Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1993-10-04SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/4/93 Page 1 IN CONFERENCE ROOM 201 OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1993, AT 7:00 PM CLOSED SESSION 1. DISCUSSION OF LITIGATION AND LABOR NEGOTIATIONS - File 1.4.1.a Closed Session was not held. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1993, AT 8:00 PM Regular Meeting: San Rafael City Council Others Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, Gary T. Ragghianti, Jeanne M. Leoncini, Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember (arrived 8:20 p.m.) Michael A. Shippey, Councilmember Joan Thayer, Councilmember Absent: Dorothy L. Breiner, Councilmember City Manager City Attorney City Clerk ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE a. REQUEST FOR EARLY RECONSIDERATION OF JOB CENTER IN CANAL AREA - File 231 (Verbal) Tom Wilson, Executive Director of the Canal Community Alliance, urged the Council to reconsider the proposed Job Center rather than waiting until the end of the year, in view of what is scheduled to take place on Tuesday, October 5, 1993, with people videotaping employers who pick up day workers in the Canal area. b.REQUEST OF PATRICIA WAY NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP RE GROUP HOME AT 858 PATRICIA WAY, TERRA LINDA - File 13-16 x 100 Sandy Shapiro, representative of Patricia Way Neighborhood Group, requested Council action to stop issuance of State License to Therapon to operate a group home at 858 Patricia Way in Terra Linda, due to numerous complaints. He explained that the group home facility is presently in Lucas Valley and there have been problems there. Also, the site is inappropriate. Mayor Boro responded that the Planning Director has already started a study on this issue, and if he needs assistance Mayor Boro will contact Assemblywoman Bronschvag for assistance. Councilmember Thayer stated that there was a similar problem on Devon Drive near her home, and it caused serious trouble. Residents found some of the people in their kitchens. At that time, the City Manager wrote to the State Licensing Bureau and since that time there has not been a problem. Councilmember Shippey noted the Council has heard in the past that they have limited authority over group homes, but this seems to be an unusual case. He asked the City Attorney, at what point do they overstep their bounds, and can the City enforce some sort of action against them if they are not upholding their duties with regard to operating the home. City Attorney Ragghianti replied that, generally speaking, we have a very difficult task, because the State has preempted this from all municipalities in terms of ability to zone or to condition the occupancy of the premises by this type of people. In addition to that, we also have to be somewhat concerned about the Federal Fair Housing Act and what that has done in terms of municipalities' abilities to do with people whom they consider to be "disabled". He stated that, generally speaking, the Fair Housing Act says that cities may not impose upon disabled people regulations which they would not impose upon the same number of people, unrelated or not, living in the next house. He noted there are certain exceptions, such as when one's life is in danger or in matters dealing with the public health or fire, and that can be addressed as it could be in any situation by the Fire or Police Department. However, with the zoning and permit processing matters, we have little ability under the law to do anything. The obligation to remedy a situation like this is at the next level, which is the State. Councilmember Shippey responded that leaves it incumbent on us to monitor the situation closely. Mayor Boro stated further, that if we have evidence that this particular facility has had problems at prior locations, they will come up for renewal of their license when they move and we would want to intervene at that point if there is validity to the complaints. If there is, we could suggest that they not be licensed. However, that is a separate issue from the zoning issue and it is the one the City wants to pursue, assuming the facts will bear it out. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/4/93 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/4/93 Page 2 Mr. Shapiro explained that his group is not suggesting they cannot buy homes in these kinds of communities, but are suggesting that their track record represents imminent danger. Also, in the photographs he presented, he pointed out that the driveway is longer than 100 feet before getting to the house. The Fire Department from the Del Ganado station has been up in that driveway and have told the neighbors that they would use this driveway as a command post in event of a fire behind Patricia Way to protect the homes below. The neighbors feel that represents an unnecessary danger for the occupants of the house because they are not as mobile as a normal family and do not make decisions in the same way. Also, the decks on the back of the house hang over 30 feet or so, and the site is steeply sloping so you cannot walk around the exterior of the house without difficulty. He stated this site is not appropriate for this particular kind of group home. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to approve the recommended action on the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 2. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of Approved as submitted except Regular September 7, 1993 and Special Meetings of Meeting of September 7, 1993. August 16, and September 7, 1993 (CC) 3. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1652 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING CHAPTER 14 (ZONING ORDINANCE) TO CORRECT ERRORS IN SECTION 14.04.020 (LAND USE REGULATIONS, R, DR, MR, HR, PD) CHART (PAGE 4-4) OF THE SAN RAFAEL ZONING ORDINANCE (P1) - File 10-3 x 10-2 Approved final adoption of Ordinance No. 1652. 4. Approval of Contract Amendment with CH2M RESOLUTION NO. 9026 - APPROVING A Hill to Prepare an Environmental ImpactCONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH CH2M HILL TO Report for the Shoreline Business Center PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (Home Depot) (Pl) - File 4-10-257 x 10-1 REPORT FOR THE SHORELINE BUSINESS x 10-2 PARK (HOME DEPOT) PROJECT (Fifth Amendment $10,739.50) 6. Resolution Allocating Park and Recreation RESOLUTION NO. 9027 - AUTHORIZING Facilities Fees in Amount of $53,000 To Sun $53,000 EXPENDITURE FROM THE PARK & Valley Park Playground Improvement Project RECREATION FACILITIES FUND FOR SUN (Rec) - File 4-1-461 x 9-3-66 x 12-5 x 12-15 VALLEY PARK RENOVATION PROJECT 8. Resolution Renewing Agreement with Marin RESOLUTION NO. 9028 - AUTHORIZING County Library for Bookmobile Services in THE SIGNING OF A CONTRACT, LEASE OR Canal Area (from 7/1/93 to 6/30/94) (Lib) - AGREEMENT WITH COUNTY OF MARIN FOR File 4-13-78 x 9-3-61 BOOKMOBILE SERVICE IN CANAL AREA FOR $3,350 FOR FY 93-94 9. Authorization to Apply to California State RESOLUTION NO. 9029 - AUTHORIZING Library for Family Literacy Grant to Serve STAFF TO APPLY TO THE CALIFORNIA San Quentin Inmates (Lib) - File 9-3-61 x 8-5 STATE LIBRARY FOR A $47,300 FAMILY LITERACY GRANT TO SERVE SAN QUENTIN INMATES 10. Resolution of Appreciation for Dottie Breiner, RESOLUTION NO. 9030 - IN APPRECIA- Councilmember (CM) - File 102 x 9-1 TION TO DOTTIE BREINER AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner & Cohen The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion: 2.(Part) MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 (CC) Mayor Boro explained that with regard to the minutes of September 7, 1993, regular meeting, Item 16, first paragraph, he had intended to state that "...the public hearing had been continued to a special meeting on September 8, 1993; however, as there was an Ordinance for consideration and an ordinance may only be passed to print at a regular meeting, the public hearing was renoticed to the regular meeting of SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/4/93 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/4/93 Page 3 September 7, 1993." Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of September 7, 1993, as amended. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner & Cohen S.RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRACT WITH ECONOMIC & PLANNING SYSTEMS, INC. (EPS) TO PREPARE AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS REPORT FOR HOME DEPOT (P1) - File 4-10-272 Mayor Boro noted that on Item 4 (on Consent Calendar) there was an addendum to the CH2M Hill report on the environmental issues, and it was stated that the project applicant had agreed to pick up the additional cost, and his understanding is that the same is true on this particular item as far as the economic consultant is con- cerned. He suggested that the minutes reflect that, because the staff report does not. Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to adopt the Resolu- tion as recommended by staff. RESOLUTION NO. 9031 - APPROVING A CONTRACT NOT TO EXCEED $10,890.00 WITH ECONOMIC & PLANNING SYSTEMS, INC. TO PREPARE AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF HOME DEPOT IN SAN RAFAEL AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner & Cohen 7.REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO OPEN A CHILD CARE CENTER AT COLEMAN SCHOOL (Rec) - File 4-10-188a x 9-3-65 Councilmember Shippey commended staff for preparing this report and this new child care site so quickly. He asked at how many schools do we have the child care centers, and added he uses the center at Vallecito School. Recreation Director McNamee replied the City is presently offering ten centers, with two at Short School and two at Vallecito. This will give us a ninth site, and eleven centers. Councilmember Shippey noted the report says this will not affect the enroll- ment at Short School. Ms. McNamee responded it will affect it just a little, but there will be some new children picked up in the Domincan area who are not using the services now because of the distance. She explained they will work with the staff and the budget, and it will work out well. Councilmember Thayer inquired if San Rafael is the largest child care provider in the County, and Ms. McNamee responded that we are. Ms. Thayer stated it is amazing that our child care program is totally self-funded, and they are highly successful; and she gives a lot of credit to the staff. Mayor Boro agreed, and thanked Bill Scharf, the Child Care Manager, for all of his work. He noted that Mr. Scharf mentioned in the staff report that he is recommending this because he feels it best serves the parents and children at Coleman School. Mayor Boro added that staff has done an excellent job. Councilmember Shippey moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to approve the staff recommendation for opening of the new Coleman School child care center. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: SPECIAL PRESENTATION Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro None Breiner & Cohen 11.PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION TO BARBARA MITCHELL, REPRESENTATIVE OF MARIN COMMITTEE FOR EMPLOYMENT OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES (CM) - File 110 x 13-1-1 Mayor Boro read the Proclamation in full, proclaiming the month of October as Disability Employment Awareness Month, encouraging the promotion of full and equal employment opportunities for people with disabilities, and presented it to Barbara Mitchell, representative of Marin Committee for Employment of People with Disabili- ties. Barbara Mitchell thanked the City Council and stated that the implementation of the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) is their No. 2 priority, but it takes action to bring about progress in the program. She stated they appreciate the proc- lamation and hope that this is the beginning of a change in attitude on the part of the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/4/93 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/4/93 Page 4 general public. (Councilmember Cohen arrived at meeting.) 12.ALBERT PARK RENOVATION PROJECT: (Rec) - File 12-5 x 12-15 x 9-3-65 x 9-3-66 a. APPROVE SPECIFIC DESIGN FOR BOCCE BALL COURTS AND PLAYGROUND. b. AUTHORIZE CONSTRUCTION TO START AS A COMMUNITY PROJECT. C. AUTHROIZE EXPENDITURE OF $50,000 FROM PARKLAND DEDICATION FUND FOR THE PROJECT. Recreation Director McNamee briefed the Council on the proposed project, stating that they are at the point where they are ready to do something physical within the park. She stated they now have a specific design which has been prepared for the playground and the Bocce Ball area, and there is a colored rendering and also the original Master Plan to show how the Bocce Ball court fits into the revitalization of Albert Park. She asked that the Council consider the specific design, and noted it has been reviewed by the Design Review Board (DRB) and the Planning Commission and approved by both. An environmental and design review permit has been issued. She stated that the second action by the Council would be to approve the project to proceed as a commu- nity project. She explained that if we were to put this project out to bid, it would cost about $400,000. We have about $200,000 committed in labor and donation services. She added they are also busily fundraising, such as the "buy a brick" program and an upcoming golf tournament. Ms. McNamee noted that last month the Council approved the contract to remodel the building at 519 Fourth Street. That has been completed. It has a new roof and fresh paint on the exterior, and staff is hoping to start moving the storage from the B Street building over to the Fourth Street building in the next few weeks, so part of the building at B Street can be torn down. That was done by the members of the Bocce Federation. She explained they would like to do this pro- ject in similar fashion, by contracting with the same group. They would be doing the demolition this October, doing the grading, recycling the demolished materials for which the arrangements have been made. They would be installing the six courts and all the amenities that go with them; also the playground equipment, irrigation, concrete, court surfaces and the basic infrastructure items hopefully before the Winter rains get heavy. The other amenities would be finished in the Spring. Ms. McNamee stated that the last action she would ask the Council to consider tonight is an allocation from the Parkland Dedication Fund. She noted that when Centertown was approved, they were responsible for donating about $91,000 in Parkland Dedication Fees and the Council made a commitment then, to put it toward Albert Park. The Albert Park Committee made a decision to leverage the money out to all of the projects. She stated she misunderstood when speaking with the project coordinator last week, and thought that the $50,000 she is requesting tonight was for the Bocce Court and the playground, but that is what we needed for Bocce only. For that reason, the number should be changed to $70,000, because $20,000 is needed for the playground. She stated she will prepare a revised Resolution if that is acceptable to the Council, and change the number to $70,000. She stated that the Bocce Federation people are present, as well as the project manager, Dolly Nave. Mayor Boro stated we are all familiar with Mrs. Nave and her work, and he stated it is fantastic that a group of citizens, including the Bocce Federation, got together and formulated this project. He asked if there was any comment from the audience. There was none. Councilmember Shippey moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to approve the specific design for Albert Park Bocce Ball Courts and Playground and authorize staff to prepare the contract with the Marin Bocce Federation to complete the construction of the renovation project. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the Resolution authorizing expenditure of $70,000 from Parkland Dedication Funds for this project. Resolution No. 9032 - AUTHORIZING $70,000 EXPENDITURE FROM THE PARKLAND DEDICATION FUND FOR ALBERT PARK RENOVATION PROJECT AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/4/93 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/4/93 Page 5 13.CONSIDERATION OF THE PICKLEWEED PARK COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (Rec) - File 9-3-65 x 9-2-4 x 12-15 a. ACCEPT SAN RAFAEL PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS TO ACCEPT PICKLEWEED PARK COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD REPORT. b. ADOPT THE PICKLEWEED PARK COMMUNITY CENTER FACILITY FEE WAIVER POLICY AND IMPLE- MENT IT AFTER THE FEE WAIVER FUND IS ESTABLISHED AND FUNDED. C. ADOPT RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING TWO REVOLVING FUNDS FOR PICKLEWEED PARK COMMUNITY CENTER PROGRAM SCHOLARSHIPS AND FACILITY RENTAL FEE WAIVERS. d. ADOPT RESOLUTION EXTENDING FEE WAIVERS TO THE CANAL MINISTRY FOR THEIR MONTHLY SERVICES AND CANAL COMMUNITY ALLIANCE (CCA) FOR THE HOLIDAY COOPERATIVE TO JUNE, 1996. e. DIRECT STAFF TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH PICKLEWEED PARK COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD TO IMPLEMENT THEIR SUGGESTIONS FOR INCREASED PROGRAMS AND ACCESS TO PICKLEWEED PARK COMMUNITY CENTER. Recreation Director McNamee noted that a year ago the Pickleweed Park Advisory Board was reorganized. They have been working very hard for a year and have presented a report with many recommendations for the Department to consider, as well as the Council, and the community. She explained they have recommended a Facility Fee Waiver policy which the Park and Recreation Commission has reviewed and is forwarding for the Council's consideration. Along with that, they are suggesting we have two revolv- ing funds. She noted they have many programs, but there are a number of people in the community who cannot afford to pay-as-you-go, as most Recreation programs are. She stated they have built partnerships with the "Y" and CCA, and other organiza- tions, including the local Bahia School, and have found it difficult to come up with really low-cost programs. For that reason, they are looking for a fund they can use as a scholarship fund for children and adults so if they want to participate in the regular programs they can, or if they want to go to a special event, there will be funding for that purpose. She explained that the second fund would be for fee waivers. She noted there are many requests from nonprofit groups and from local neighbors for a