rate was actually 32% for the 2000 year goal, and a report they had done by Cal Recovery Systems commissioned over two years ago put them at approximately 40.1%. Terry Ann Wood, a member of the Advisory Board creating the JPA being discussed this evening, stated it has been an open forum during the creation of this issue. She stated they had a very broad representation from all the cities in Marin County and anyone who wished to attend those meetings was welcome to do so. She also stated there were minutes available from these meetings for those cities. She stated that one of the advantages of having a JPA was that there was a wide representation which was extremely important in considering fair rates for various cities in the County, which was one of the mainstays of having the JPA and having a forum where people could discuss what is going on in the County. She stated there were some limitations in the County that are going to increase our rates and she felt they probably would not have the control over them that they would like to. She noted they do have a certain limitation in where the garbage is being put into landfills. Ms. Wood noted there were other cities in Marin County who have done very well in meeting their goals besides San Rafael and that Marin County was far ahead of some other counties in the area. She stated she felt the JPA was a very helpful forum in which to meet the goals needed for this process. Councilmember Shippey stated in his opinion this was a $1.2 million "boondoggle" and felt that was not changed by any of the testimony he had heard. He stated he agreed that we need to send a strong message to the Committee regarding this JPA that we will not join this process until it meets all the requirements, including the legal requirements and the work plan, etc. Councilmember Breiner stated she agreed with Ms. Nicolai's recommendation in that it will give the Council a chance to work out some of the questions, including the possibility of a weighted vote. She stated she did not want the City to be seen in a weak situation when we are so crucial and so much a part of the income stream of the County. She noted that the process has been criticized by the League of Women Voters for not having had enough public discussion and she hoped that as it goes through, there will be some way to make this process more open to the public for them to give their comments. She stated staff's analysis was very good and it was essentially a question of not activating any kind of JPA until something is actually worked out the way we want it. Councilmember Cohen stated he hoped that the details of the organization such as: financing, personnel, policy, liability and by-laws will be worked out by the member agencies within the first six months or so, as stated in a letter from Chairman Roumiguiere, Board of Supervisors of Marin County. He noted, secondly, according to staff, "It is impossible to do a cost benefit analysis for San Rafael (rate payers) (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/15/93 Page 7 (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/15/93 Page 8 when the operation and budget of the JPA is not defined" and asked why we should "sign on" to this JPA when we have no idea of the scope and do not have any specific goals, other than AB 939 requirements. He noted they should have a realistic target and there were models in other counties about what they are doing with this same problem. He stated he felt they needed those goals and needed a budget before going into this agreement. Mr. Cohen stated this City was well ahead of the curve on this issue and noted that when a City like Los Angeles has not got this thing done, this legislation will be revisited in a hurry. He asked why we should be on the cutting edge of this issue when there are so many unanswered questions. Mr. Cohen then stated he felt it was a real mistake to sign on now and depend on the fact that we can opt out later. He noted that right now, if we decide not to join, this City was somewhere between 20% and 40% of the complete scope. Once we join this JPA, San Rafael will have one vote out of 23, so it seemed to him that the City had a lot more leverage now than after we sign on to this agreement. He noted that the City was receiving very little response to questions now from this group for several months, and this made him less than optimistic that the response would be better when we are one member of a 23 -member agency. He stated that if the City does not get any answers or satisfaction, we will have to go on our own and that will cause a one-year delay which will create that much more pressure. Mr. Cohen suggested getting the players together, the advisory committee, and agree on a work program and a budget for it and then get it going. He suggested sending a letter out to the County and the other potential members of this JPA with regard to these issues. Mayor Boro stated he felt staff has hit the mark on their recommendation and felt they were saying they saw value to the JPA, but also felt they owed it to the rate payers of the City to know what they were getting into with this JPA. He stated a recent development happened which sent up an alarm, which was that while this JPA was about to be approved with most of the entities, that the County has gone out and set a fee on hazardous waste collection. He noted he felt it made sense to try and ultimately be part of this, but it should be done on terms that will be acceptable to us, and noted there seemed to be a consensus within the Council on this fact. Councilmember Shippey moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to accept the report and consider adoption of the JPA Agreement (proposed Marin County Hazardous Waste and Joint Powers Authority) after our legal concerns are resolved, along with the suggestion that the Mayor write a letter to the Board of Supervisors of Marin County with Council's concerns on this issue. Under discussion, Councilmember Cohen suggested this letter should go to all involved members in this issue and should go out quickly. Ms. Nicolai asked, with regard to this letter, how strongly did they feel about various issues, to get the scope of services, a budget and the legal issues. She then asked with regard to the weight of San Rafael's vote on this Committee? Councilmember Breiner responded her suggestion was to make this an important issue due to the size of San Rafael compared to other cities involved in this. Mrs. Breiner stated that in general, we need to protect our interest because we are such major players in terms of money and portion of the waste stream. Mayor Boro stated he felt the way to address this, with regard to the suggested letter, we could start some dialogue with the County that there is a concern and we also understand that there is an Executive Committee and one of the issues we would like this group to discuss, in addition to the scope and budget, is the fairness in the voting structure. He noted he felt Council should raise