Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1993-08-02SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/2/93 Page I IN CONFERENCE ROOM 201 OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, AUGUST 2, 1993, AT 7:00 PM CLOSED SESSION 1. DISCUSSION OF LITIGATION AND LABOR NEGOTIATIONS - File 1.4.1.a No. 93-14(a) - #1 - De Anza Assets, Inc. vs. City of San Rafael No. 93-14(b) - #7 No reportable action was taken. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, AUGUST 2, 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 Others Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager Gary T. Ragghianti, City Manager Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE None. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to approve the recommended action on the following Consent Calendar items: ITEMS RECOMMENDED ACTION 2. Approval of Minutes of Special and Regular Meetings Approved as submitted. of July 6, 1993 and Special Meeting of July 19, 1993 (CC) 3. Resolution Accepting Conveyance of Grant Deed for ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8991 - Access to City Drainage Facilities Across 1151 ACCEPTING GRANT OF EASEMENT Andersen Drive (PW) - File 2-4-17 FOR ACCESS TO CITY STORM DRAINAGE FACILITY (1151 Andersen Drive, AP #18-180- 57) 5. Approval of Closure of Parking Lots at Lindaro Street, Between Second and Third Streets, and the East Side of Lootens, Between Third and Fourth Streets, and a Portion of Lindaro Street Closure on Saturday, September 25, 1993 for Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods Flea-Tique (RA) - File 11-19 7. Appropriation From Davidson Bequest for Replace- ment of Library Light Fixtures (Lib) - File 8-20 X 9-3-61 THE HOUSING Approved staff recommendation to approve parking lot and street closure. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8992 - APPROPRIATING $26,954 FROM THE DAVIDSON BEQUEST FOR REPLACEMENT OF A TOTAL OF 170 LIBRARY LIGHT FIXTURES IN AREA OF THE LIBRARY THE ADULT COLLECTION 8. Resolution of Appreciation to Aino "Nicky" ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8993 - Marcotte, Secretary, City Clerk's Office, Employee RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION of the Quarter (April 1 through June 30, 1993) FOR AINO "NICKY" MARCOTTE, (CM) - File 102 x 7-4 x 9-3-14 EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER (APRIL 1 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1993) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/2/93 Page 1 2 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/2/93 Page ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Councilmember Shippey (from Minutes of Special and Regular Meetings of July 6, 1993 only, due to absence from meetings.) The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion: 4.RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH WESCO, INC., FOR MONITORING SPINNAKER LAGOON (PW) - File 4-10-252 Mayor Boro noted a typographical error in the list of Spinnaker Lagoon Advisory Committee members, in that under "San Rafael Planning Dept.", Jean Hasser is a Principal Planner, not an Associate Planner. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 8994 - AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF AN AGREEMENT WITH WESTERN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES COMPANY, INC. (WESCO) TO CONDUCT PHASE II MONITORING OF THE SPINNAKER LAGOON (for an amount not to exceed $18,400) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 6.APPROVAL OF PARTIAL CLOSURE OF "A", JULIA AND FIFTH STREETS ON JUNE 10-12, 1994 FOR I GIOVANI DELL'ARTE ITALIAN STREET PAINTING FESTIVAL BY YOUTH IN ARTS (RA) - File 11-19 Mayor Boro asked for follow-up to City Manager Nicolai's concern about the closure of Fifth Avenue with regard to this event. Assistant Executive Director Ours stated staff has researched this and it was decided that this was workable. Councilmember Shippey moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to approve the staff recommendation for the partial closure of "A", Julia Streets and Fifth Avenue on June 10-12, 1994 for I Giovani Dell'Arte Italian Street Painting Festival by Youth In Arts. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 9.PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO AINO "NICKY" MARCOTTE, SECRETARY, CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER (APRIL 1 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1993) - File 102 x 7-4 x 9-3-14 Mayor Boro made the presentation of the Resolution of Appreciation to Aino "Nicky" Marcotte for Employee of the Quarter (April 1 through June 30, 1993), who expressed appreciation for the award. City Clerk Leoncini made a presentation of flowers to Mrs. Marcotte and Deputy City Clerk Drake also made a presentation of flowers to Mrs. Marcotte to express her gratitude to Mrs. Marcotte for all her assistance in the 3 years that Mrs. Drake had been employed at the City. Mrs. Drake indicated she was moving to Humboldt County and appreciated this