Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1993-07-06SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/93 Page I IN CONFERENCE ROOM 201 OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, TUESDAY, JULY 6, 1993, AT 7:00 PM CLOSED SESSION 1. DISCUSSION OF LITIGATION AND LABOR NEGOTIATIONS - File 1.4.1.a No. 93-12(a) - #7 No reportable action was taken. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, TUESDAY, JULY 6, 1993, AT 8:00 PM Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor San Rafael City Council Dorothy L. Breiner, Councilmember Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Joan Thayer, Councilmember Absent: Michael A. Shippey, Councilmember Others Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE I.CONCERN RE: DENIAL OF USE PERMIT FOR PARKING AT BERMUDA PALMS MOTEL - File 10-5 x 9-3-17 (VERBAL) Mr. Irving "Whitey" Litchfield, owner of the Bermuda Palms Motel, complained that he has only been given one minute to speak. Mayor Boro replied that Mr. Litchfield had spoken for 20 minutes at the last Council meeting, and under Urgency time he has one minute. Mr. Litchfield stated that the City has closed his motel, by telling him he has to have 400 parking spaces, even though he has operated it for 50 years. He stated the City is insisting on a use permit, but he does not need one. Mayor Boro informed Mr. Litchfield that his minute had expired and Mr. Litchfield stated he had more to say, such as the City Hall building being unsafe because it is built of brick, and the Library will only have three parking spaces. City Attorney Ragghianti stated that when a person is causing a disturbance at a public meeting the presiding officer, in this case Mayor Boro, is empowered to have that person removed from the room. Mayor Boro called for a Police escort, and Mr. Litchfield voluntarily left the Chambers, accompanied by San Rafael Police Officers. II.HOMELESS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA - File 13-16 x 100 x 9-3-30 (VERBAL) Mr. Wayne Williams, San Rafael resident, reported that after having dinner at a downtown restaurant in San Rafael, he took a walk with his wife and child. Within a two block area and within five minutes they were approached by four homeless persons. In one case there was harassment and threats, and San Rafael Police Officers were called. He stated the homeless situation is getting out of control and he would like more attention given to this serious situation. Mr. Williams also mentioned that he has been working with the Marin County Supervisors on bringing rail transit to the area. III.CONCERN RE: FREEWAY WIDENING BY CALTRANS - File 11-16 (VERBAL) Mr. Bob Cooper reported that there was a meeting held by CalTrans recently at Dominican College regarding sound walls and widening of the freeway. He stated the meeting was inadequately noticed and some neighbors close to the freeway were not notified, and others found out about it just before the meeting. He asked that the City Council request CalTrans to hold a full Public Hearing on their proposal, not just an open house, and include people on both sides of the freeway in their noticing. He also requested that the Council appoint a Citizens Advisory Committee to work with CalTrans, and include some of the impacted residents on the Committee. Mayor Boro noted that some staff members had attended that meeting. Public Works Director Bernardi reported that he had contacted Assemblywoman Vivien Bronschvag, and asked her assistance in having CalTrans hold another scoping meeting, and possibly do an EIR (Environmental Impact Report). City Manager Nicolai added that she was particularly concerned that property owners were not notified. Mayor Boro asked that a report be given to the Council after the next meeting called by CalTrans. Councilmember Thayer stated she had worked on the 101 Committee and knows that there SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/93 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/93 Page 2 are many people who would like to give their input before an EIR is done. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/93 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/93 Page 3 Councilmember Breiner stated she would like more information from staff regarding an Advisory Committee. IV.RE: CONSTRUCTION ABOVE OLEANDER DRIVE - File 100 x 9-3-40 (VERBAL) Mrs. Cecelia Martz, of 274 Oleander Drive, spoke about the driveway on the hill in the development above Oleander Drive. She showed photographs of the area, illustrating the need for a barrier at the edge of the curve to prevent cars from going down the hill. She noted the construction people are putting debris behind the green trash container and it comes down the hill and against her fence. She showed various articles which she had found against her fence. Mrs. Martz also noted that the driveways above Oleander Drive go toward the hill, instead of in the other direction. V.RE: DOG LITTER LEFT IN PUBLIC PARKS - File 13-3 x 9-3-66 (VERBAL) Mrs. Cecelia Martz asked if there is a City Ordinance which would require owners of dogs who walk them in the public parks to clean up the litter left by their dogs. Mayor Boro asked Public Works Director Bernardi to look into the question of the retaining wall above Oleander Drive and see if there is a need for one. He also asked Mr. Bernardi to address the requirements regarding dog control. Councilmember Cohen noted there was another issue besides the need for barriers along the curb line, and that is the construction practices of disposing of their debris. He stated these issues should be taken care of right away. Mayor Boro asked Mr. Bernardi to visit the construction site tomorrow. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Boro announced he will abstain from voting on Item No. 8, since it is an issue dealing with the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District and he is a Board member and would have a conflict. Councilmember Cohen stated he will abstain from voting on Item No. 6, since he has a potential conflict of interest. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to approve the recommended action on the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM 2. Approval of Minutes of Special and Regular Meetings of June 7, 1993 and Special Joint Meeting of June 21, 1993 (CC) 3. Call for Applications to Fill One Position on the Design Review Board Due to Resigna- tion of Howard F. Itzkowitz (CC) - File 9-2-39 RECOMMENDED ACTION Approved as submitted. Approved staff recommendation, deadline for receipt of applications July 27, 1993 @ 12:00 Noon for Design Review Board (Architect or Landscape Architect); interviews for Design Review Board to be held August 2, 1993, commencing at 6:30 PM to fill unexpired term to the end of June, 1996. 4. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE Approved final adoption of Ordinance NO. 1646 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN No. 1646. RAFAEL ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE ANIMAL CONTROL REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN TITLE 8 OF THE MARIN COUNTY CODE (RE: COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 3138) (CA) - File 4-13-54 x 13-3 5. Baypoint Lagoons Landscaping & Lighting District: (PW) - File 6-48 x 9-3-40 a. Resolution Directing Filing of Engineer's Annual Report. 3 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8974 - DIRECTING FILING OF ENGINEER'S ANNUAL REPORT, BAYPOINT LAGOONS LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT (Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972) (CSW/Stuber- Stroeh Engineering Group, Inc. & Ron Simpkins designated as Engineer of SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/93 Page SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/93 Page Work) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/93 Page k, b. Engineer's Annual Report. C. Resolution of Intention to Order Improvements. 7. Resolution Authorizing Execution of Below Market Rate (BMR) Agreement for Boyd Court Project (RA) - File 5-1-322 x 13-16 x (SRRA) R-1 '7q 9. Request for Street Closure for Bike Race on Sunday, August 1, 1993 (RA) - File 11-19 10. Report on Bid Opening and Authorization to Purchase 5 Dump Trucks and 3 Pickup Trucks (Fin) - File 4-2-274 x 9-3-40 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/93 Page Filed report. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8975 - RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ORDER IMPROVEMENTS BAYPOINT LAGOONS LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT (Pursuant to Landscaping & Lighting Act of 1972) (Public Hearing set for July 19, 1993) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8976 - AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF TWO (2) BELOW MARKET RATE (BMR) AGREEMENTS AND ONE (1) BELOW MARKET RATE HOUSING GRANT AGREEMENT RE: BOYD COURT CONDOMINIUMS BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AND SAN RAFAEL HOUSING GROUP, INC. Approved staff recommendation for partial closure of Fourth, Fifth, Court, Lootens, Julia, "A", "B" & "C" Streets, August 1, 1993, from 5:00 AM to 6:00 PM. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8977 - AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF FIVE NEW DUMP TRUCKS FROM BOB NOBLES CHEVROLET, INC., (lowest responsible bidder, in the amount of $122,367.13) AND THREE NEW PICKUP TRUCKS FROM HANSEL FORD (lowest responsible bidder, in the amount of $32,860.33) 11. Resolution Approving the 1993-94 "Latchkey" ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8978 - Funds Contract With the State Department of APPROVING THE 1993/94 "LATCHKEY" Education (Rec) - File 4-10-238 FUNDS CONTRACT WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (in the amount of $74,290 for child care scholarships) 12. Approval of Extension of the Following:ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8979 - (CM) AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO CONTRACT FROM JULY 1, 1993 THRU a. Property Insurance with Home Insurance JUNE 30, 1994 FOR PROPERTY INSUR- Company and Fireman's Fund Through the ANCE WITH HOME INSURANCE COMPANY California Joint Powers Risk Management AND FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE Authority (CJPRMA) - File 9-6-1 COMPANY THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA JOINT POWERS RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY b. Excess Workers' Compensation Insurance AND FOR EXCESS WORKERS' COMPENSATION with National Union Through Johnson & INSURANCE WITH NATIONAL UNION Higgins - File 9-6-3 x 7-1-31 THROUGH JOHNSON & HIGGINS AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Shippey The following item was removed from the Consent Calendar for purpose of a separate vote: 8.TERMINATION OF FRANCHISE RIGHTS GRANTED BY VARIOUS ORDINANCES OF THE TOWN OF SAN RAFAEL (RE: OPERATION OF RAILWAY ON TAMALPAIS AVENUE) (RA) - File 117 Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to adopt the Resolution as recommended by staff. RESOLUTION NO. 8980 - TERMINATING FRANCHISE RIGHTS GRANTED BY VARIOUS ORDINANCES OF THE TOWN OF SAN RAFAEL AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, & Thayer NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Shippey ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/93 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/93 Page The following item was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion: 6.RESOLUTION APPROVING EXTENSION OF SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT - BAYWOOD TERRACE (PW) - File 5-1-314 Councilmember Cohen explained that while he does not believe he has a conflict of interest per se, since he derives no income directly from this project or involvement with it, he believes there is a potential for the appearance of a conflict of interest and he will therefore excuse himself from the Chambers. Mayor Boro stated that the reason he pulled this item for discussion is that at the last meeting, there were comments received from neighbors regarding concerns about the site. Mayor Boro reported that staff was very responsive in getting the Public Works Director and Fire Department, and the applicant, out there to meet with the homeowners and other representatives from the neighborhood. He commended staff for the excellent job in accomplishing this in the two weeks between Council meetings. He stated that hopefully we will see it through to completion. Councilmember Thayer stated she has a concern as to the reason for the delay, and whether it had to do with avoiding the Hillside Design Guidelines which would become effective. She referred to a memorandum from Principal Planner Sheila Delimont which mentions, in the Environmental and Design Review Section, that if building permits are not pulled by November 21, 1993 the houses will need to be redesigned to meet the Guidelines. However, when it speaks of the Subdivision Map it states that the Hillside Standards cannot be applied to the subdivision. Mr. Bernardi explained that there are 13 lots which are a matter of record, and there is nothing in the Hillside Standards Ordinance which will allow the City to reduce the amount of lots which are on the site. Therefore, if they came in after the November date for design review for a specific dwelling on one of the 13 lots they would be subject to the requirements of the new Ordinance. That would be the only "hook" we would have on them. Planning Director Pendoley agreed, and added that what that means is the architecture is subject to the Hillside Standards, but the lot configuration is not. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 8981 - RESOLUTION EXTENDING TIME FOR THE COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENT WORK - BAYWOOD TERRACE SUBDIVISION (12 month extension to and including July 3, 1994) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen & Shippey (Councilmember Cohen returned to the meeting.) 13.PRESENTATION OF CANAL AREA INSPECTION PROGRAM CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE TO GEORGE HUNTER AND JOSEPH SCOTT, PROPERTY OWNERS OF 460 CANAL STREET (Pl) - File 13-1 x 10-2 x 9-3-17 Mayor Boro explained that the persons who were to receive the certificate were unable to be present at tonight's meeting, and the certificate will be mailed to them. 14.PUBLIC HEARING - TO CONSIDER ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS ADDING SECTION 14.02.020 (MULTIPLE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATIONS) AND SECTION 15.04.080 (MULTIPLE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATIONS) TO THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE (Pl) - File 10-3 x 10-2 Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened. Planning Director Pendoley reported that the purpose of this procedural amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is to allow us to conform to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in a more streamlined fashion than today's Ordinance would permit. He stated this came to our attention from a comment that Mr. Bianchi made in the course of presentations to the Planning Commission on the pending application for Home Depot. He explained that, basically, the CEQA provides - for example - that if a project requires an EIR (Environmental Impact Report) that EIR must first be certified before any of the permits which are the subject of that EIR can be approved. He noted this can present a dilemma under our present system. For example, if the project includes a rezoning and a use permit, in order to have the strictest compliance with CEQA what you should do is have the EIR, the rezoning, and the use permit, all subjected to hearings at the Planning Commission. The Planning SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/93 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/93 Page 7 Commission would forward the EIR and the rezoning to the City Council without acting SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/93 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/93 Page Rl on the use permit. The City Council would presumably approve the EIR and rezoning, and then the Planning Commission could act on the use permit; the reason for that being that the Planning Commission is not supposed to act until the EIR has been certified. Mr. Pendoley noted that is a cumbersome process, and it is even more cumbersome should there be an appeal on the use permit. He added that would result in four separate hearings on one project, to