birthday party or wedding or such a function, and the fees are quite high. This would give them an opportunity to have some fee waivers for some of the groups and functions. She noted that the Pickleweed Advisory Board outlined the requirements which would have to be met, such as a nonprofit group or serving a local community, and if there were many requests they would be on a first come -first served basis. There would be limitations unless there is a large amount of money flowing into the funds. Ms. McNamee noted that Item d covers the granting of fee waivers to the Canal Ministry and the CCA for their specific programs. The CCA Holiday Cooperative has been in operation since the building opened, and the Canal Ministry has been using the facility for the past three or four years under the fee waiver policy, and the Commission is recommending that they be extended to June, 1996. Ms. McNamee explained that the last item is to thank the Advisory Board for their work during the year, and to direct staff to continue to work with them to implement their suggestions. Mayor Boro stated he understands an amendment to the Fee Waiver Policy is being recommended to have an amended condition F. He explained that as he understands it, the money for the fee waivers would come from the fund once it is established, so in order to have the fee waivers, we need to get the funding started. Ms. McNamee responded that is her recommendation, on top of what the Commission and the Advisory Board stated. She feels that if we do not, we would be taking the money out of the Pickleweed budget, and we cannot do that. She stated she would like to find a way through a group of agencies to get money flowing to that fund. Councilmember Cohen inquired how will they fund the revolving funds? Ms. McNamee responded they will do fundraisers and apply for grants from foundations and perhaps some of the local businesses and corporations which are housed in the East San Rafael neighborhood would contribute. Councilmember Cohen clarified that, rather than raise funds for a specific event, they would build the fund from the contributions. There was no audience comment. Mayor Boro expressed appreciation to the Park and Recreation Commission and the Advisory Board for their work and their recommendations. He noted there was no one present to protest the recommendations or to add to Ms. McNamee's comments, and he feels they have done an excellent job. Mayor Boro recommended a single motion for items a and e, and an additional motion for items b, c and d. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/4/93 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/4/93 Page 6 Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to accepted the Park and Recreation Commission recommendations to accept the Pickleweed Park Community Center Advisory Board Report; and direct staff to continue to work with the Advisory Board to implement their suggestions for increased programs and access to Pickleweed Park Community Center. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner Mayor Boro noted Item b covers an amendment F to the Fee Waiver Policy as stated in the staff report, and there are two Resolutions, Items c and d. Councilmember Shippey moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to approve amendment F to the Fee Waiver Policy and adopt the Resolutions approving the two revolving funds and the extension of fee waivers for the Canal Ministry and the CCA. RESOLUTION NO. 9033 - ESTABLISHING TWO REVOLVING FUNDS FOR PICKLEWEED PARK COMMUNITY CENTER FOR PROGRAM SCHOLARSHIPS AND FACILITY RENTAL FEE WAIVERS RESOLUTION NO. 9034 - WAIVING FACILITY FEES FOR THE SAN RAFAEL CANAL MINISTRY FOR MONTHLY USE OF PICKLEWEED COMMUNITY CENTER AND PARK AND FOR CANAL COMMUNITY ALLIANCE FOR ANNUAL HOLIDAY COOPERATIVE AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner 14.PRESENTATION OF FIRE DEPARTMENT/FEDERATION OF SAN RAFAEL NEIGHBORHOODS JOINT VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (FD) - File 9-3-31 Mary Ellen Irwin, San Rafael Fire Commissioner and representative for the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods, stated that the Fire Prevention Program has moved along very successfully in the two neighborhoods in which it is located. She explained the program, stating that the Fire Department has looked at each property in Dominican and Fairhills areas, which are the pilot project areas, taking note of the slopes, the access and the way the houses faced, and the amount of wild fuel which could potentially make a fire become an extreme wildfire as it did in Oakland. Mrs. Irwin explained in detail the map of the area and the color -coded designations. She report- ed that each home was sent a card, with standards to be maintained with vegetation on the individual properties. Also, each neighborhood had a slide and lecture presenta- tion by Ray Moritz, Fire Ecologist, on ways this vegetation could be maintained without clear -cutting. The programs were paid for by the neighborhoods. Mrs. Irwin reported that the Federation and the neighborhoods are sharing the cost of a Fire Prevention Hot Line from Pacific Bell, where all calls concerning the program come in. This was done in order that the Fire Department would not be overburdened by calls. Over 100 calls have been handled by volunteers, mainly questions about vegetation, requests for a second copy of the standards or requests for inspection. There have been no negative calls. Mrs. Irwin stated they have run into a problem in Fairhills, which is her neighbor- hood, with regard to vegetation cutting and removal. She stated they have had two proposals from the Marin Conservation Corps for cutting of the vegetation at Fairhills and the top of San Rafael Park. She recommended the MCC cut the brush and having the City haul the material away in order to reduce contract costs. She showed on the Fairhills map the areas which need the vegetation cleared. The reason for the San Rafael Park area being included is because since fire travels up hill, it would reach that area. Mayor Boro inquired if the area indicated is City -owned space, and Ms. Irwin replied it is. She added that it is a swale. She noted that Public Works had loaned them a truck, and they are loading it up with debris and planting cherry trees where they are able to do the work. Mrs. Irwin noted that the Fairhills residents have spent thousands of dollars cleaning up the area, and the pile is 40 feet long and 10 feet high, waiting for the chipper to come. She stressed that the residents have tried hard to do the work themselves, but they could not evacuate Rafael Highlands if the fire got down to Elizabeth Way. She stated that she feels this program would be eligible for funding, even in a very tight year, since it is the single most dangerous area in San Rafael. Mayor Boro stated that the big issue as he understands it, is that this particular site is very difficult to deal with, and the residents have done all they could. He stated SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/4/93 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/4/93 Page 7 it seems to him that a combination of workers from the MCC and our own Parks personnel should work, and if we haul the debris away it would minimize the cost. Councilmember Shippey inquired if the terrain is steep, and Mrs. Irwin replied it is mostly 55% grade. Councilmember Shippey inquired about the cost for the MCC, and Mrs. Irwin replied they will not make a bid unless they come on site. Councilmember Thayer noted that these two areas are the most susceptible to severe fires, and we are all mindful of Oakland, and she feels this is the way to begin. She stated this is definitely a proposal the Council should look at because of the high risk in that area. Mrs. Irwin noted that the other high risk area is the Country Club. Mayor Boro noted that area has taken some action. They collected $24,000 in the neighborhood and installed 15 hydrants. Bill Smith of the Gerstle Park area stated that the vegetation being discussed is mostly French Broom. He noted that it is more invasive in Gerstle Park than in Fairhills. He added that there are areas in Gerstle Park in excess of 55%, and a number of very valuable homes at the top of the hill. He explained they have had a three-year program in Gerstle Park which has been active and ongoing which has involved acres of Broom and weed removal. There is an extensive area of dried brush which the residents cannot remove. He added that the Gerstle Park program has cost the City no money and very little time. There were brief episodes of donation of brush removal canisters. He stated that they have not requested any money from the City, but people have gone up to the area on a spontaneous basis, because the problem is so severe. He stated that if the City is willing to consider an allocation of $1,000+ of the money which has gone into the Fire Protection Program as we have heard tonight, Gerstle Park should at least be informed. He added they have had the Boy Scouts and Native Plant Society helping them. Mr. Smith noted that Gerstle Park is also faced with a homeless problem which is a factor in fire risks, and if there could be money extended to the Gerstle Park pro- gram, they would appreciate it. He added that if the Council considers authorizing these