award being given to Mrs. Marcotte prior to Mrs. Drake leaving the area. 10.APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO DOWNTOWN ADVISORY GROUP FOR GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS (Pl) - File 9-2-46 x 9-3-17 Planning Director Pendoley explained this is the completion of an assignment their Department was given in June, 1993, when staff discussed the implementation program for the Downtown Vision. He noted the basic charge to this committee is to try to translate the Vision into General Plan and Zoning language, and in looking at the applicants, staff was looking for people who had been on the original Downtown Planning Committee, as well as people who were willing to serve on the "Champions" group. He stated staff was looking for a good cross-section of property owners, the downtown community and the neighborhood groups. He stated the staff report points out that staff received a nomination from the Marin Center for Independent Living, who is Ms. Carole Dillon. Mayor Boro commended Mr. Pendoley on the make-up of this committee and the manner in which SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/2/93 Page 2 3 it was presented to the Council. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/2/93 Page Councilmember Shippey moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to approve the membership of the Downtown Advisory Group. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 11.RESOLUTION APPROVING A BELOW MARKET RATE (BMR) AGREEMENT RE: LOCH LOMOND #10 (Pl) - File 229 x 5-1-297 x 9-3-17 Planning Director Pendoley explained the contract included in the staff report was a standard contract for condominiums. He noted there was one issue that usually is in these contracts; staff designates the lot on which the units will be located. He added he has explained this issue by stating the developer and property owner wanted to put these BMR units on Lot #22; however, Planning and Public Works staff recommended against this lot because of the adjacent street configuration which staff felt presents a problem because there is a tight curve in that area. Possible lots would be Lots #18 and #19. He stated staff was recommending using Lot #19 for these BMR units, as the best of the two lots. Councilmember Shippey clarified the only issue being discussed was staff's recommendation of the location for the BMR units. He stated the Loch Lomond Homeowners Association suggested Lot #24 and asked why this was not a suitable location? Mr. Pendoley responded Lot #24 was a more difficult location to develop because it has a somewhat smaller building envelope and Lot #19 is an easier lot to develop, but noted it ought to be acceptable in terms of City policy. Councilmember Shippey stated it was his understanding that there was some controversy about #19 and he had not heard of any controversy about #24. Mr. Pendoley stated the developer will speak to his concerns. Mr. Robert Ham stated he had visual aids, noting he had drawn a proposed tentative 3 unit building. The largest problem is the 6 car garage. Mayor Boro stated the real question he had was one of the things the staff report talked about, noting that when this went before the Design Review Board they didn't have anything to look at and he would like to know why we are looking at large scale without going to Design Review. Mr. Pendoley stated that this is the first time plans were available. Mayor Boro stated that you will be getting the Council to design homesites and if that is the case, he would defer to the staff. He indicated it would seem to him that the report stated that Design Review conceptually agreed with your assessment but had nothing tangible to look at. Mr. Pendoley stated that he thinks the Design Review Board understood the basic problem with traffic which he thinks is the most fundamental issue here. The Design Review Board was reserving judgment, lacking an actual drawing, but they thought that #22 did cause some special problems. Mayor Boro asked again why is this Council looking at drawings that have not been through the Design Review Board? Mr. Pendoley stated that he had not known that drawings were available. Attorney Albert Bianchi, representing Robert Ham, stated that they agree with Mayor Boro completely and think it ought to be before Design Review. Mayor Boro asked if there was a problem with holding this up. Mr. Pendoley stated that if Council wants to send it back that would be fine. Mayor Boro stated that they had an opinion from the Planning Director and the developer has something to offer opposing that and he has no problem with that except he would like the benefit of the Planning Director's assessment of that plus the Design Review Board. Mr. Bianchi stated they had technical reasons why they think the Design Review Board would be best qualified to comment on this. Councilmember Cohen stated he would be satisfied with that if the primary question were one of design; however, as he understood the Planning Director's memo, there