get to the ultimate fair hearing which suits everybody. He reported that what most cities do, and what staff is recommending that San Rafael do, is that when you have cases like that, have the Planning Commission hold all of the hearings which are required by today's ordinances, and then forward it to the City Council with only a recommendation and without taking final action. Mr. Pendoley stated that is the practice which is followed by most cities and counties in California, and is most expeditious and it is in full compliance with CEQA. He stated that is the rationale for the procedure staff is recommending tonight. Mayor Boro noted that in either case it would come to the Council from the Commission, but Mr. Pendoley is recommending that it come to the Council with a recommendation and not a final action which may or may not be appealed. Mr. Pendoley responded that is correct. Mayor Boro asked for a further explanation as to how that speeds the process up, since in either case it would come to the Council, either as an appeal or a recommendation. Mr. Pendoley responded that strictly speaking, what CEQA requires is that if you have several permits on which the Commission could ordinarily act, in addition to the rezoning on which it cannot act but can only make recommendations, they would have to hold off on all of those other actions until the Council has acted on the rezoning and the EIR. He explained that the Council would be considering the rezoning and the EIR without having the full project in front of you. Mr. Pendoley stated they have been having the Planning Commission take final action, pending the Council's action on the rezoning, for example, but strictly speaking that is not the correct way to do it. Councilmember Breiner inquired, would you still have the full discussion of the use permit when it comes forward to the Council? Mr. Pendoley responded that is right, and that is one of the big advantages of this process. It mandates that you would have all of the permits in front of you when you look at the EIR, and it gives you a much fuller perspective that way. Mayor Boro asked if anyone would like to address the Council. Albert Bianchi, attorney, stated that if anyone is here who favors the Ordinance he would prefer to defer to them, because normally the applicants go first. There being none, Mr. Bianchi addressed the Council. Mr. Bianchi explained that he is an advocate, not for the Ordinance necessarily, nor against the Ordinance necessarily. He stated he is the attorney for Jackson's Hardware and is here with Mr. Bill Loskutoff, Vice -President and General Manager of Jackson's Hardware. He explained they do not have any really strong feelings against this Ordinance. Their concern is centered around Division 3 of the Ordinance, which he feels is the real reason the Ordinance is being proposed to the Council. He explained that Division 3 makes the Ordinance retroactively effective to the Home Depot project which is now pending before the Planning Commission, where they have had a series of four Public Hearings. He stated this would change the process and the rules of that procedure. He noted that the rules which are in effect now differ from the rules which are suggested in this Ordinance, as he suggested to the Planning Commission at their second meeting. He added that on that occasion they were told vigorously by the representatives of Home Depot, and by the Planning staff that it is perfectly all right to go forward on the basis that they were doing. At the next meeting they were told that perhaps that is not quite the case, and we are taking another look at it. At the final meeting which was held a couple of weeks ago we were told that now we do need to make the change, and need to make the change in order to accommodate the processing of the Home Depot project and the Shoreline Center project. He stated that is the reason for the retroactive provision in Division 3. Mr. Bianchi stated that his feeling about this, and probably the Council's feeling, is: If you adopt an Ordinance or an amendment, the question you should be asking yourself is, "Does this action benefit the community, or is it a special interest piece of legislation designed to benefit some particular applicant?". He noted we have a process underway now, and that process was started when there were existing rules. We have to abide by those rules and, presumably, the other people involved in that process have to abide by those rules as well. He asked, is it proper to change the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/93 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/93 Page X9 rules in the midst of that procedure in a highly contested application, in order SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/93 Page X9 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/93 Page 10 to benefit one side or the other? He asked, if we came before the Council as opponents to that project and said, "Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council, we would like you to change the rules for our benefit because we think that it is going to help our cause if you make that change in the rules", we would never have even gotten on your agenda. He stated he would have had to stand here like Mr. Litchfield did, and get escorted out by the three policemen. He repeated, we would have not gotten on your agenda with this. Mr. Bianchi stated that their concern is not about the validity or invalidity of the process which is suggested in the Ordinance. He explained he is not criticizing the Planning Director, who does a good job and is knowledgeable and competent. However, there have been repeated instances in this Home Depot processing, with which he is sure the Council is familiar, where a perception has been conveyed to a lot of people that there is bias in the process and we are really wasting our time going through this because it is a "done deal". He stated that may be denied, but he is talking about perception. He noted that if the Council changes these rules and adopts the Ordinance, that is fine; it is an overall ordinance and affects all future applicants. But he questioned adopting Division 3 retroactively when the sole beneficiary of that is a single applicant who is now in the pipeline, who started with the same rules as we did. He stated their real concern beyond that when they come before the Council the next time, on the merits and on the EIR of the Home Depot project, he will present evidence which he is confident will convince the Council that the Home Depot project simply does not meet, and is not consistent with, the General Plan of the City of San Rafael. He stated those are technical arguments, just as this processing is a technical process. He stated he wants to state his concern up front. Is this Council going to be asked to change the General Plan in order to accommodate a single applicant who has come in and cannot meet the requirements of the General Plan? He stated that if the answer to that question is "Yes", then his group will stop wasting their time and money in opposing the application. But, if the answer to the question is "No", there is a set of rules here which the Council has adopted, and we are bound by it and Home Depot is bound by it, then we will continue as we have a right to do. He stated that is the basis for their concern, so he would ask that if the Council is going to adopt this Ordinance, he feels the Council should take a strong look at leaving out the retroactive provision because it just carries the wrong image. Mayor Boro inquired if Mr. Bianchi had spoken at the Planning Commission on this matter. Mr. Bianchi replied he had not, because for one thing, it was very late, and the Planning Commission changed its rules in the middle of its process and limited the public participation to 20 minutes for the applicants and 20 minutes for the opponents, 5 minutes for organized groups and 3 minutes for individual citizens. He stated that at the final hearing, after three hearings at which there were no such limitations, those rules were changed. He stated they did not have time, since they had run over their 20 minutes. He explained this was heard subsequent to that. He added this is not something which means a