this now, so the County understands this is a concern of the City. Councilmember Shippey stated another issue raised was Council would like some qualification on the rate setting structure and a way to make it more responsive. Ms. Nicolai stated her understanding of the rate setting structure was that it would be no different than what it is now, which is the County develops a budget, noting their authority to charge the City Tipping Fees has been cleared up and in addition to this, through the City's existing MOU, was done cooperatively with the City. She noted the programs the County has been operating have been funded through the Tipping Fees for years. She stated that Tipping Fees go back to every jurisdiction as a component of the garbage rate increase, and the County does not have the authority now, but it is being proposed that they have the authority to actually implement that rates come back to each jurisdiction. She stated what this meant was the City would be the deciding authority on the waste rate increases and the County would set the Tipping Fees. Ms. Nicolai stated her opinion was, if the JPA is going to create this program, they will not be the authority having these public hearings and/or receiving (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/15/93 Page 8 (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/15/93 Page 9 the phone calls from an irate public over the garbage rates because either the garbage company and/or the City will be dealing with these issues. Ms. Nicolai summarized by stating if these issues get addressed, as far as the scope of the services, the budget and the legal issues, then Council could discuss what the role of the Executive Board would be. Councilmember Breiner stated one of her major concerns was the fact that San Rafael has done a good job in recycling, etc., and many of the other communities have not. However, she did not want San Rafael to be at a disadvantage or have potential penalties if all jurisdictions are "lumped" together. Councilmember Thayer stated she would like to see a formula for the application of costs based upon the diversion rates in this jurisdiction and stated she felt this should include credit for San Rafael as well as a percentage taken off the costs that will be attributable to this jurisdiction, based upon what the City has already done. She stated she felt this was the only fair way to do this and could be worked out after the JPA. Mayor Boro responded this could be offered as an option. Councilmember Cohen stated his concern was that having some sense of what the Council was "buying" into was the fundamental issue and our ability to get those questions answered. He stated, with regard to the issue of a proportionate share of a weighted vote, he would be less concerned about this if he felt more comfortable that the Council's concern was being recognized and answered and if some of these issues are resolved, maybe we should go forward even if we cannot get the County to change entirely the manner of voting. Mr. Cohen stated, with regard to cost and recognition of diversion rates, there were several arguments which could be made in favor of this for San Rafael; however, the City has had economies of scale that possibly no other jurisdiction in the County has in order to be able to accomplish that. He noted he did not want to see the entire JPA get delayed on trying to have everyone pay their fair share after the fact, and he felt that is how the issue of paying based on diversion rates would be taken. Mr. Cohen stated that although he recognized the issue of fairness, he also saw it as something that could potentially stop this agreement, which concerned him. Ms. Nicolai stated her understanding of the JPA, as it has been drafted now, addresses this issue, but we would not be losing money from the City of San Rafael's Tipping Fee rate to subsidize, for example, Sausalito implementing a program that brings them up to the standards requested. However, on the other hand, there were issues that are Countywide and just by monitoring the legislation, etc., that we would equally all benefit from. Mayor Boro stated he agreed with Councilmember Cohen in his concerns, which can be put into the letter, as well as the other issues, such as budget, scope, formats, etc and state that Council supports the concept to move on with this. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 19.DISCUSSION ON BAYPOINT LAGOON SHORELINE PARK, PARCEL A LANDSCAPE PLAN (Rec) - File 12- 15 x 5-1-292 x 9-3-66 x 4-3-219 Recreation Director McNamee gave a brief summarization of the staff report and discussed the map provided for the audience and Council to see the issues involved in this report. Ms. McNamee stated the Shoreline Master Plan was a very long process which took approximately 18 months of planning as a result of the General Plan request for beautifying the shoreline. She stated there was a large Task Force appointed by the Council that represented a good cross-section of the Community and the City. Baypoint Lagoons, which was formerly Spinnaker on the Bay, was approved by the Planning Commission in 1989 and approximately two years later a detailed landscape plan was approved, which the developer had submitted, and actually began construction January, 1993. She stated in approximately mid-February several of the residents of Bedford Cove in Spinnaker Unit V, which buildings were not in existence when the Master Plan was designed, expressed some concern to Parks, Planning, Public Works and the Recreation Department who all have collaborated on this project. She stated they were concerned about landscaping, protecting their views from their residences, and specifically the planting which could grow to be 5' or 6' along the levee, and a post and cable fence, which was planned to be put on top of the levee. She stated City staff, along with representatives of the developers, met with several of the neighbors and discussed this, and the City agreed to move some of the plant material (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/15/93 Page 9 (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/15/93 Page 10 down the face of the levee and group it, so that there would be "windows" of 60' to 80' with no tall plantings growing. She stated they discussed the post and cable fence and staff told them it was an environmental protection for the wetlands and the shoreline bank, which is at the top of the levee down to the wetland area, which is considered upland habitat and has an environmental value. She stated the purpose of the plantings and the post and cable fence was to lend some protection to that upland area to prevent human and domestic intrusion on this area. She noted there was good consensus and agreement with the neighbors and with the City, along with representatives of the environmental community about grouping the planting and moving it onto the levee; however, they did not reach an agreement on the post and cable fencing, which is before the Council tonight. She