are really two issues, and concern about traffic is also a major issue. He stated if for some reason they think that can be resolved to everybody's satisfaction in some other form, then it's worth going back to Design Review to look at the design to see whether or not both Design Review and the neighborhood can be satisfied with what is being proposed for this lot. Mayor Boro stated he was trying to understand what was before the Council, noting the staff report was very specific about what had happened at Design Review and asked Public Works Director David Bernardi for his comments on the traffic. Mr. Bernardi stated he spent some time talking about the development of this particular parcel SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/2/93 Page 3 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/2/93 Page with three units on it and the provision for parking 6 cars on the site and how those cars are going to get on and off the site. He noted in looking at what was presented here, it is basically the same configuration on what he and the Planning Director would figure as far as access to the site would be. The problem is that if it were a single family dwelling site you would have the normal number of trips assigned to single family dwellings. Here you have three times as many. In a situation like this even though it is in a residential neighborhood, in his opinion it is a less than desirable situation with the number of units that are on there, which is three uni ts. He would recommend that another one of the parcels be looked at. If you want to get 3 parcels to look at, he would say this is number three and you would look at the other two first. Mr Ham said that in analyzing these 27 lots in the subdivision, having to get a six car garage on one of these six pieces of property, and having paced off the outside of the building before tonight's meeting, this is not the width of a six car garage nor is it the depth this way of a garage with a turnaround that it takes a car to get in and out. He went on to state that #22 is the only lot in the subdivision that he can see will take a level pad like that and not have six car garages lined up on the street. Regardless of all the other reasons, that's the reason he thinks that this is the most acceptable lot. There is plenty of room for parking on it as well. Also, the neighbors' concerns seem to have been visibility and he thinks that the visibility can be mitigated by landscaping or design or whatever the case may be. He drew a design just to give some idea of how large this would be. He noted if he took it over and put it on lot #18 as the staff has suggested, you would have to enter it from the street and you would have a three story straight up building. He stated he was required to lower lot #18 by ten feet and lot #19 by 15 feet because of visibility problems when the subdivision was approved and explained he doesn't see the point now of building a large structure on one of the lots that was almost one of the main concerns during the approval process of the subdivision. He added that is how he came around to this lot and he really doesn't quite know what to do about it if lot #22 is not acceptable. Mayor Boro said that if he can assume for a minute that the design is separate right now from the traffic issue and you are contending that you can accommodate the traffic problem on lot #22, the staff is saying it can not. So, forgetting the look and design of the building on whatever lot it is, you are also saying your contention is that lot #22 is the best to handle six cars. Mr. Ham interjected by stating 5 cars, in his opinion. Mr. Bernardi stated that he doesn't think we will have a problem with the fact that six cars or a six car garage can fit on this particular sight; what we are saying is that the traffic entering and exiting the site is what we have the problem with and the street on either side is fairly good grade and when you have three times what would normally be coming out of a single family dwelling there would be the potential for some problems there. Staff would recommend that you look at one of the other lots. Mayor Boro said staff is saying that to maneuver cars coming out on the street from that location is intensified and is potentially a safety problem at that location and a lot can be accomplished better elsewhere. Mr. Bernardi said that is correct. Mr. Pendoley added he thinks the principal safety problem is the curb we have here, noting we have a very tight curve, it's not an ideal spot for any kind of driveway but the problem is compounded when it is expected to handle three times the normal load of cars. Mr. Ham said the location of the lot is at the origin of the traffic, it's not on Manderly Road. There is a cul de sac past it and it's the highest point of his subdivision, so this isn't a high traffic area and to suggest that they had a subdivision approved with an unsafe turn in it seems kind of silly at this point in time. A house will take almost as much