great deal to them, except for that retroactive wording. Councilmember Thayer inquired how specifically would this disadvantage Mr. Bianchi's client? Mr. Bianchi replied it is because whatever the process is that was in place at the time when this application was filed, should be the process that the applicants are bound by, that we are bound by, and that the citizens are bound by. He explained the real concern is the one he has stated. He really does not care too much what the Council does tonight with regard to this Ordinance. He hopes the Council does not make it retroactive. However, what he really cares about is, when they get stuck on the next log jam that we face - and when we called this to the attention of the Planning Commission and the staff and the other side - everybody denied that there was any validity to our position, until they looked it up. He stated that his concern is that when they come back again to the Council, they will call to the Council's attention that the applicant is not consistent in several respects with the General Plan. He asked, are we then going to hear that we have already established a precedent for changing our rules as we go along, and we are going to establish another one by changing our General Plan so we can accommodate this project. Mayor Boro noted that the Planning Director stated at the outset that tonight's action was the result of comments made by Mr. Bianchi. What Mr. Bianchi is now saying is that in going through this existing process, he has commented on how cumbersome it is and how it could be cleaned up. He asked if that is correct, just in general terms? Mr. Bianchi dissented, explaining that what he said was exactly what the Planning Director reported. He (Mr. Bianchi) said to the Planning Commission that they cannot take final action on the applications that are before them because they have simply recommended approval and certification of the EIR, but the Planning Commission does not have the authority to make that final. That has to be done by the City Council. Therefore, when the EIR goes to the City Council, you do not know what they are SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/93 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/93 Page 11 going to do. They may change the plans dramatically as a consequence of their review of the EIR, and may ask for a great deal more SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/93 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/93 Page 12 information. They may even order a study on the economic impacts on the other businesses in this community. So, how can you, the Planning Commission, take final action on the application when you do not know what the City Council is going to do? He stated that was his presentation at the second hearing of four hearings to the Planning Commission. He added that the attorney for Home Depot stood up and said that is nonsense, everybody does it differently, and we always do it this way. Mr. Bianchi at that time pointed out that is not what the Ordinance says. Two meetings later we were told there was something to that, and the process we are following is wrong. Mr. Bianchi stated that if the Council wants to change the process that is fine. Change it globally, but do not change it on the basis of a single application which is still pending. Mayor Boro stated that he noted Mr. Bianchi used the word "wrong", and asked if he is saying that whatever the Council does is going to be wrong, and it is going to be wrong because we adopt this retroactively, or is he saying that what the Council is doing currently is technically not followed in a lot of places, but he would say it is valid? Mr. Bianchi replied he is not talking technicalities. He is talking the direct, clearcut, straightforward language of the Ordinance, which says to you, clearly, the process which had been followed by the Planning Commission up to that point was incorrect because the Planning Commission could not take final action for the reason that the City Council had not taken final action on the EIR. That is all he said. Mr. Bianchi stated he is now saying tonight, why change that process? He stated if his group came in here the Council would not change it for them, he is confident. He added perhaps they would, but he would not ask it, in the middle of the process. Why change it for the benefit of a single applicant? Let them go back and do what we would have had to do, and that is to follow the Ordinance as it is written and as it should be applied. He added there is no problem with that. Mr. Pendoley asked did Mr. Bianchi see the situation facing Loch Lomond #10, and is it not the same sequence? Mr. Bianchi replied, there is the fallacy. It is not his obligation, except when he is retained to do so on behalf of a client, to tell the City how it ought to process its applications. He stated that is up to the City, and to the staff. He added that if the Ordinance is there, whether he construes it correctly or the staff or anyone construes it correctly or incorrectly, does not make any difference. It says what it says, and you are supposed to do what it says you are supposed to do. He stated that whether he is wrong, or the Planning staff is wrong, does not make any difference. The process is there, the City adopted it and it is the law. He stated he cannot change it, but the Council can. He added he does not think the Council should change it retroactively. He stated he is almost inclined to agree with the Planning Director that the global change is probably not a bad idea. It might assist other projects, in a long term way, but that is not what we are dealing with. The reason this got rushed before you is because of Home Depot, and that is the wrong message. There being no further public input, Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing. Councilmember Breiner inquired, if we were to make this change and if the Council were to find some fairly drastic differences from those the Commission had, is there built into it any way to send it back to the Planning Commission for their further review? She stated she can see how sometimes the Council may have a different "take" on an EIR than the Commission may have. So, if you are getting things coming up when you are reviewing everything at one time, there may be changes made at the Council level, which then would not have the review of the Commission, which could be valuable. Mr. Pendoley responded that this Ordinance permits the Council to send things back, and the current Ordinance permits that also. He stated that ability is not affected by this Ordinance. He stated he thinks the Council is always going to have this problem, since you are always going to have something pending. He noted the next one in line is St. Isabella's, and after that it would be something else. He explained we did not do this, for example, in the case of Loch Lomond #10, but followed the process we followed for years. It appears that the process was in error. If the Council follows the process the way Mr. Bianchi has suggested they should - and he is right - what needs to happen is the rezoning and the EIR need to be sent to Council and acted on. Then the Planning Commission can act on the Use Permit and the Design Review Permit, and then the Council may or may not look at those on appeal. The Council would have the disadvantage of not having the Use Permit and the Design Review Permit in front of them. There would be the same issue with St. Isabella's, and with Dominican Convent Master Plan Amendment and rezoning, which are pending. Mr. Pendoley stated that if someone calls the Council to account and asked them to follow their rules strictly, and it creates a log jam, does the Council want to continue to endure that log jam, or put an end to it? Councilmember Cohen inquired if he is right in thinking that the new procedure which is proposed would require the Council to then review use permits they might not otherwise see? Mr. Pendoley replied in the affirmative. Mr. Cohen stated, then we SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/93 Page 12 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/93 Page 13 would only see, for example, use permit applications for St. Isabella's or Dominican in the