funds tonight, he would hope they would consider some in Gerstle Park's favor. He noted they have access roads, and have cleared areas away from specific homes. They have cut across many areas of resources, and the City seems to feel it was so successful that they can ignore it. He stated he would appreciate whatever the Council can do. Councilmember Thayer stated that Mr. Smith has a point, and she would like to see Chief Marcucci working with Gerstle Park as well as other neighborhoods. She noted that this pilot program is going to make people clear up their properties, and is a lot different focus than a volunteer program. She stated that Mr. Smith might want to talk that aspect over with his neighborhood. She noted that the City had just picked this particular pilot program as a start. Mayor Boro stated that the point is that we were approached by the Federation of Neighborhoods to do this program, and the education of the residents. He added these are pilot projects, and the whole idea is to expand this to other neighborhoods. He noted that this was not only open space on which people have done a lot of work, but this was a shared program in the neighborhood with individual homeowners. He added that if we have the funds and the interest in the community, we want to expand this program. Mr. Smith stated he would like to respond to the statement that this is a new innovative program. Mayor Boro asked him if Gerstle Park has had a door-to-door program? Mr. Smith responded they had had meetings and fliers, and calls from home- owners across the board, but they have not had the organization finalized yet. They have focused their attention toward removal of the fire risks, and done it with a minimum of cost. He stated that to hear now that the formal pro forma process is being funded in an overt manner rather than neighborhood effort which has not been supported is a concern. He noted Gerstle Park has had a program going for three years, and it is not a pilot, and they have been before the Council several times asking for assistance, and it has gone unanswered. City Manager Nicolai stated she does not want to debate the issue, but when you consider the Oakland fire storm, the north facing hillside in Gerstle Park is less hazardous than the Fairhills area. She explained the City is not saying that any one area is more important than another. However, because of the unique pattern of this area, the need is very specific. She noted that much of the work has been done by this neighborhood. She explained that the model pattern in this pilot plan is the analysis of each lot. The owner is approached on an individual basis. That is the pilot part, along with the concerted effort of the neighborhood itself. She added SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/4/93 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/4/93 Page 8 that education of the homeowners and the response to questions is another point. Ms. Nicolai stated that the City is appreciative of the work the Gerstle Park neighbor- hood has done, and have put out debris boxes for them. The Fairhills area was considered because of the severity of their problem, and because of the way the neighborhood faces. Councilmember Cohen stated he is aware of the work done by the Gerstle Park residents and would like to have the City be able to fund everything. He added he would like to get information from Fire Chief Marcucci on what the evaluation was on Fairhills and the relative damage versus Gerstle Park. He stated that if we are going to talk about remedial work on the property owned by the City in Fairhills, and if there is some low-cost work for Gerstle Park, we should look at some numbers. He noted there has been a lot of work up in Gerstle Park and has had community volunteerism. He suggested that perhaps the City could help that along. Mayor Boro responded that is a good point. He explained that it was not the intent of the Council, nor does he want to pit one neighborhood against another. He noted that when the Fire Department did the surveys, the Fairhills area was felt to be a greater risk. Fire Chief Marcucci stated that is correct. T potential, so fuel is more of a concern o slope. He noted that at China Camp State Canyon it is dry. He stated that Gerstle that Fairhills does. He explained there be of most concern, and they zeroed in on neighborhoods. e south -facing slope has more of a fire the southern slope versus the northern Park the grass is still green, but in Black Park does not have the potential for fire s a study which showed which areas should an analysis of Fairhills and Dominican Chief Marcucci stated that if Mrs. Irwin had not spearheaded the work in her area it would not have been done, since the Fire Department does not have the personnel. He complimented the residents of Dominican and Fairhills for the work they have done and for hiring someone to come in and give the seminars. He added they have done much more than he would have expected them to do, but that is not taking anything away from the Gerstle Park residents and their efforts. Mayor Boro added that there are other parts of town which have problems which have not been addressed, and Gerstle Park has addressed theirs. He stated that Mr. Cohen's comment was that possibly we could assist Gerstle Park, and there is a recommendation that staff look into the request for the MCC for this site. He stated he would also like a report on what has happened at other sites and what possibilities might be there. He added the Council's last intent would be to start pitting neighborhood against neighborhood for City dollars. The intent is to mitigate the problems with fire. He noted we came up with this plan as a result of the survey by the Fire Department, as to where the greatest risk was in the City, and when the term proto- type or pilot program was used, it was meant to be a test here, to hopefully have it happen throughout the City. In no way is it to take away from the work which any other group has done. It has been something to be addressed formally as a result of what Chief Marcucci has brought to the Council because of the Oakland fire a couple of years ago. He stated he feels there has been enough discussion at this point, and asked if the Council was ready to make a motion. Councilmember Cohen commended Chief Marcucci and Mrs. Irwin and the neighborhood people who worked on the program. He stated that as far as the approach by the neighborhood, it seemed from Mr. Smith's comments that the specific and detailed approach does not seem what the Gerstle Park neighborhood wanted to get involved in. However, in terms of risk assessment and prioritizing limited resources, this is a good approach. We responded quickly after the Oakland hills fire to lay out this program with the risk assessment, and now we are following the steps required by that. You start with the areas with the highest risk and go forward from there, and we have no choice but to do that because of limited resources. Mr. Cohen stated he would like to see, although it does not need to be part of the motion, but he noticed in the report that there are a couple of other neighborhoods called out as a possibility for next year. They are the Country Club and San Rafael Highlands, and he would like a risk assessment of those along with Gerstle Park. He stated if we are talking about a budget allocation we should consider Gerstle Park as well. However, that is not something the Council needs a response to tonight, and it is not something which can be funded for a while. Chief Marcucci clarified that Coun- try Club is CSA #19 (Community Services Area), and is not in the City of San Rafael but is an unincorporated area. He explained the City does provide fire protection, and they have been working with that neighborhood even though the Council has no legal authority over it. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to instruct staff to analyze SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/4/93 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/4/93 Page 9 the recommendations received tonight on a contract with the MCC, and come back very quickly with their analysis as to whether that is the most prudent way of approaching this problem, or whether there is a way to combine that with City resources. There should be incorporated in that also some discussion of the needs in the open space area behind Gerstle Park, and whether there is something which can be done there, and what the cost might be of that as well. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner 15.REPORT ON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT LIST (PW) - File 8-5 x 9-3-40 Mayor Boro noted that the report presented is very clear and it projects the short- fall very succinctly. He noted that, however, we have made some progress over the past year. Public Works Director Bernardi briefed the Council, pointing out that on the first page of the staff report there are listed the projects which have been completed since 1989, which amounts to $4,480,000. Currently there are projects under design or under study or some form of construction, amounting to $31,000,000; and finally, there are projects which are unfunded, totalling $152,400,000. He noted it is also important to point out that if you look through the various project categories on the first section of the report, the various funding sources are listed. He noted the Council will find that there is very little General Fund allocation for these pro-jects; most of them are funded by other sources such as Redevelopment, Bedroom Tax, CalTrans money, ISTEA, gas tax, traffic mitigation fees or some kind of grant. He added it is important for the public to know that our needs go far beyond our ability to fund these projects. He stated that if the Council were to consider another ballot issue, this document could be used to assist the public in understanding our needs. Mayor Boro referred to page 3 of the report, where it mentions the West Francisco/ Grand Court Pumping Station, $4,000,000, to be funded in 1995/96. He inquired is that not Sanitation District funding? Mr. Bernardi replied that is Storm Drainage, and will be funded by CalTrans to replace the Rossi Pump Station which is currently located near 555 Francisco Boulevard. Mayor Boro then inquired about the money for Item 62.0, Andersen Drive Extension, and if the $5,000,000 and $2,000,000 will come from ISTEA. Mr. Bernardi replied that is correct. Councilmember Thayer inquired about Rafael Meadows Flood Control Improvements on page 4, because there is potential expense to the City. She inquired are we still working with the County on that problem. Mr. Bernardi explained there is a flood control zone which exists, which specifically covers the Meadows area. The problem with the flood control is that with Proposition 13, they have lost in essence their ability to raise the funds to construct these improvements, and when the City annexed this area we inherited the cost of those improvements. He explained this work calls out capital improvements which need to be done. We are currently providing a minimal level of maintenance to keep the drainage flowing, but we have identified about $2.7 million worth of physical improvements which need to be done in that whole area. Mrs. Thayer inquired if they had flooding there last winter, and Mr. Bernardi replied he does not think so. Councilmember Cohen questioned the Del Ganado Fire Station funding and reconstruc- tion, on page 1. He noted it indicates unfunded, and thought we had agreed to fund that project. Mr. Bernardi stated that is correct, and should show the date as 1994/95. Also, the cost will be more than is indicated. Mayor Boro stated that based on what the Council has discussed on Pickleweed, as that project comes forward there will be some changes. Mr. Bernardi indicated there will. Councilmember Cohen stated he realized this is an issue about which we need to edu- cate the public, the long-term capital improvement needs. However, it might also be helpful to do a 5, 10 or 15 year analysis of what our capital improvement needs are. He noted some of the projects in the report probably are not realistic within the time frame which is in this report. He gave as an example, $20 million for a new library facility. He stated this is a very good start and it is helpful to have it in this format; but perhaps we should start to look at what our near-term priority needs are, including those which are unfunded and likely to remain unfunded within that 5 -year period. Also, it could show what would be on the "wish list" 5 or 10 years out. City Manager Nicolai stated this does include things which may never happen, like City SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/4/93 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/4/93 Page 10 Hall Expansion, or the new library. She stated there is an almost unidentified need out there as far as the storm drain system is concerned. Because we do not have it mapped yet, it is hard to evaluate what the long-term implications are. She stated that, on the contrary, there are very specific things which we know we should be spending about $1.5 million a year on such as street overlay. That could be spread out over each year into the future, and escalated. She explained staff tried to pull together a more comprehensive list of what they feel the vulnerability is out there. She noted that the request from the Hughes/Heiss report was that we start looking at 5 year projections so we put it in this report, but there was no intent that this list was supposed to be either accomplished and/or funded in the 5 years. However, out of this list there was an attempt to show what we thought, over the next 5 years, we could at least say we knew the funding would cover. She stated we could create a new category, separate from the storm drainage, public facilities, streets and trans- portation, and then say, "Dream List", and have those items which might never happen, which would probably be a significant component of some of these projects. She noted that for the Downtown Vision, if you do not list them you might never look for fund- ing which might become available. She noted the library had come up because there was State funding available, and if we did not have it on our list, we might not realize there was money available and we could go after it. She stated she feels it is good to keep them all out there so we are constantly evaluating options which come along, otherwise you lose track. Mayor Boro noted that the Project Rating column could be used to take those things with the highest priority and show them over the 5 years and then show the short -fall. That would show what we really need and have not funded. Also, Mayor Boro agreed on having a so-called wish list, but things we would like to do if we had the ability, and it is good to have them here so we do not lose sight of them. They could be put at a priority beyond the 5 year period. He stated that would make sense when we talk to the public about what our needs are. Councilmember Cohen stated that he would like more information about the priority ratings, noting that a number of them have the same rating. He stated that, in addition to the priority ratings, we might have categories such as 1, 2 and 3, with Category 1 to show things we really need to be doing in the next 5 years, regardless of whether there is funding presently available. Category 2 could be for the next 10 years, and so on. In that way, we would know how much money is involved in the unfunded projects. Mr. Bernardi noted in this report they categorized each area, such as Storm Drainage with its own unfunded summary. He noted the $152 million adds up all of the various categories. He stated that could be modified to address Mr. Cohen's concerns. Also, the project ratings were based on the highest ratings being those which needed imme- diate attention because they were situations where the City faced extreme liability. He noted a number of them are in the storm drainage area where there are deficiencies in some of the systems, and they need to take almost immediate action. Ms. Nicolai noted that in the past this report was created in multiple ways. One way had been by straight rank order listing, all mixed in, whether it was a building or park or street. It has now been programmed so staff can pull it out in any way the Council desires. It can also be prepared in rank order. Ms. Nicolai noted that it is important to remember that we are not looking for this whole unfunded liability from taxpayers, by some local bond issue. She stated even for some of the critical things with higher priorities, they will be looking toward other sources of money. She stated that if you look at the $8.5 million which was accomplished since 1989, and the $31 million budgeted for this year, almost none of that is coming out of our General Fund. Those ongoing sources of revenue will be available in the future and hopefully at a greater level to fund some of the top priority items. Mayor Boro stated that it would be helpful if this could be brought back to the Council at some point, resynchronized or resorted based on priorities in the next 5 years, and see where the shortfalls are. He stated we have a responsibility to our- selves as well as to the public, to talk about what we would like to have, whether it is in the near term or not, but things we would like to keep our eyes on as funding opportunities come up, such as the library. He stated he likes the idea of the categories as suggested by Mr. Cohen. Councilmember Thayer stated she would like to know what the rating scheme was based on, because she would think that storm drainage and street resurfacing should be at the top of our list, given the condition of the storm drain system and the streets and roads. She added that she does not think a dream for a new library facility is a piece of fluff. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/4/93 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/4/93 Page 11 Councilmember Shippey stated he feels that the street resurfacing is generic to cities throughout the State, and asked if that is correct. Mr. Bernardi stated that is correct. Almost all cities are pretty much underfunded in the street maintenance programs. Mr. Shippey inquired could we make a request at State level to provide some funding specifically for street resurfacing? Mr. Bernardi replied that Proposition 111 and SB 300 provided some additional funding for us for our resurfacing program, but unfortunately, they added some strings to those monies. We cannot take money away from what we are currently spending on resurfacing or road maintenance and supplant it with the Proposition 111 money. We have to continue to spend the same amount of money we are spending now, in order to be eligible for this Proposition 111 money. The State is very strict about how the accounting work is done for that. Councilmember Thayer inquired was there some legislation on some sort of relief for a couple of years? Mr. Bernardi replied it was suspended for two years. He explained we are already getting some of the Proposition 111 money, and it is going toward implementation of the Countywide Congestion Management Plan which we, as a County, are required to implement. He stated the Congestion Management Agency is going to have hearings in October on the document itself. Ms. Nicolai reported that the Proposition 111 monies which were received have been put into our budget for street overlay, and they are progressively going to grow, theoretically. However, if the Congestion Management Plan is rejected by the State, we could lose those funds completely, but on an interim basis we are getting some of the funds. She stated most cities and jurisdictions are having the same problems we are. She stated it depends on to what degree you had a capital improvement program factored into your property tax and tax rate prior to Proposition 13, and then how that has been affected by the latest State take -away. She noted that some cities had much larger property tax rates and had a capital improvement program funded signifi- cantly at the local level. She stated we did not, but relied on exterior sources of money for capital improvements. Each jurisdiction will vary in the impact. Mayor Boro suggested the Council pass a motion accepting the report and also asking that within the next 4 to 6 weeks for Mr. Bernardi come back with the same basic information but reflecting somewhat more of the priorities with an explanation as to how the priorities were arrived at. Ms. Nicolai asked if it should be on the agenda or should she send it to the Council separately? Mayor recommended putting it on the agenda. Councilmember Shippey moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to accept the report and ask staff to bring the report back with the priority listings as discussed. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner Councilmember Cohen added it would be helpful if they were separated out by category. 16.DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED MARIN COUNTY HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY (CM) - File 13-2 x 115 City Manager Nicolai briefed the Council, noting she has provided a revised Hazardous and Solid Waste Joint Powers Agreement. She explained that at the Council meeting of March 15, 1993, staff presented the proposed Joint Powers Agreement and expressed several serious concerns. The concerns primarily involved the lack of a defined scope of the program areas, the concern that San Rafael was only one of 23 votes, as well as some other more minor issues. Subsequent to that meeting, Ms. Nicolai reported she had conveyed the Council's concerns to the Countywide group. Novato at that time was also expressing concerns, so representatives from San Rafael and Novato got together to meet with representatives of the JPA task force who drafted the original agreement, as a result of which several key points were addressed. (1) The basic programs of authority were more clearly defined and allow a cafeteria approach to any of the programs which would give each jurisdiction the option of participating and paying for "non -basic programs" as they saw fit. Ms. Nicolai explained that the language which has been put into Section 6.1 is so broad, particularly 6.1b, that any and all programs would fall within that definition and leave little that would actually fall under 6.2. (2) The operating responsibilities and authorities have now been spread between the JPA Board (which would now only be elected officials) and a technical advisory committee made up of chief administrative officers such as City Managers, which will deal with more day-to-day administration and report back to the Board. Ms. Nicolai stated she feels this modification is positive and hopefully will provide closer administrative controls over the actual operation of the program areas. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/4/93 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/4/93 Page 12 (3) San Rafael continues to have only 1 out of 23 votes and has no guarantee of any position on either group. (4) The new revised Agreement seems more clearly to keep at arm's length any assump- tion of the County operations during the first year, as outlined on page 10, Section 6.3 and page 11, Section 7.2e. Ms. Nicolai explained that the County had issued an RFP (Request for Proposal) in February, requesting from corporations proposals that relate to the collection of household hazardous waste. She noted that in the past couple of years the County has had several "Toxics Away" days, which are several days a year when they collect household hazardous waste as part of the requirement of AB939. She stated that the committees which were looking at this thought there should be a more permanent program, more readily available to the community than just these occasional days during the year. The County submitted the RFP in February over the objections of the entire Managers' group in Marin County, who requested they not send out that RFP since that was a classic example of a program which should be handled by the Joint Powers group. She noted at that point in time, we had not expressed our concerns to the extent that it was delaying the JPA, but they sent the RFP out anyway. They also continued to evaluate the RFPs, and now within days of theoretically having the whole Joint Powers group come together, tomorrow on the Supervisors' agenda they have the awarding of this contract. The contract locks in a 5 -year period, and if within a month the JPA is created, the JPA will inherit a foregone conclusion of a 5 -year agreement with two options for 5 -year renewals. She stated she does not understand why, in the desire to create a JPA to oversee this whole program, they have gone ahead under the guise of the old MOU (Memorandum of Understanding), issued the RFP and now are awarding it, probably 60 days after the responses have expired. Ms. Nicolai explained that if we do not want to be bound by what the County is proposing to do tomorrow, we would have to FAX them a notice the first thing in the morning giving them 60 days' notice of our withdrawal from the MOU. She noted the MOU under which we have been for 2 years with them was theoretically for the planning process of this program. However, they have done implementation programs with the authority of the MOU. She stated we could issue them a notice that we are with- drawing from the MOU, that we do not want to be bound by the agreement they are issuing tomorrow. She explained that, aside from that, we still have to make the decision as to whether or not we want to join the JPA. Ms. Nicolai stated she feels we should send a notice to the County the first thing in the morning, that we are withdrawing and giving them notice we are withdrawing from the MOU so we are not bound by the agreement they are poised to issue for the House- hold Hazardous Waste. She added we should clearly indicate to them that we think this is a program area which should be the responsibility of, and handled by, the Joint Powers Agreement. She stated it will have far more weight if we indicate that we are interested in adopting the JPA. She added that, in spite of her concerns about the JPA as it is drafted, the only benefit to us is that if we want to have any impact at all during the first year, we can only do that as a party to the JPA. It still allows us to withdraw during the first year and experience no financial obli- gations. Councilmember Thayer noted that it does not say that. With regard to withdrawal, if we went into it and the RFP became suddenly under the JPA rather than under the aegis of the MOU, she feels we would have a hard time withdrawing without being liable on that contract because it had already been entered into. She has a feeling that this group may enter into long-range contracts which will obligate people in that first year, whether they withdraw or not. Ms. Nicolai explained that if we do not withdraw from the MOU, they are going to act tomorrow on our behalf and obligate us, in any case. They have the authority under the old MOU to do that, theoretically. She stated that if we join the JPA and they have not awarded the contract, we would at least have the opportunity to say we think this way. We could argue that should be one of the cafeteria options, that everyone should not be obligated. If at that point in time they seem to be proceeding as if it is an obligation, we have the same ability to withdraw before the contract is awarded, and we can do it at 8:30 tomorrow morning. She stated that tomorrow the County Board of Supervisors is going to act in our behalf, and we are going to be attempting to give them notice that we are withdrawing from the MOU and attempting to argue that we are not obligated under the MOU for the contract they are going to award. She added that if we at least state that