space on this lot and if you looked at it, it is certainly not the most dangerous turn in Loch Lomond by far, to his way of thinking, and if a traffic engineer were hired he might take an opposite view of that as an objection. Mayor Boro asked what his objection was to lot #18 or #19? Mr. Ham replied his first objection was that lot #18 is the best lot in the subdivision. It is the highest priced, most expensive lot with the best view in the whole subdivision, and he doesn't think it is fair to be asked to put a below market rate unit on it. It is also one of the most visible lots in the subdivision and #19 is the same. If you put a three unit building on lot #18, you will block the view from lot #19. He does not think that under the new Hillside Ordinances that it would be possible to create a three unit building on that lot due to the size of the lot, which is quite a bit smaller than #22 due to the slope of the lot and the height. Those are his main objections. Mayor Boro asked for any other comments at this point. Councilmember Shippey stated he could certainly see Mr. Ham's objections to #18 and #19 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/2/93 Page 4 km SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/2/93 Page but it is hard for him to see the traffic concern. He had thought there were several lots here, noting several would work and it would just be a matter of compromising the best one, and now what he is hearing is that out of 27 lots only one is acceptable to the developer, and that concerns him. Mr. Ham stated that his original premise was that he needed a level space bigger than the Council Chambers to get a six car garage on, and then to get the doors not facing the street would be better if possible, but this is only possible on lot #22 which is certainly not consistent with the neighborhood which would be a 65 foot wall, 10 feet high, 3 double car garages in a row, which he does not think would be acceptable in anybody's neighborhood. Councilmember Shippey said that this seems to be a Design Review issue. Let's find out where we can put these things if we can not put them on #22. Mr. Albert Barr, president of the Loch Lomond Homeowners Association, spoke stating he was joined in the audience by several neighbors, and has some visual aids including photographs of parcels #18 and #19. He stated that they do not object to the BMR units in Loch Lomond and they only object to the specific location on parcel #22 proposed by the developer. A 3,600 square foot building plus six covered parking spaces will create an untenably large bulk on that corner, a bulk that could not be screened by planting unless we put eucalyptus trees there and that will take several years to grow. It is not only the question of daily use by six vehicles coming in and out of that specific location, but also the possibility of guest parking. As you can see from looking at the map, this unit #22 is right on a very tight curve. Where would guest parking be located? On Manderly which is a very steep drive? There is a problem with cars coming down Tweed Terrace and down to Manderly, which would be another risk which is not acceptable. The statement by the developer that Parcel #19 is the second best or one of the best parcels, is difficult to accept. Mr. Barr showed photographs of the corner of Tweed and Manderly, and #18 is right below the location and #19 is right above it. At the Design Review hearing, the developer stated he had a view of not only the neighborhood but of the city. Mr. Barr stated that is not true, unless he called San Rafael, the City. Mr. Barr noted that as an alternative, they walked both sides of the development, the other half of Loch Lomond unit #10, overlooking Villa Real, where the developer has already begun grading. There are two other parcels on the other side which the developer might wish to consider if he is concerned with not having to give up prime view lots, which is a reasonable issue. He stated we don't want him to sacrifice one of his best view lots. #19 is not one of his best. However, there are two other parcels, #10 and #11. Mr. Barr stated that with a step ladder, he got an elevated perceptive of what the view would look like from parcel #11. It has a view of the water tank and trees. Parcel #10 from a grading point is probably in a better location for the BMR. The developer is insisting that lot #22 is the only location for this BMR. Our point is that there are clearly other locations available. We think Unit #18, 19, #10 or #11 answer the developer's problem. It definitely should not be on lot #22. Mr. Barr asked why is the developer bringing this issue to the Council? Mr. Barr said he thought it should have been settled a long time ago between the Planning Department and the developer. Obviously he is trying to create an insoluble problem that will translate into his being relieved of the responsibility of constructing a BMR in Loch Lomond #10 by perhaps donating an in -lieu contribution to the Housing Authority. He