event that the decision of the Planning Commission was appealed, and normally the Planning Commission has the authority. So we would be adding to the workload of the City Council by adopting this procedure by requiring that the City Council review every use permit application that carries with it a Zoning Ordinance Amendment and/or certification of an EIR. Mr. Pendoley responded that the only cases which would have to go to the Council, other than appeals, are rezonings or General Plan Amendments. General Plan Amendments are always accompanied by rezoning; it is a matter of definition. He noted that the Council looks at the projects in any event, and they always look at the whole project, and want to see the design, etc., to see if it is consistent with the EIR or the Negative Declaration. Functionally, the Council is doing that already, and nothing will change except that it would be above challenge. Mayor Boro asked Mr. Pendoley to explain the term, "above challenge". Mr. Pendoley explained that if the Planning Commission acted on the Use Permit before the Council acted on the rezoning, that Use Permit approval could be challenged. Mayor Boro asked, if we follow our existing process, regardless of how long it might take and how cumbersome it might be, with Home Depot, does Mr. Pendoley see any legal challenge to that process? Mr. Pendoley responded that procedurally the Council should be fine, but it will be different from anything they have done before. It would be the first time the Council has followed it strictly. Mayor Boro stated that when he first heard about this, he was trying to understand why we were doing this and it had an appearance of trying to do something special. He explained that was his reaction, and the City Attorney will acknowledge that was so. He added he was lead to believe that this was something which everyone had agreed to in this process. He stated he has a concern about appearance. He noted, no matter when we do something, unless we make it retroactive, there will always be something which will get through. He asked Mr. Pendoley what would be his objection to make this on a going forward basis, and set a date of 30 days after the adoption of this Ordinance, regardless of what is in the pipeline? He asked why is he pushing Division 3? Mr. Pendoley responded that is the reason, considering what is in the pipeline. He noted Mr. Bianchi has made clear that if you do not follow the procedure by which you have a two-tiered review in which project approval comes from the Planning Commission after Council has rezoned, and before the Council has had the benefit of looking at the project, he is going to challenge. The Council will face the same problem with other pending projects. Mayor Boro stated he needs to understand this more. He needs to have the staff take him through it in kind of a matrix as to where we are, and talk about what the differences are. He stated it sounds like either way we do it, we are going to be challenged. He stated he does not feel comfortable and needs to understand it better. City Attorney Ragghianti explained he is not arguing this case, but wishes to show how the system works. He stated that when you have a rezoning, a GPA (General Plan Amendment) and an EIR (Environmental Impact Report), all of which have to be approved by the City Council, since no one else can approve the rezoning nor the GPA. He stated that when these two issues, or either one of them, come before the Council, the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines provide that only the City Council may approve the environmental documents, whether it is a Negative Declaration, a categorical exemption or, in this case, whether it is an EIR. He stated that when you have a rezoning you also have the GPA and EIR, which are not under discussion now; but at times we also have in the same project a use permit, environmental design permit and a tentative subdivision map and, as in this case, a Development Agreement. He stated that all of these have the potential, with the exception of the Development Agreement, to be approved by the Planning Commission. He added he will come back to that issue later. Mr. Ragghianti explained that when you have a project which consists of all of these discretionary entitlements, the Planning Commission conducts hearings on the rezoning and environmental documents and makes recommendations to the City Council, but the environmental documents take into account not only the rezoning, but the Use Permit, the environmental and design review, the subdivision and, in the case of this project, the Development Agreement. So, after it comes to the Council for action on the rezoning, after a recommendation from the Planning Commission, there comes a recommendation from the Planning Commission to certify the environmental document. While that is going on, these other discretionary entitlements remain with the Commission. Mr. Ragghianti explained that this is what Mr. Bianchi was saying to the Planning Commission. He is saying they cannot act on these - the Use Permit, SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/93 Page 13 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/93 Page 14 environmental and design review or tentative subdivision map, until the environmental document has been approved. Mr. Ragghianti stated it makes sense to try to SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/93 Page 14 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/93 Page 15 streamline the process because while the Council is taking action, the Planning Commission is unable to take any action. Yet, the Council is considering the environmental impacts of the whole project, and not just the rezoning. Mr. Ragghianti further explained that under the scenario with the present Ordinance, after the Council would act on the rezoning and certify the EIR, the project would return to the Planning Commission and they would take action on the Use Permit, Environmental and Design Permit and Tentative Subdivision Map and make a recommendation to the Council on the Development Agreement. He noted that all three, the Use Permit, Environmental and Design Review Permit and Tentative Subdivision Map, could possibly be appealed to the City Council, although they may not be. He noted that in a case like this, where someone is objecting to the rezoning, there will probably be an appeal to the Council, so it would come back to the Council again. Mr. Ragghianti stated that when the Planning staff approached him, they indicated they were concerned about the way this was happening both with Home Depot and also with St. Isabella's, because they have this matrix and zoning approvals also. Staff asked whether it is possible to change the procedure. Mr. Ragghianti stated his answer was, "Yes". He added the first thing he suggested be considered was that when we are handling these types of development projects that the Planning Commission acts on everything at one time, because they are seeing everything at one time. He noted that when Mr. Bianchi rises to speak, he does not confine himself to the rezoning, but may talk about the EIR, or findings which are necessary to make for the Use Permit, etc. He explained he tried to find a way to change the procedure, and one thing they came up with was that when this happened, the Planning Commission would make a recommendation all at once to the City Council. He noted that when we look at our Ordinance, it gives to the Planning Commission the right to approve these, and not the City Council. For that reason they determined that the best way to do it was the way this Ordinance provides. However, this is an efficient way to do it and makes more sense to do it this way in terms of streamlining the process, but we do not need to do it. It is not legally necessary. However, Mr. Ragghianti assured the Council that the reason for doing it was not solely for Home Depot. He explained that staff had also brought to his attention St. Isabella's and one or two other projects, and they were concerned how they would be handled as well. He stated that is what this Ordinance Amendment was intended to speak to. He stated he will not respond to the objections which Mr. Bianchi raises because he does not think it is