noted the fencing was a minimal visual impact with the posts being 10' apart and the cable is stretched very tight, so there is very little visible. Ms. McNamee stated the other concern which was presented this week was the question of a view deck. She explained originally there were three view decks planned for the shoreline, one on the outboard of the very northern corner and two on the inboard - one at the north and one at the south. Planning Director Pendoley pointed these out on the overhead map. Ms. McNamee stated the view deck on the southern end was eliminated when the final Master Plan was completed because staff felt they did not need two decks on the inboard side due to possibly more intrusion than they might want to have over the wetlands which are more sensitive. She noted the location of the view deck being questioned by the residents on the visual map. She stated that staff did not have the authority to do this because the Master Plan and Landscape Plan have been approved by all the regulatory bodies, including Council. She stated staff felt very strongly that the post and cable fence is important to retain; however, the view deck could be moved down on the levee. She noted staff needed to research the possibility of a location where this view deck will fit, where the levee is wide enough and the concern will be that they cannot put fill over the wetlands. Councilmember Shippey recalled some other developments where there were levees where the fence was actually placed down the slope somewhat, rather than at the top of levee. Ms. McNamee responded they had actually had two fences in this plan, one was the post and cable fence with posts 10' apart with part of the cable in between with just three wires, and the bottom would be actually a chain link fence that would hold the bank and be more effective in keeping domestic animals and humans out of the very sensitive wetland area. She stated in other applications the chain link fence had been at the top of the levee and served both purposes of protecting the upland, as well as the wetland. She stated they were trying to avoid having a chain link fence all the way down the levee, which was not the "feel" staff wanted to have in the Master Plan. Planning Director Pendoley stated there was a very important environmental reason for having this design of parallel fences, which was keeping both people and domestic animals out of the area, both at the top and bottom, which is the reason for the present design. He stated the top fence did not act as that much of a barrier with the three thin strands of wire, but it should achieve the desired affect. He stated all of this information was considered in preparing the Negative Declaration; it was the basis of this approval and, from the Planning Department's point view, they would not like to see that Negative Declaration jeopardized. Councilmember Breiner asked if this fence would stop, for example, a dog being walked by its owner in this area, from entering the inboard face of the levee with this fence in place? Ms. McNamee responded that was the intent, to serve as a visual barrier for pedestrians and domestic animals and outlined where the public should be using the path, such as where walking, jogging, bicycling should occur, not down on the levee face. Mrs. Breiner stated that if a domestic animal got below that fence barrier, it would be entering the actual habitat area. Mr. Pendoley responded that this was a compromise that was made and staff felt they could sustain the Negative Declaration, even with this compromise. Mayor Boro asked if the original plan was to put a 5' to 6' chain link fence across the top of the levee? Ms. McNamee responded negatively, that it was to be a 3' or 4' fence and was not in the original plan, but was readjusted at the time of the original plan being designed. Councilmember Thayer stated this was already a compromise to avoid a heavier fence at the top of the levee. Mr. Pendoley agreed and stated this was a way to keep people and domestic animals out of the wetlands, but to minimize the visual impacts. Merton Dushkes, resident of 29 Bedford Cove, referred to a letter sent to Council by residents of the Spinnaker Unit V residential area and gave Council an additional list of other residents with similar concerns about this issue. He stated the group (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/15/93 Page 10 (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/15/93 Page 11 present at the meeting were there to give suggestions they felt would enhance the park and give remedy to these problems for all parties involved. Mr. Dushkes stated that at the present time, there was no fence or restrictions of any kind in the area. He noted they have lived there approximately two years and in that time they have not seen many people on the slope area being talked about in this meeting. He stated they were still not objecting to the chain link fence, but they did not "buy" the idea that the post and cable fence, which is basically a psychological barrier, would stop any animal from going through it, along with people who may be irresponsible enough to go over or through the fence to get into off limit areas. He noted this was a very small group of people who will ignore this fence, no matter what type of fence is there. He stated, also, he did not recall a chain link fence ever being considered for this area and noted in 1981 the BCDC (San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission) in July and November wrote letters objecting to any kind of barrier on the top of the levee. He stated their group had an idea they considered acceptable of raising the bottom fence, which would be the real barrier, half -way up the slope giving total protection to that area, the fringe area of the wetlands, while at the same time not exceeding the height of the path itself, so that with the plantings, etc., it would in no way visually block anything. He stated that by using the lower fence to protect the wetlands and not putting in the top fencing, it would still protect the wetlands and make the visibility for the residents better. He stated that even though the posts would be 10' apart, a resident farther away would be looking at a more solid barrier. He noted this would not be the only barrier; there will be platforms, benches, etc. Mr. Dushkes stated the second point they wanted to pursue was the south most platform which he understood would be 26' long. He then gave the Council some pictures of this platform which showed the possibility of visitors looking directly into their homes from this platform. He noted if this site was moved to where one of the original sites was already approved, then there would be more distance from the residences in that area and they would also be looking at the lagoon and Mt. Tamalpais. He asked that this platform be moved down to the site where the other platform has been cancelled. Mr. Dushkes then stated with regard to the plantings, they would be very tall plantings, some