we think it should be under the JPA, it has very little weight if we do not even plan on joining the JPA. Mayor Boro stated that the first issue is, do we want to act on the pending MOU and make our opposition known on that? He asked how do we want to do that - should we say we want to withdraw from that and at the same time, we are not interested in pursuing the JPA, or we would withdraw from the MOU but are willing to pursue the JPA if they SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/4/93 Page 12 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/4/93 Page 13 withdraw it, but if they do not, we would tell them what the consequences are. Ms. Nicolai explained there are two decisions the Council needs to make. How do you feel about the JPA, and do you want to withdraw from the MOU so we are not obligated to be included in the Household Hazardous Waste contract which they are ready to issue. Councilmember Thayer stated there are two decisions, but they are interrelated. She stated the Council has a very big problem. The County has operated most broadly under the MOU and that is what gave rise to the RFP situation, and that is where they got their authority. She added that is also where they have gotten their authority for the past few years to use our ratepayers' money for programs at the County level. She noted that we are going to work on a permanent hazardous waste facility in the City of San Rafael, and she thinks if we get locked into the JPA, we will be paying twice under the way this JPA agreement is constructed. She stated that is where she sees the inter -relation between the two. She added that with regard to the Greenfield proposal, there will be mobile units wandering around the County picking up hazardous waste. It does not cover what was in the Hazardous Waste Element, and that is to find a permanent site for the disposal of household hazardous waste. She pointed out that the Greenfield proposal would eventually include the need for a permanent site, too, so the $1 million would be doubled and perhaps even tripled, and the ratepayers will be paying for that out of the tipping fees. Councilmember Thayer stated that with regard to the JPA itself, it leaves very little for the cafeteria plan. Also, it does not dispose of the legal problem with regard to the lead enforcement agency. The same people who were devising these programs are going to be monitoring them. She noted that prior to this time, it was the County Health Department that was the lead enforcement agency, and the Board which is being created would assume that function. She stated she does not believe that anyone who has to comply with State laws should be monitoring their own programs, and she thinks it is illegal. Also, it does not say anything in the JPA about what is going to happen if a particular jurisdiction decided that they already have a program such as the educational program, and does that mean the ratepayers get a rebate? She stated she does not see any of these things in there. The language is very loose, and she can see where this City would be liable for hazardous waste collections at two different levels if we go forward with the MOU, the Greenfield proposal and the JPA. Councilmember Cohen inquired if Mayor Boro is going to take public testimony. Mayor Boro replied he will ask if anyone wishes to address the Council, but right now he wants to discuss the fact that there are two issues before the Council and see if any clarification is needed from the City Manager. He stated he thinks the issues are clear and asked Councilmember Cohen if he requires any clarification from Ms. Nicolai. Councilmember Cohen responded that he sees the issues separately, and strongly sup- ports the recommendation that the Council FAX the letter to the Board of Supervisors tomorrow morning, and do whatever is necessary to be sure that it has been delivered. He suggested we could have the letter hand -delivered as well as FAXed. He stated he shares Councilmember Thayer's concerns and realizes she has done considerable commit- tee work on these issues. He stated if we have this option to opt out at midnight the day before we actually get committed to spending the money and being obligated by a contract we do not agree with, we should proceed. However, if there is any question that would be the case under the JPA, then he would be concerned about that issue as well. He added that the intent is good, but not the way it is being carried out. He stated he would like to know if we have the opportunity to opt out during the first year without incurring ongoing obligations. Ms. Nicolai responded that on pages 18 and 19 under the article "Withdrawal", it still has in the final sentence, "Not withstanding the above, any city or district many withdraw from this agreement within the first year of the effective date as stated in Article 11 without financial obligation". Councilmember Thayer noted that the preceding sentence states, "Upon withdrawal a city or district retains its finan- cial obligation for current contracts..". Ms. Nicolai pointed out it also says, "Not withstanding the above...". Councilmember Thayer stated it is somewhat ambiguous. City Attorney Ragghianti stated he is not certain exactly what it means, but whoever wrote it should not have placed the last sentence where it is because it serves to confuse the whole issue. He added it can be construed to mean a city can withdraw within the first year without financial obligation at all. It means that if you want out during the first year, you can get out if you give the appropriate notice and you do not have to worry about any financial obligations which exist from contracts which have been entered into during that period of time. He stated it is his judgment that it is impossible to tell whether that particular sentence supersedes the one which precedes it, and he thinks it is unclear along with a number of other things in this SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/4/93 Page 13 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/4/93 Page 14 agreement which caused us to write a paper about it several months ago. Councilmember Shippey stated that the word which comes to his mind is "railroaded", which is the way this appears to have been handled. He asked what if we opt not to join the JPA, and what would be the consequences? Ms. Nicolai responded the consequences would be that we individually, as a City, would be obligated to meet the requirements of AB939. Currently, we are party to a Countywide Plan, and we would probably need to hire somebody to extract those components of that Plan and create our own Plan which would be approved by the State. We would then be individually as a jurisdiction responsible for the implementation and the meeting requirements of AB939, which would be all of the elements required. She stated that obviously the City of San Rafael is the one jurisdiction in the County which is the most likely to be able to do that successfully. Through our garbage company, we already have one of the highest levels of meeting those goals and would have less to do to catch up in a short period of time. We already have a public education program through the provider and probably could very easily, with an existing site, do the household hazardous waste program. She noted that most of the other jurisdictions are not in a position to do that. She stated she could not specifically tell the Council tonight that any one of those steps would cost X amount of dollars. It would have some cost. We could also theoretically draw down the tipping fee which is funding the County, to somewhat offset some of the cost there might be in doing it on our own. She pointed out that the one complication we have in San Rafael is that the North part of San Rafael is handled by the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District through franchises for that area. She stated she talked to one member of their Board today, and they are somewhat in agreement with San Rafael, but they have not taken any official action as a Board to withdraw from the MOU, but she thinks we have the possibility of having a cooperative working relationship with them if we were to try to go it on our own as of tomorrow. She stated that, by law, we are obligated for the City of San Rafael to cover not just the part we franchise. Councilmember Thayer stated she is very concerned because she knows that we are recycling and are closer to meeting our AB939 goals than any other city in Marin County. She stated that under this JPA, our ratepayers would be stuck with a disproportionate cost of the tipping fees going to programs which are going to be duplicated. She noted we have tried to make the distinction between the MOU and the RFP under the MOU and this JPA, but what would happen if we said "No" to the MOU and said we were pulling out but were joining the JPA? Our ratepayers would still have to pay for this Greenfield project. Ms. Nicolai responded that we would make joining the JPA conditioned that they do not issue the contract to this particular company tomorrow morning. The real argument is that this is something which should be handled by the JPA, and then we would be party to the JPA and evaluate whether that is a reasonable proposal. She added she does not think it does us any good to withdraw from