necessary, but if the Council does not include Division 3 in this Ordinance, if it is passed to print tonight, he thinks it would become effective August 19, 1993, and he does not know when it would come out of the Commission. Councilmember Cohen asked Mr. Ragghianti, in response to comments from Mayor Boro, if we were not to adopt Division 3, in order to insulate our process from legal challenge on this matter, the Council would then hear the rezoning and certification of the EIR for the Home Depot project and, once that was final, the Commission could proceed to hear the Use Permit, Environmental Design Permit, etc.? Mr. Ragghianti stated that is correct. Mr. Cohen asked, is there a legal way you could do that, if this issue is insulated from the intent of that? Mr. Ragghianti responded he does not think the Council needs to be concerned about a legal challenge to the procedure if they do not adopt the Ordinance. He noted Mr. Bianchi's point is well taken, when he said, "You can't act on the plan until you are through certifying the environmental document". Mr. Ragghianti stated he is right. He noted that once the EIR is certified, the Commission can start to act on the present Ordinance. He stated that whatever happens, someone will appeal it to the Council. Mr. Pendoley stated that his point on challenge would be that you would be challenged if you processed the applications the same way Loch Lomond was processed; that was incorrect. Mr. Ragghianti pointed out this is true of the way these projects have evolved in the past and no one has objected. However, when you look at the system in the abstract, what is being proposed here is a different way of doing it, and a more efficient way some would say, of doing it. It would simply be the Commission taking all of the matters and making a recommendation to the Council instead of doing it piecemeal. The Council would then be the ones having the ultimate decision making in the process and they could send it back to the Commission for additional information on certain points. Councilmember Cohen inquired of the Planning Director if there are any other applications currently being heard by the Planning Commission, which would be impacted by the issue of retroactivity? Mr. Pendoley responded there are none for which hearings have been opened yet. He added they have advertised St. Isabella's for August, but the hearing has not opened. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/93 Page 15 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/93 Page 16 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/93 Page 16 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/93 Page 17 Mr. Cohen stated that if we are concerned about the issue of appearances, he under- stands that when we adopt this there will be something in the pipeline. However, we have a project here which is distinct from others, and is in the process. He stated he has concerns about changing the rules in mid -stream on a project. Councilmember Thayer agreed. She stated that since the project is in mid -stream and they have observed one process up until now, we should continue forward with that process, and put the effective date sometime in August. She stated she does not know whether that would affect St. Isabella's project in the same way. Mayor Boro explained that St. Isabella's has not actually started the hearing process. Ms. Thayer stated she feels it would be nice to streamline the process. Mayor Boro noted that while St. Isabella's has filed an application, they have not started the hearing process yet. He then inquired about Dominican Convent. Mr. Pendoley responded their EIR is going to hearing next month, so they have plenty of time. Councilmember Cohen noted that the answer to that is that the decision is that when the hearing is opened, it can be announced or included in the staff report that, due to recent Council action, this is now the procedure which will be followed for projects of this nature, and this project falls within that description, and the rezoning, Use Permit, EIR, and Environmental Design Permit, will all go to City Council for final approval. In this way the rules would be clear up front. Mr. Pendoley stated he hopes the Council understands that it is likely that Home Depot will go through a process unlike what has been used on previous applications and, unlike what will be used in the future. Mr. Cohen replied that is unfortunate, but what we have been doing in the past was technically not correct and it has never been challenged. Mayor Boro stated that Home Depot will be technically correct, but it will be more cumbersome. Mr. Cohen responded, that is the issue which is before us. Do we want to streamline the project in a way that is logical and makes sense and risk the appearance of special favoritism, done deal, and that sort of issue which has been raised; or do we want to, for fear of that, admit the technical correctness of the challenge which has been raised and have a more cumbersome process, and make the change for future projects. Mr. Pendoley stated he thinks that where the Council would find themselves is holding the Public Hearing on the EIR and, at the same time the rezoning, and having people standing up to testify about Home Depot and the Council will say that is not before us this evening. Mayor Boro stated that is basically what he recalls from the Planning Commission, where they would have to explain that they were not going to talk about the merits of a project, but would talk about the environmental issues. Mr. Pendoley stated that in this case, the Council will have part of the merits before them, and the rezoning, but will not have the application for Home Depot before them, nor the Tentative Map. Attorney Bianchi asked to speak and was granted permission. He stated he thinks they have made their point, and if there are no other objectors present, they are prepared to withdraw their objection to this Ordinance in its entirety. Mr. Ragghianti inquired, does that mean they withdraw their objection to this being applied to Home Depot, in a manner different from other projects? Mr. Bianchi replied that is correct. He explained they are not here to play games, but to get across the message that they do not want to see any more indications of special treatment or bias on the part of the City toward Home Depot. He stated that is the only point they were trying to make. The Ordinance, as proposed, makes sense in terms of streamlining the process and he would be happy to see it, but he is simply saying that when he comes back to the Council and points out that they do not meet the General Plan, he does not want to be met with another attempt to change the rules at that stage of the proceedings. He stated that was his point here tonight. Mayor Boro inquired, was Mr. Bianchi saying the City's General Plan is locked up and will never be changed? Mr. Bianchi replied he is not saying that at all, but is saying that when an applicant comes in, as Home Depot has, and has gotten the public statements of approval from public officials that Home Depot has gotten, before a single Public Hearing of any sort took place in connection with this specific application, either on the EIR or on any of these other matters for which they have applied, then he has a concern that something has gone on that he does not know about, that he does not want to have occur, because he knows that is not the way the City operates. He added they do not want to be subjected to the situation where Home Depot comes in at a later time - he stated he has shown they are not consistent with the General Plan and he will show that - and then have the General Plan changed in the middle of the process, in spite of numerous public hearings, and in spite of not meeting the requirements of the existing Ordinance so the existing Ordinance and the process should be changed. He stated that is what they are here for and that is their point. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/93 Page 17 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/93 Page EV Councilmember Cohen inquired of Mr. Bianchi whether he had raised the question of noncompliance with the General Plan before the Planning Commission? Mr. Bianchi replied, indeed they have, both orally and in writing. Mr. Cohen stated he would like to clarify the statement Mr. Bianchi made when he returned to the podium. He stated he would like to reassure Mr. Bianchi and his clients that his mind is by no means made up on this project, either on the adequacy of the EIR, or on the merits of the project itself, and any action the Council takes tonight is not an indication of any future decision to be made on the project. It will be heard at the appropriate time and place. He stated he would not want to commit himself to agreeing or disagreeing with any objections Mr. Bianchi might raise by taking this action, so if he is saying he withdraws his objection, he (Mr. Cohen) is prepared to offer a motion, but he does not want Mr. Bianchi to think by that, that he is committing himself to voting a particular way, either on the project or on Mr. Bianchi's objections on the General Plan issues. Mr. Bianchi responded that since his objections have not yet been heard, he would not expect them to be endorsed. Councilmember Cohen moved to accept the staff recommendation and pass the Ordinance to print, amending Chapter 14, adding Section 14.02.020) to the Zoning Ordinance and amending Chapter 15, adding Section 15.04.080 to the Subdivision Ordinance, of the Municipal Code. Councilmember Breiner stated that before she seconds the motion, she has a question of the City Attorney, and/or the Planning Director. She stated that in terms of other communities around the State, she knows there are some who have the process we are proposing. She asked if it is possible to have a percentage of participation, and have most cities changed to this method, or just a few? Mr. Ragghianti replied he cannot give a percentage State-wide. He stated he knows of a number of cities who are doing it the way we are proposing, and knows of a lot of others which do it the way we are doing it now. Councilmember Breiner stated she will second the motion with the thought that streamlining is certainly something we have talked about and she would hope that this method would be an improvement, and if it is not, she will be one of the first to want to change it back. Mayor Boro stated he will vote against this motion, because he feels the Council has been whipped back and forth tonight, and accused of things he does not feel are legitimate. He does not like the process we are into right now, and the accusations which have been made, and then the withdrawal, and the whole bit. He added that in principle he had a problem with this from Day One, as it applied to Home Depot, and he is convinced all the more, so he will vote against the Ordinance because of its retroactivity. He stated he feels that way, and nothing is going to change his mind. Councilmember Cohen inquired of Mayor Boro, since the motion is still open, what would his preference be? He stated he is prepared to withdraw his motion. Mayor Boro stated he does not feel comfortable with the stage show we have just had here, an objection and then a gracious withdrawal, and then a threat. He added he does not like the way it has been orchestrated, and he thinks we have been put in the middle of something we do not even have before us, and it is not fair to the Council to start arguing about a project which is not even on the agenda. He stated he has a problem with the whole process, so if he wants to do this on a prospective basis and say that anything which has not been heard and is in the pipeline will follow the new rules, which is fine, but he cannot personally support making a change with Home Depot. Councilmember Cohen offered an amendment to his motion, and that is to instruct staff to rewrite Division 3. He stated that a simple change to Division 3 could say something along the lines that this Ordinance shall apply to any project seeking multiple development approvals for which hearings have not been opened at the time the Ordinance becomes effective, or the date of adoption of the Ordinance. Councilmember Breiner stated she will change her second on that basis. Mayor Boro asked Mr. Ragghianti for an opinion on this issue, and it was agreed to have a five-minute recess so staff could discuss the wording. The hearing resumed after five minutes. Mayor Boro announced that City Attorney Ragghianti has wording which will address the issue on Division 3. Mr. Ragghianti stated that in consultation with the Planning Director they talked about amending Division 3, and recommend: "This Ordinance shall apply to any project seeking multiple development permit approvals, which has not commenced hearings before the Planning Commission at the time this Ordinance is passed to print". He noted it will not apply to the home Depot project processing, but it will to others which are in the pipeline now, which have not commenced hearings before the Planning Commission. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/93 Page 18 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/93 Page 19 Councilmember Cohen stated that is acceptable and he will amend his motion accordingly. Councilmember Breiner seconded the motion. The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING CHAPTER 14 (ZONING ORDINANCE), ADDING SECTION 14.02.020J, AND AMENDING CHAPTER 15 (SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE), ADDING SECTION 15.04.080" The motion included dispensing with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and referring to it by title only and passing Charter Ordinance No. 1647 to print by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Shippey Councilmember Cohen recommended to Mayor Boro that, in consideration of the number of people who have been waiting to hear Item #16, he wondered if the Council might reverse the agenda order, since Item #15 may take some time. The Council agreed. 16.DISCUSSION OF RELOCATION OF FIRE STATION #6 (CM) - File 12-3 x 9-3-31 x 9-3-66 City Manager Nicolai reported there were many discussions regarding the relocation of Fire Station #6, and the recommendation before the Council tonight is to drop Munson Park as a site, but that staff should continue to pursue their search to see if they can find a possible alternative site. She stated it is her recommendation that the staff work with a broad community group in Terra Linda in evaluating those sites over the next several months. Mayor Boro stated he would like to suggest, if the Council is in agreement, to have the Fire Commission serve as a sounding board, working with the community. The Council agreed. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to accept the staff report. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Shippey Councilmember Thayer stated she would like to speak to her good neighbors in Terra Linda, that she would like to see them all involved in looking at different sites, with regard to response times and the very important matters Fire Chief Marcucci is interested in. She stated, with reference to the option of rebuilding the present station, she knows some people on Del Ganado who like the station where it is. She stated she would like them to be involved in this entire process also. Mayor Boro stated he has met with the neighbors, as the rest of the Council has also, and he was pleased to hear that the residents near Munson Park have already called in and started to work with Recreation Director McNamee and Public Works Director Bernardi regarding maintenance of the park, in light of the budget crisis. He added he appreciates that very much. Mr. George Orr, President of Friends of Munson Park Association, stated they appreciate the time the Council has given them to hear the issues as they saw them, and also the information which was sent to them by Ms. Nicolai, and they have already volunteered to adopt the park under the Adopt -A -Park program. He added they are meeting next Tuesday to discuss the maintenance program, and they will uphold their end of the bargain. He stated they will also be happy to meet with the public groups and the Fire Commission and do whatever they can. 15.DISCUSSION OF BALLOT WORDING FOR TWO PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS FOR NOVEMBER 2, 1993 GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION: (Fin) - File 9-4 x 1-1 x 9-3-12 x 9-3-20 x 