may grow 8' or 10' tall. He stated they had reached an agreement on the plantings, even though there was some disagreement on how high they could go above the path. He noted that what they did not believe was taken into consideration, in his opinion, was that these plants would not only probably grow to 8' to 10' tall, but they grow 8', 10' and more feet wide, so as the plants grow each year they will close those view corridors. He noted these corridors will also include benches and the platform on the top and, hopefully, not one in the middle. He stated their group would like to see a guarantee that in the maintenance the corridors remain the minimum distance of 60' apart and not be allowed to grow together so this will reduce the plantings distance from 60' to 80' to 30' or 40'. Mr. Dushkes, stated it was their understanding that the City had no funds to maintain this park and noted they had discussed with the Parks and Recreation Departments the ability and probable willingness of the residents of that area to assist in the maintenance. However, they would like assurance that they would have significant input into the maintenance so they could work together with the City to keep the maintenance up for future use, as well as the present. Bert Freeman, resident of the Spinnaker area, stated they lived in "$400,000" townhouses with a "million dollar" view which was what they were trying to protect. He stated the group's main concern was that they have significant input into this project. He then showed on the visual map where he lived would be close to the top view deck and asked what the dimensions of this deck would be. Ms. McNamee responded and estimation of 10' or 12' in width. Mr. Freeman stated there frequently were parties in this area at night at 2:00 AM or 3:00 AM and he felt this deck would encourage more parties and more noise disruption for the residents. He once again reiterated the group's main concern was to have input into this project for their own concerns. Mr. Bernardi added that the BCDC permit speaks of constructing two 200 square foot observation decks. Mayor Boro noted it was important to keep in mind that these were things that were done to set the stage so these homes could be built, and he felt they should keep this perspective in mind. Stan Behrens, Project Manager of Spinnaker Point, stated the view deck dimensions were 26' wide at the back with a retaining wall, and will be level with the running path, noting there will be wheel chair access and a U-shaped bench with no back on it. He (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/15/93 Page 11 (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/15/93 Page 12 noted it tapers out from 26' to 20' on an angle going out approximately 12', which adds up to approximately 200 square feet. David Levinson, resident of Spinnaker Point, stated he was concerned when he noted a project in this area that it might be paved over and/or with more buildings in the lagoon. He noted he was disappointed the he did not receive a notice about these changes being made and stated he was President of the Spinnaker Point Homeowners' Association at the time of the design these plans. Mayor Boro stated the issue before the Council now was the request from the neighbors to discuss this issue and Mr. Levinson stated this should have included the rest of the neighbors of Spinnaker Point who have concerns, too. He noted he did not see anything wrong with the original design of using both of the fences, the pathway and the plantings, which he did not want to see changed. He stated his concern that if this is changed, the people who want to walk out there to see the view and the wildlife and plants would not be protected per the original design. Patrick Webb, Chairman of the San Rafael Park and Recreation Commission, stated he served on the Shoreline Park Advisory Committee in 1989, and noted he wished to urge the Council to respect the integrity of the Committee report and the people who put this together. He stated this was done with numerous diversified groups designing this plan, which served as a model for other projects, such as the St. Vincent's/Silveira project, and showed that this type of process can be done. He noted the landscape architect, Michael Painter and Associates, who was chosen to do this work is a well- respected firm and stated everyone on the Committee had a chance to look at the scene to assist in deciding on how the plan should be formulated. Mr. Webb stated he visited this area yesterday afternoon, and noted there could be some corrections made, perhaps in the area of the view decks, but he felt it was important that the post and cable fence be retained as a demarcation, as it was intended. He stated this was one of the first components of the Shoreline Park Plan in which they were able to get all the property owners together, and as the Shoreline Plan is developed they need consistency in the planning and what will be good for the public/residents. Councilmember Shippey asked Mr. Webb what was the reason for removing the third observation deck? Mr. Webb responded the levee was very narrow in some areas and to rebuild and broaden the levee out and then build it back up would be a very expensive proposition, which was one of the considerations for this decision. Mr. Bernardi responded that BCDC also had some concerns with regard to any additional fill, so staff attempted to find areas that were already wide enough and did not have to have any additional fill for these decks. Councilmember Cohen asked Mr. Webb whether he thought it would be acceptable to make some variation in the planting program? Mr. Webb responded the original landscaping plans have been changed and he hoped the trimming would be done in a consistent pattern to prevent destroying the desired look they originally wanted for this levee area. Mr. Webb stated what they were attempting to do at this meeting was to preserve the Negative Declaration and to keep BCDC from having to look at this again. However, he stated he did not think the landscape issue was as important, for their purposes, as the post and fence issue at this time. Ralph Crocker, resident of Spinnaker Point for more than 10 years and a member of the Friends of Spinnaker Point, gave copies to the Council of his comments on this issue and then read them to the Council. Summarized, Mr. Crocker stated that for the record, the Bedford Cove residents' group present did not necessarily represent the other 200 residents and homeowners of Spinnaker Point. He noted that the Shoreline Park is to benefit all the citizens of San Rafael, not just one group. He noted that with regard to the offer of assistance in trimming these plantings, "among the conditions of approval for development of Spinnaker Phase 5 was that landscaping be of a variety and nature conducive to the protection of the native wildlife using the Spinnaker/Baypoint wetlands and lagoon". Mr. Crocker then referred to the post and cable fence issue and noted that BCDC