added his group thinks that is the wrong way to go about it. Mayor Boro asked the staff if this needs to be resolved in order to approve the Tentative Map? Mr. Pendoley replied that the Tentative Map has been approved; it is simply a condition of approval. Mayor Boro stated he understands that generally it gets recorded on the site and the design comes later. He asked what would happen to the development if we were to stop this at this point? Mr. Pendoley said it does not impact the development, per se. You have control of the timing of this approval. He added it is good housekeeping to get this done and out of the way so the project can proceed. Mayor Boro wanted to know if there was any way they could stop the process until this gets approved? In other words, it would give the developer a little incentive to get going on this. He stated normally we would agree to a site and do the design later. Now we are talking about site problems and design problems and traffic problems. He noted we seem to have consensus between the neighborhood and the staff on this issue and noted this whole Loch Lomond Unit 10 is beginning to take on a life of its own, and this has been going on for months and it seems it is about time we get this resolved. He stated he is looking for a way to get some agreement on this thing, because we just seem to keep coming back with issues. He noted now the Council is having an issue brought before them which has not been resolved by the Design Review Board or Planning Commission, and he would hope at this point that our staff, the neighborhood and the developer could reach agreement so the Council would not have to be asked to make the decision. He stated he is looking for a way to expedite this issue. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/2/93 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/2/93 Page Mr. Bianchi said it should be resolved by the Design Review Board. He stated he believed the DRB did not even consider lots #10 and #11 as serious possibilities at all and noted he can also assure the Council that the developer is not anxious to delay this anymore than anybody else is, and neither is the developer interested in making an in -lieu payment; he is prepared to build the building but he wants to build it in the most practical way possible. Mr. Bianchi stated he thinks that the sensible solution would be to send it to the Design Review Board. Mayor Boro said that Mr. Cohen made the point that Design Review might find a design which is acceptable but in the process of that we still have a safety problem. Mr. Bianchi said he did not think so as they can certainly consider traffic as part of the design criteria. Mayor Boro said that we don't have a formal application to build this building, we have a concept. He stated we need to pick a lot to put this concept on, and he guesses what Mr. Bianchi is suggesting is that Mr. Ham is going to come in with the full detailed design, enough to answer the question of the Design Review Board both on its impact as far as site and also its impact as far as traffic safety. Mr. Pendoley suggested that a time for this might be set at six weeks for it to come back, since the DRB has a busy calendar right now. He noted that the traffic situation is not going to change. He would recommend that it is important for the developer to be looking at alternatives to lot #22. The staff is not fixed on lot #19. They picked it as being the easiest in this portion of the subdivision and Mr. Ham had indicated that this was where he preferred to go. Going in to look at the earlier portions, #10 and #11, from staff point of view, would be worth discussion. Mayor Boro stated the direction to Mr. Ham is to go to the DRB, but to be looking at sites that will solve both problems, both design and traffic. Mr. Bianchi stated they are happy to have the Design Review Board, as a panel of experts, to give us their view and best shot on it. Councilmember Thayer asked if it would be within the province of the Design Review Board to look at this concept in context with various lots and in context with access from the street since that is what the concern is about. With those types of guidelines then we could resolve the entire package at one time. Mr. Pendoley said that it is important to consider from the DRB's point of view that they don't want to design something for someone, they want to react to a design. They want to see examples, so if Mr. Ham is going to get an answer to his question, they are going to need to see examples. Mr. Ham said that in picking this lot, when they are only looking at the BMR unit, lots #10 and #11 have a no parking requirement on them from the Fire Department. You can not park past where the two houses are and they are very small building pads. That is true on all of the streets that are off the main street and that automatically eliminates any of those as a possibility for any type of a multiple unit or be large enough to put that kind of a garage on. He added he is