9-3-40 a. CHANGE IN PROCEDURE FOR PURCHASES AND CONTRACTS b. ALTERNATE PROCEDURE FOR PUBLICATION OF LENGTHY ORDINANCES Finance Director Coleman stated that the proposed Resolution would put on the November ballot the changes in the Charter which would impact the requirements for advertising, as well as the requirements for formal bidding. He noted there is suggested wording which staff has reviewed and is recommending, along with recommending approval of the Resolution. Councilmember Thayer inquired how much would this ballot Resolution cost? City Clerk Leoncini responded she understands that the charge would be $1.00 for each registered voter and for each ballot measure it would add 25C, so it would be 50C more for the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/93 Page 19 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/93 Page 20 two ballot measures. She noted there are approximately 28,000 registered voters. Mayor Boro stated that would be $14,000 to place them on the ballot. Mrs. Leoncini added that is just an estimate, and the cost could be lower because now there would be some Statewide measures on the ballot. Ms. Nicolai noted we already have to pay the $1.00 because we already have the two Council positions up for election. Councilmember Thayer stated her second question has to do with the Ordinance establishing the purchasing procedures. She inquired what is the advantage to increasing the limit from $20,000 to $25,000 for all purchases except for Public Works contracts, and why the exception? Ms. Nicolai explained the advantage in increasing the limit is that we do not have to go through the formal bid process, and it is basically updating a value. She explained when the Charter Amendment went into affect there was a certain value built in that the $5,000 represented, but it has been a very long time since it has been updated. She added that most jurisdictions who are not limited by their charters have increased on an annual basis. She noted this is a time-consuming process involving advertising. She added we would do comparative shopping, but would not be constrained by a formal bid process. She noted that the State law at present for General Law cities says that it specifically excludes Public Works bids. What we are trying to do is bring our Charter in conformance with the State law and General Law cities. She added that the City has their flexibility in setting the dollar amount as other cities do, but the State law specifically says that about Public Works bids. Councilmember Thayer inquired if Public Works would still have to go through a formal bid process for items $20,000 to $25,000 and Ms. Nicolai stated they would. Councilmember Breiner stated she understood it to be the $44,000 limit for Public Works. Mr. Coleman explained that it is being suggested that the Ordinance, if this is approved by the voters, would be brought forward and all of these limits would have to be approved by Council at that time. He stated what he was suggesting in his memo that based on information he had from discussion with other cities, that regular routine equipment purchases and that type of purchase, has generally been in the $20,000 to $25,000 range. The major, large Public Works projects which involved very complicated bids and specifications are very time-consuming, and in General Law cities they conform with the California Uniform Construction Accounting Act and they can go up to $75,000, but other cities have their own dollar amount which they set to suit their own needs. He stated the figure he was suggesting is similar to Santa Rosa's, and ties in the Public Works portion of the purchasing to the California Public Contract Code, which currently has an indexed figure which this year is $44,000, but is changed every two years based on a construction index. He explained the Council would have flexibility to use any dollar amount they wanted, or any process for changing it that they wanted, that they felt comfortable with. He noted these are only suggested amounts, responding to the Council's question at their last meeting. Mayor Boro stated he supports what staff is trying to do, but is concerned about how it reads, and how people will react to it. He stated he thought that the last time we discussed this we said we would review this annually by Ordinance, and we would say that, but not just establish it and let it sit. He stated this seems to him to be open-ended, and does not give the appearance that the Council, via a public hearing, is periodically going to reaffirm it or change it based on public need. Ms. Nicolai inquired if Mayor Boro is referring to the ballot language, and he replied that is what is bothering him. She asked should it state, "prescribed by City Ordinance annually"? He replied he thought, "annual review of the City Ordinance". Councilmember Breiner stated the public may not realize, and we want it to be very clear for anyone reading it for the first time, that there are certain built-in safeguards. Councilmember Cohen stated he is not sure the Council wants to lock themselves into doing this on an annual basis. He stated that with construction contracts as they are now, there is not much justification for reviewing this on an annual basis. He recommended saying, "prescribed by City Ordinance to be reviewed on a periodic basis at a public hearing", as opposed to locking ourselves into a particular policy. Mayor Boro noted that if it comes up for annual review and staff states there is no reason for change, there would be no change. Ms. Nicolai added that it would be a very brief item, and she would not expect the general public to be interested. Ms. Nicolai recommended this could be done as part of the public hearing on the budget, if the Council wished, the same as setting the Paramedic fees and similar items. She noted that if no change is being recommended it could be on the Consent SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/93 Page 20 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/93 Page 21 Calendar. She stated that the wording of the ballot will not be as important as the Charter Amendment language. Mayor Boro noted that when people read the ballot measure, if it does not read right to them, it will have a negative effect. He stated what he would like them to do is read through it and feel comfortable with it. Mayor Boro asked if they could just add the words, "to be reviewed by the City Council on an annual basis at a public hearing". He noted that whoever writes the argument will state what the problem is and that in order to be more efficient, we will adopt the Ordinance at a public hearing and review it each year and confirm whether it should be raised or lowered, or kept the same. Ms. Nicolai clarified that it would be changed in both the ballot language and the Charter Amendment. Mayor Boro noted that under Bids and Awards it says the Council shall establish annually, by Ordinance, the conditions and procedures. He stated that would take care of that issue. Mrs. Leoncini clarified that the ballot language would be, "to be reviewed by the City Council annually in a public hearing"? Mayor Boro stated that is the concept. Councilmember Cohen stated he has a comment regarding the Ordinance, referring to Page 42. He noticed the bottom of Section 3 stated that the Council may reject any bid deemed excessive and readvertise, or the work may be done by the Council. If no bid is received, the work may be done by the Council. He recommended it be reworded. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to approve the revisions to the Charter Amendments and the ballot language, and adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 8982 - PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, AND SUBMITTING THE SAME TO THE ELECTORS OF SAID CITY AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION THEREOF, AND REQUESTING CONSOLIDATION AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Shippey There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:40 PM. Mayor Boro announced that the Council was going back into Closed Session to discuss Labor Negotiations. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 1993 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/93 Page 21