had reversed its earlier opposition to this and now points to its importance in providing, "an edge to the path and to keep humans and (their) animals on the path and off the sloping side of the levee". He then quoted excerpts from the 1984 Draft EIR (Environmental Impact Report) for the Spinnaker on the Bay (now Baypoint Lagoons) development: "The remaining wetlands of the East San Rafael Baylands have become isolated, fragmented, and generally degraded through the continual expansion and encroachment of development. However, the Spinnaker project area still retains a (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/15/93 Page 12 (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/15/93 Page 13 high value regionally as wetland habitat. The site supports a unique, complex, biological community and wetlands ecosystem of regional significance. . .There is nowhere on the San Rafael Bay shoreline where such a diverse ecological community exists". Mr. Crocker stated they were asking the Bedford Cove residents to "broaden their view of our environment and to join us in trying to help limit man's propensity to tamper with nature". Joe Ryan, a resident in Spinnaker Point on Bedford Cove, stated he does not have an obstructed view of the Bay from his home. However, he pointed out to the Council that in 1989 there were three residences occupied on that street and as a new resident in the City of San Rafael, he noted the issue of the fence was being brought up by residents of the City who also have a direct impact now on the plan made prior to the area being inhabited by residents. He noted this was very important because this plan would affect these people who are living there now, who could not have given input when the plan was first conceived. Barbara Salzman, representative of the Marin Audubon Society, stated her concern with the issue of trimming the plantings and how it would affect the habitat values of that wetland and with the gaps of 60' to 80' there would not be much habitat preservation due to the fact that people using this area for recreational uses would create a disturbance to the wildlife inhabiting the area. She noted the intent was to have dense vegetation so that the views of people are blocked from the wetlands to preserve the wildlife in that area. She stated she was registering the Society's strong objection to the trimming issue. Ms. Salzman stated with regard to the maintenance of the plantings, she agreed with Mr. Crocker that it was dangerous to have residents who do not want the plants there to be allowed to maintain them. Ms. Salzman then addressed the view decks with regard to moving them due to the possibility of using fill in the wetlands and the impact on it, and it possibly would be closer to the wildlife habitat area which they did not agree on. Ms. Salzman stated with regard to the fencing issue, the Society originally wanted to have a cyclone fence on the top of the levee. She noted this was a compromise and stated because there was quite a distance from the houses affected by this view factor, it probably would not block their view and would help to keep humans and domestic animals out of the wetlands area. Ms. Salzman stated, in conclusion, that if this plan is changed an EIR would be needed because it would compromise the Negative Declaration. She stated she understood the concerns of the residents there now, who were not there during this planning stage, but felt it was important to maintain the integrity of the wildlife habitats next to the wetlands. She stated the Audubon Society urged the Council not to deviate from the plans that have been approved over a long process. Jean Starkweather, representative of the Marin Conservation League, stated she had been active in shoreline issues since 1972 when the area was discovered. She stated she was very pleased to see some positive action being taken to reverse some of the damage that has been done to this area over the years, before the houses were built near the edge. She noted the problem was the rare wildlife will not stay around where there are people, so the Shoreline Park Task Force tried to put together plans for this park that would enhance the resource for wildlife and people. She then addressed the four issues brought up by the group of residents present: 1) The viewing decks - this was a compromise with regard to the protection of the wildlife and, therefore, they ended up with a deck on the inside of the levee path because there was already some shrubbery in that area and from that spot there is a beauti- ful view across the wetland and the lagoon to Mt. Tamalpais. She stated they had no problem with moving the deck mentioned; 2) The post and cable fence - She stated she doubted it will obstruct the view for the residents and gives a little bit of protection for the habitat on that bank; 3) The planting - This goes along with the fence because it is a visual problem, but does protect the birds in the wetland, and, 4) Volunteers to maintain the plants - She felt this was not a good idea, unless supervised by City staff. Councilmember Cohen asked Mrs. Starkweather with regard to her involvement in the "environmental interests" if she agreed that plant relocation was a reasonable compromise. Mrs. Starkweather responded affirmatively for planting the plants, but not for the ones that come up voluntarily. She then stated the Committee did not (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/15/93 Page 13 (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/15/93 Page 14 support her compromise with regard to this variation to the original plan. Mayor Boro summarized by stating there were three basic issues to be dealt with and the overall issue was the integrity of the effort that was put in here, and reiterated that this plan was done so the developer could build these homes in Bedford Cove, but this park is a citywide resource and something they were trying to protect for all the citizens of San Rafael, not a small community only. The issues were: 1) The plants; 2) the Deck; and, 3) The fencing. He suggested Council discuss these issues one at a time starting with the plants issue. Councilmember Breiner stated, after hearing about the safety issue from Mr. Webb and Mrs. Starkweather about how narrow the actual habitat area actually was, she felt that the design should be left in place as it is in the original design. Councilmember Thayer stated she agreed with this and normally a 100 foot setback is demanded from wetlands, but here many compromises had to be worked out to protect habitat and other environmental features within a very small band and she did not want to create a change which might impact upon the Negative Declaration that is already in place. She noted this would be a very costly process to do this again. She stated it was important to have both a physical barrier, as well as a psychological barrier to keep out many, but not all, domestic animals and people. Mayor Boro then asked about the question regarding the deck