not trying to be hard to get along with, but he really is coming down to this lot as the one which works the best. If they want a second best, he does not know, but there are problems other than just being stubborn about it. He stated the Council is aware of the number of conditions on this project, and so many of them have eliminated options. Mayor Boro stated that if he could get someone to make a motion along those lines that we send this back and that we ask for this to come back in about six weeks, that lot #22 be looked at but other alternatives be looked at as well and concentrate not just on the design but also the design and the traffic impact and that the developer bring something back that addresses both those. Councilmember Shippey made a motion to that effect and Councilmember Breiner seconded the motion. Councilmember Cohen stated he has a concern and he thinks the focus of the discussion ought to be on lots other than lot #22 at this point. He stated if we are just sending this back to parties who have a fundamental difference of opinion, to debate for another six weeks, he feels it will waste everybody's time. Mayor Boro agreed, noting that was what he had implied. If the developer wants to try for lot #22 and he wants a professional opinion from the Design Review Board, fine, but if that does not work we do not come back just for that, that we come back with other sites as well to look at. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/2/93 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/2/93 Page 7 Councilmember Cohen stated that his concern is that if we are referring it back to Design Review, given what Mr. Pendoley has told us about the DRB's preference to look at something which is presented to them, and the developer is going to present Lot 22, perhaps we need more explicit direction. Perhaps we should ask the DRB in this case to make an exception and review alternatives. He stated he is concerned that we are not going to gain anything by sending it back without some more explicit direction. Councilmember Shippey added that he heard the developer volunteer to take a preferred case and a second case, and he would strongly recommend he do that. Mr. Bianchi said that Mr. Ham will come back with something regarding lots #18, #19 and #22. Mayor Boro said that is fine, and they will address both traffic and design. Councilmember Breiner stated that one of the problems in dealing with the 3,600 square foot unit is the mass. This would be opening up a new issue, but would we consider the possibility of having those three below market rate units in two separate duplexes on two separate lots where three out of the four units are actually below market rate and then one half of a duplex is actually market rate. It is totally inconsistent with what the conditions are, but it might be easier to deal with and might result in less mass on any one site and would make it easier to deal with parking and traffic in general. Mr. Cohen stated that he would guess that the developer would rather face the issue of putting this on his most expensive lot than taking a single family home and selling it as half of a duplex at market rate, and he cannot see that working. Councilmember Breiner stated that is very logical. Councilmember Thayer asked how large the other houses are going to be and is the complaint over 3,600 square feet? Mr. Pendoley stated that we do not have the designs yet and he does not recall if we have a condition exclusively limiting the size. The Hillside Design Standards are going to be a factor and he would expect that at least some of the homes are going to be 3,600 square feet. The difficulty is the six car garage and not the 3,600 square feet. Mayor Boro stated he is convinced it boils down to the traffic problem as the major issue. Mr. Cohen stated he is sympathetic to the developer's concerns, but we are going to have to have something that works for everybody. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 12. DISCUSSION OF HEARING DATES FOR HOME DEPOT EIR AND REZONING (PL) (Verbal) - File 10-3 x 5-5 x 10-2 x 10-5 x 10-7 Mr. Pendoley stated that this item is on the agenda at the Council's request only to discuss the dates. Staff recommends that the Council consider a special meeting on August 19, 1993. If that is the date, staff can deliver staff reports on the afternoon of August 11, 1993. Mayor Boro stated that the date was checked with the City Manager's office and one Councilmember still needs to check his calendar and we should know within a day, so August 19, 1993 is the date that is anticipated. Mr. Bianchi asked if that will be to discuss both the EIR and the rezoning? Mayor Boro said that they would first start with the EIR and would get to the rezoning if there is time. The meeting would start at 7:30 PM. Mr. Bianchi stated he has a copy of a summary. Mayor Boro asked if they had a copy of that for the staff as well. Mr. Bianchi stated they do. Jeff Johnson made a request on behalf of the applicant who has just learned about the schedule and they would like to have it a day or two earlier if that is possible. Mayor Boro said it was not possible, because of timing with reports and attendance. 13. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1623 (PARAMEDIC SERVICE TAX) AND SETTING PARAMEDIC TAX RATE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1993/94 FOR RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY (CM) - File 9-3-31 x 13-1 City Manager Nicolai stated that each year as authorized through the ballot measure adopted by the voters, the Council has to set the tax rate for the upcoming fiscal year and that is generally around budget time. The recommendation before the Council tonight is to leave the tax rate both for the living units as well as the square footage for non-residential property the same as it was for fiscal year 1992/93. The reason that this is being recommended is the need to get the amount decided on to the County by the middle of August in order for it to go onto the property tax bills this fall, and while we discussed during the budget hearings the idea of reevaluating the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/2/93 Page 7 Eta SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/2/93 Page paramedic service and possibly looking at the option of adding another unit, there is no way we can be accomplish this in two weeks prior to having to notify the County of the rates. It is therefore staff's recommendation that we proceed for this fiscal year at the same rate. There other options such as having a third party billing that can be used to possibly finance such an operation or possibly making a loan to the program for a period of time so that the next year when the tax rate is adjusted we can repay ourselves. The other non -city entities need to coordinate with them like Marinwood and CSA #19. They are right now at a ceiling of a $35.00 tax rate and even if we were to go up to that this year it alone would not be enough to fund a full unit like we operate right now. So we need to decide what we need exactly, what it would cost and how it would be funded. Since the decision can not be made tonight, we recommend that the rate remain the same. Councilmember Thayer stated that she would accept this, but one of the concerns she has is the abuse of the paramedic services and we are working toward the day when we may go to third party billing. She is wondering if the Chief has any evaluations of the number of calls that were not critical and could have used some other means. Ms. Nicolai replied that the data collected is medical related, non-medical fire, and miscellaneous. At present it is no more detailed than that. One of the Fire Commissioners is a doctor willing to work with us on studying the service needs, what level of service needs to be readjusted, how do we accomplish that, and do we do it through disincentives like fees, versus trying to screen it through dispatch. Councilmember Breiner asked that concurrently, while the information is being analyzed, we could be checking around the country or groups to see what other communities have been doing, because we are not operating in a vacuum. Other communities must be facing the same problems, and planning to do research on this very matter. Councilmember Shippey asked if it would cost nothing to collect this data? Ms. Nicolai said even if there is some fee involved it would still be worth it, for technical data we may receive. Mayor Boro stated that these are two different things. The issue before the Council tonight is the Paramedic tax. However, it might be helpful if the City Manager can come back to the Council within the next couple of weeks with some kind of time line for these efforts so we could have some ending point to look at, and alleviate some of the concerns. The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING ORDINANCE 1623 (PARAMEDIC SERVICE SPECIAL TAX) AND SETTING THE PARAMEDIC TAX RATE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1993/94 FOR RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES" (no change in rates - same as 1992/93 - $28.40 per living unit and $.0154 per sq.ft. on non-residential properties) Councilmember Shippey moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and to refer to it by title only and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1648 to print by the following vote to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 14. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: None 1. ADD ITEM; CONCERN RE: STACKING OF LUMBER ON SECOND STREET - File 100 (Verbal) Councilmember Breiner requested report from Planning staff on this item. Mayor Boro noted this was Deputy City Clerk Sue Drake's last meeting, and wished her well. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/2/93 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/2/93 Page A APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 1993 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/2/93 Page X9