issue if staff had determined that Council has the authority to move this deck without having to go back through a review process with other agencies? Ms. McNamee responded the Master Plan did have three viewing decks originally. She stated she spoke with BCDC last week and they did state that after the permit the plans would have to go back to them, but she did not feel it would be an exhaustive process. She noted the question will be is there room on the levee that does not impact the wetlands and they would have to see if they can determine this in the field. Mayor Boro asked the Council if they were in favor of having that deck looked at for possible relocation? Councilmember Shippey responded it was not clear to him whether the relocation of the deck would put it farther away from Bedford Cove and if it would affect any other residences. Ms. McNamee responded negatively. Mr. Shippey then stated that it was understood by Council that the view from the deck would be altered by moving it. Councilmember Cohen stated he hesitated to make changes quickly on this project. He stated he felt Mr. Levinson made a good point that many people participated in this process. He stated that many of the current residents were unable to attend this meeting and participate, but there was no way to do that. He noted the process was necessary to make those residences possible. He stated he did not have enough information to make a determination about the relative benefits of the view from one location versus the use of another. He also stated he did not have enough information to weigh the potential for environmental impact on the wetlands of relocating a view area and what the more southerly location would be like. He noted this might be worth a look at this issue by staff, in particular, for the next two weeks. Ms. McNamee stated this would mean the developer would be delayed two more weeks, which is a consideration; however, she did not have a problem bringing back a report to Council in two weeks, as long as they understood the delay to the developer. Mayor Boro stated the third question was with regard to the plants. He noted there was some agreement on the placement of the plants, but his understanding from tonight's input from the audience was that they should not be pruned in the park, and they should be allowed to grow in a natural way and assumed that due to the nature of these plants, there should be a very low maintenance level for them. Ms. McNamee responded affirmatively and stated she discussed this with the neighbors and explained to them that the irrigation would be temporary just to get them started and then they would receive much less maintenance after that. Councilmember Cohen noted it was important to recognize the point that Mrs. Starkweather made with regard to the type of plantings to fill out the view corridors, because this was probably where the bulk of the material would be. However, with regard to the return of the native plants, this was the original intent - to preserve the natural habitat and allow that to happen. Mayor Boro asked Ms. McNamee to come back to Council in two weeks with just the deck relocation issue and she agreed. Mayor Boro then summarized they need the basic information on this with regard to whether another location is feasible; secondly, (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/15/93 Page 14 (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/15/93 Page 15 the impact to the rest of the community with respect to the benefit of relocating this deck, and thirdly, the concern and issue about BCDC and whether this would be just a minor process to get this approved or did they have to go back through the entire permit process again. He stated unless there was other input, there would be a report back to Council in two weeks concerning the relocation of the deck. 20.CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL OF BUS SHELTER PROGRAM (CM) - File 11-23 x 9-3-11 City Manager Nicolai summarized her staff report, stating two companies have approached the City to bring to San Rafael a bus shelter program similar to one in San Francisco and other communities. She stated the concept would be that the bus shelters would be located in various locations throughout the City, as mutually agreed upon. She noted these companies making this offer are the ones that install these shelters and maintain them, and noted the operation is funded through advertising which is displayed at the end of each bus shelter. Ms. Nicolai stated the City would have a great deal of influence over what types of advertising would be placed in these shelters, such as no alcoholic beverages, tobacco products and other advertisements that Council felt were inappropriate. Ms. Nicolai explained these shelters would not only provide shelter for people using mass transportation, but also will be lighted and have telephones at each of the locations. She noted the idea seemed very good to her for several reasons. First of all, she stated we spend a great deal of time talking about expanding the use of public transportation, and yet in many areas in San Rafael there are no shelters to protect the public as they wait for public transportation. In addition to that, having lighted shelters at which a phone is available would create a sense of increased public safety in using those shelters. Also, one of the main benefits is that through the revenue that company makes from the advertising, they are responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of these shelters and the City can share in the revenue generated from that and part of what they will be asking in the RFP is some formula where the City would benefit from that financially. Ms. Nicolai stated that in addition to having well lighted shelters with phones which would be solely maintained at no expense to the City, we could generate from approximately $50,000 to $100,000 annually in revenue. Ms. Nicolai stated if this is approved, she would be sending out information to interested companies and then analyze the benefits, the pros and cons, and the uniqueness of the different services offered by the individual companies interested in this project and bring that back to Council. She noted one of the big issues to be dealt with would be the design of these shelters. A hearing would be held before the Planning Commission and Design Review as part of the process to see what the design is like, and the bigger issue would also involve amending the Sign Ordinance to allow a limited amount of signage in a public right-of-way. Councilmember Shippey stated his first reaction was this was a win/win situation, but he cautioned Council that these shelters could become "magnets" for graffiti and questioned what the Council could do about controlling that issue. Ms. Nicolai responded that this would be part of the responsibility of the company that would install these shelters. Mayor Boro stated that in reading material from one of the proponents of this concept, this is part of the company's responsibility to maintain the shelters and clear off any graffiti, and this would be included in the RFP. Councilmember Thayer stated she had a little problem with public telephones because at other locations in the City they have become a draw with regard to drug activities. She suggested they should be one-way phones. Ms. Nicolai responded affirmatively, that they could be for out -going calls only. Councilmember Breiner stated she would like the RFP to include trash containers, due to the litter in many other areas already functioning as bus stops in the City. Mayor Boro responded that if this was included, it should be decided and/or requested who would pay to have the trash containers serviced. Mayor Boro stated he was in favor of this proposal as it would promote public transit, and would be a great convenience to not only the transit riders, but also to people in the community. He stated there had been requests from the East San Rafael Task Force for benches and shelters on some of the streets, which would resolve that issue. He noted this would be a source of revenue for the City which we are always looking for, (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/15/93 Page 15 (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/15/93 Page 16 so he commended the staff for bringing this to Council, noting they looked forward to getting the proposals before them. Councilmember Shippey moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to direct staff to develop an RFP (Request For Proposal) to be sent to various firms and to proceed with the approval process for the Bus Shelter Program. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 21.UPDATE ON HOMELESS SERVICES IN SAN RAFAEL (CM) - File 13-16 x 115 Assistant City Manager Golt gave a summary of the services relating to the homeless community in San Rafael as noted in the staff report. She stated she included a summary of the report of what the Advisory Board has been working on, including a day services center in San Rafael which would be located on Ritter Street, next to the Human Concern Center. She noted this will be going through the Use Permit process through the Planning Commission soon. She stated additionally the San Rafael Advisory Board is working on the creation of a number of transitional beds in the San Rafael area, either at existing areas or through innovative housing units and those plans are in progress and various service providers have been working well in collaboration with each other. Ms. Golt stated as part of the final component of this update there is at least one homeless service in San Rafael that is a County sponsored program which both she and Mayor Boro became aware of and more familiar with at the Homeless Commission meeting last Monday. She stated from this they learned the County has been sponsoring a homeless service specifically for emergency housing at the Bermuda Palms Motel in San Rafael. She stated the program, as she understood it from meeting with Bob Kunst of St. Vincent's and Eddis Harrison, the Homeless Coordinator for the County today, came about because of a series of different things occurring back in late 1992 and January, 1993. She noted the County planned to have an emergency shelter weather - based criteria in operation to take the overflow from World College West or for people who did not wish to avail themselves of World College West in inclement weather and then there was a certain set of weather criteria that was established when this shelter would be available in other different churches throughout the County. She stated this plan fell apart with the heavy rains and Red Cross volunteers who were going to staff the church facilities were not available, because they were staffing shelters in Guerneville and elsewhere for people who needed temporary shelter from the rain. Ms. Golt stated the Bermuda Palms became available through Mr. Litchfield's (owner) offer to make rooms available for a very reasonable price for this County program, in January. She stated the weather -based criteria stopped being used approximately in February, 1993, and that the shelter is now available each night. Ms. Golt noted the City had some concerns about the report that came primarily from the fact that the City itself was not included in any planning of using the Bermuda Palms for this type of shelter and/or notified officially until a short time ago that this particular program existed. She noted there was nothing to prevent the use of a motel room for a homeless person to stay in, whether it was through the voucher system provided by St. Vincent de Paul or Mr. Litchfield, himself, deciding to make the rooms available. She noted the concerns the City expressed to the Homeless Commission were more because this was a program that had formed and evolved into something that was funded by the County and had a service provider through St. Vincent de Paul to provide meals. Also, the Homeless Coalition was screening people to determine if they did or did not get these rooms, there was a set number, etc.; so, in essence, it became like a replacement to the old Armory program in many respects. The City's concerns relate to not wanting to have this become a replacement to the Armory shelter on an on-going basis by default and not have it evolve in a permanent program in which the City has no participation or no input. Mr. Irving Litchfield, owner of the Bermuda Palms Motel, stated his concern with regard to his assistance to the homeless by housing them in his motel and the lack of support, in his opinion, from the City on this issue. Mayor Boro stated Mr. Litchfield had every right to express his concern; however, the concern of the Council was the creation of a program at a location without coming before this Council and without getting the appropriate permit. He suggested Council write a letter to the Marin County Board of Supervisors and Homeless Commission stating the Council was sympathetic to the need and they commended Mr. Litchfield for providing his facilities for this program, but we are opposed to a provider starting (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/15/93 Page 16 (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/15/93 Page 17 a program at that particular location when the County is on record as stating there will be one location in the County where this service will be provided, which would be a multi -service center. He noted that does not mean there is not a need, but that we can only serve so many people in this community which is what Council needs to deal with. Mayor Boro again suggested the Council write a letter to Marin County delineating the issue and their concern with regard to the County establishing a homeless program, not only without permits, but on a default basis. He noted the City has accommodated homeless in this community and he noted he resented the fact that this program has evolved and no one seemed to know about it. Councilmember Cohen asked Ms. Golt with regard to her conversation with Mr. Bob Kunst today because he has had some involvement in this process with his involvement with the St. Vincent de Paul Dining Room Advisory Committee with regard to the relocation of their dining room facility. He stated he discussed this with a representative of the St. Vincent de Paul Advisory Committee dining room and was assured that they would stop the food service, and stated this member was not aware that they were providing food service; however, she was aware of the voucher system, which is at one location where there is access to the homeless, where otherwise on the street it is at the dining room where the free lunches are provided. He stated he agreed with Mayor Boro that the addition of food service in the form of dinners and breakfasts and screening turns this into a program, as opposed to just housing, which did concern him. Mr. Cohen asked for the result of this conversation with Mr. Kunst today. Ms. Golt responded Mr. Kunst advised her that, first of all, St. Vincent's is very positive about the program at the Bermuda Palms because it is logically easier for them to have the shelter at one location, rather than perhaps several, if it were at churches. She noted they have always been earmarked to provide meals for the weather -based emergency program and that continued as the church part of this program failed and they established it at the Bermuda Palms Motel, and they also, in addition to providing meals for 40 people, issue vouchers for additional members so that there could be anywhere from a minimum of 40 to upward of 100 homeless at the motel each night. 40 of these people are within this program, then there are additional people who receive vouchers from St. Vincent's just for the room, not including the meals or anything else. She noted St. Vincent's is working hard now to raise funds to extend the program into April dealing with the voucher system only, and they view the meal part as going to the end of March and then it will close down, but they would like to have funding to continue the voucher system for rooms until the end of April, 1993, and this is being pursued from private funding. She stated she understood that St. Vincent's has a very strong commitment to providing services to homeless individuals in the central Marin area, particularly San Rafael, and they are fulfilling one of their missions to do so and are very committed to continuing the program. Ms. Golt stated that in her discussion with Mr. Kunst it became very clear to her that the decision to place this program at the Bermuda Palms really became very involved because of those different dynamics; however, it was definitely sponsored by the County and it was a program that was sought by the County. She stated the food part of it has always been like an ancillary service to this particular operation. Councilmember Cohen stated that his feeling about St. Vincent's was that they were very dedicated to carrying out their mission, and they were singularly poor at working with the community at large and understanding the impact of the way they carry out their mission on the rest of the community. He stated he was concerned about this particular issue and in the Advisory Committee meetings he attended, St. Vincent's could have given them this information, but they did not. He stated he would continue to pursue this with St. Vincent's. Ms. Golt responded that what Mr. Kunst told her today was that St. Vincent's did not view this as their responsibility to communicate their role in this program to the City because they view it as an ancillary service to the County program. She noted what they indicated to her was they really feel that the need is here in this town as the majority of homeless individuals are in San Rafael and they felt it was very important to move forward with this particular program. She stated she felt in talking to Mr. Kunst that he did not really feel it was necessary to communicate this to anyone, that it had to be done and they were going to do it and "it was nobody's business", they were going to do it. Mayor Boro stated if a private charity was willing to raise money to provide rooms and have a hotel near the ones who require the rooms, he did not think there was any- thing Council could do about that. However, if the County were getting involved with a program, he felt the City should be on record that we want to know about that, (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/15/93 Page 17 (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/15/93 Page 18 especially in the case of the Bermuda Palms Motel. Councilmember Shippey stated the City had no problem with the Bermuda Palms Motel, but with the County. Councilmember Cohen stated his problem was mainly with the County because it appeared they made a conscious decision not to notify the City about this program. Mayor Boro agreed with Councilmember Cohen and stated that the needs would be there continually, and again they can do what they want to do with the rooms at the Bermuda Palms Motel, but if the County is successful in their fund raising and think they will be running a program at this motel, they need to be advised that they do not have the right to do this without the City's approval. Councilmember Cohen stated he will pursue this with the St. Vincent's Advisory Committee and let the County know that they need to be more consistent on which position is the official one of St. Vincent's. Mayor Boro suggested holding off on the letter to St. Vincent's until they hear from Mr. Cohen and then proceed with the issue with the County. 22.CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: a. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF ABAG (ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS) 1993/94 BUDGET AND WORK PROGRAM - File 111 Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to approve adoption of the ABAG Budget and Work Program for 1993/94, noting that there was no increase proposed. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ADD ITEM: I. SALES TAX - File 8-10 (VERBAL) Mayor Boro stated there was a question raised by Councilmember Breiner with regard to supporting the extension of the existing Sales Tax. He asked that Administrative Assistant Sharon Andrus, City Manager's Office, bring back a report to the next meeting with more information on this from Sacramento and then how in the future Council could communicate their support of the Sales Tax. II.ST. VINCENT'S/SILVEIRA COMPETITION EXHIBIT - File 9-2-45 x 10-2 (VERBAL) Councilmember Shippey brought to the attention of the Council the St. Vincent's/ Silveira Competition exhibit, which was scheduled for April 6, 1993. He encouraged Council to attend. Planning Director Pendoley suggested Council also attend a reception on April 23, 1993 for the jury involved in this competition. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:37 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 1993 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/15/93 Page 18