the MOU, they issue the contract to Green- field, then if we join the JPA, we have just moved over to a new obligation. Mayor Boro stated we have two decisions to make. Ms. Nicolai agreed, adding that one is conditioned on the other. Elissa Giambastiani, Executive Director of the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, reported that their Board of Directors discussed this at the meeting on Friday, with their president abstaining from the discussion. She stated this is bureaucracy run amuck. She encouraged the Council to withdraw and send the notice tomorrow. She stated that we are the closest to meeting the goals of AB939, and it does not seem fair for us to be paying for programs in other communities where they would be dupli- cating what we are doing here. She stated we might also be subsidizing programs about which many of us have real concerns. She stated it has been proven the "Toxics Away Day" discouraged participation and did not encourage it. She also wonders, once the environmentally sensitive residents discover that a truck will be driving throughout the County full of hazardous materials, how excited they will be. She stated a question about the Greenfield proposal is that it states that within three years a permanent site is to be found. She stated there is not another jurisdiction in this County which will accept a hazardous waste collection facility. Ms. Giambastiani added that in an era when government is trying to rid itself of obligations and turn more over to private enterprise, she is surprised that we have a government here trying to get into the garbage business. She noted that with a staff of 11, they have spent $6 million in the past three years, plus they have gone ahead with a plan which is not even in accord with the recommendations of the AB939 Committee. She stated that if San Rafael decides they are not going to participate in the JPA, the other cities have the option of following the City's lead, and she wonders if some of them just might. Ms. Giambastiani stated she would like to encourage the Council to withdraw from the MOU SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/4/93 Page 14 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/4/93 Page 15 which would bind us all to the Greenfield program for the next 5 years. She stated she would like to discourage the Council from signing the JPA, and instead would like to encourage them to proceed in developing our own permanent hazardous collection facility. She stated that joining the JPA will send the wrong message and will say to them that the Council is in agreement with the basic program, and she feels that the Council is not. Mayor Boro stated he definitely feels we need to withdraw from the MOU and get the letter out to the County. He stated that, at this point, if he had to make a decision on the JPA, he would support withdrawing from the concept of the JPA. He explained that we have stated very explicitly what our concerns are, primarily the fact that we have 200 of the population, but we contribute about 400 of the money to this effort. Also, our voting structure has not really been addressed. He stated that at one point we were talking about the guaranteed vote on the Executive Commit- tee, and now that has been pulled back, and that to him is a bad sign. Secondly, he stated we did not want to see the existing group go ahead and issue the MOU, and they have done that; and so it seems as though we are where we were several months ago only it is getting a little closer to happening. He added that when you read the paragraph on Withdrawal, it is written in a way that you are not quite sure what is going to happen. He stated it seems to him that the whole thing is fraught with problems. He asked the City Attorney are we assured that we can get our share of the tipping fees back to our program here in San Rafael, or is there a problem with that? City Attorney Ragghianti responded he cannot remember, and he would be reluctant to comment. He stated that the research they did led them to the conclusion that we were able to collect the tipping fees, but it was at least 4 or 5 months ago since that opinion was rendered. Ms. Nicolai stated that she believes so, she asked Finance Director Coleman to check on all of the notes from that analysis, and he said, "Yes, we can." Mayor Boro noted there is considerable discussion going on throughout the County about government and duplication. He stated in one sense this can be perceived as setting up duplication, but on the other hand the point Ms. Thayer makes is that we need to be sensitive to our ratepayers, what they are paying and what they are getting for what they are paying, and if part of what they are paying is going to be to subsidize other jurisdictions, it does not make sense. He added he also sees us losing our ability to really protect our interests. Ms. Nicolai responded that the intent of the group that drafted this was that no jurisdiction would in any way be subsidizing another jurisdiction's efforts to bring their recycling and/or diversion rates up. She stated that the clause added on page 19, "Not withstanding the above" was specifically an add-on in response to our request when we said we did not want to join and become financially obligated, and if we could work with the group and see how it went and get out within the first year with no ongoing obligation, that is why they added that clause. She stated she does not feel comfortable with it, and never has. She stated that, unfortunately, what she thinks the JPA might do could be very different from what is happening with the County and the MOU, and that has been the main argument in favor of joining it. The only argument in favor of joining the JPA is that you would then have some voice, where in the process with the County so far, they picked one representative from the Managers' group who evaluated these proposals. It was all done in a somewhat bizarre process, and she feels that the only argument in favor of consideration of joining the JPA is that the City would have some input. She noted that the household hazard- ous waste is only one program area, and there are other programs also, but she would definitely not recommend joining it if they go ahead and award the contract and then it is just absorbed. Councilmember Thayer asked what kind of input do we have if we only have one vote out of 23? Ms. Nicolai responded that just like in any other group, those who have energy on an issue are going to be involved and will be heard. As of now, we are not neces- sarily even asked until after the fact. Mayor Boro asked if the way we should phrase this letter is that we are willing to proceed with the JPA if the MOU decision tomorrow is postponed and deferred to the JPA. If it is not, then we want to withdraw from the MOU, and we are serving notice that we are also not pursuing the JPA. Ms. Nicolai stated that is correct. Councilmember Cohen stated it seems to him we should send those as two separate letters. First would be to send this letter as it is offered, clearly and unequivi- vocally, not contingent on anything else, withdrawing from the MOU effective today so we are not in any way bound by actions the County may take tomorrow. Secondly, we should send a letter to the County and to all of the other participants in the JPA saying that further, should the County go ahead and execute this contract they are proposing to execute tomorrow, and that would obligate us if we join the JPA, that we will not SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/4/93 Page 15 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/4/93 Page 16 join the JPA because we will not be bound for the next 5 years by actions the County takes tomorrow. Third, we could then discuss how we would want to approach the possibility of joining the JPA. He stated his own personal feeling is that the possibility of joining the JPA under certain conditions merits a little more consid- eration, but only if the first two issues are resolved to the Council's satisfaction. Ms. Nicolai recommended taking the first step, sending a FAX tomorrow telling them that we are withdrawing from the MOU and do not want to be party to the award of the contract. Also, we should communicate to all of the jurisdictions that if that con- tract is awarded, we will know by the end of tomorrow whether we are interested in joining the JPA. She added if they do withhold the contract and do not issue it, and then say it should be the decision of the JPA, then it would come back on the Council's agenda to decide whether to join the JPA. Mayor Boro responded that this letter ought to indicate that we withdraw; however, we are willing to proceed with the JPA if they withdraw the MOU. Councilmember Cohen stated he agrees with Ms. Nicolai's suggestion. He explained the only reason to send the second letter is if we still think that joining the JPA merits any consideration at all. He stated he feels we should send a clear letter withdrawing from the MOU and send a second letter saying we still are interested in discussing the JPA con- cept; however, if the County takes this action tomorrow, we will not be interested. Mayor Boro agreed. He added that the letter should state the Council's position. Councilmember Cohen stated he feels they are two separate points, and we should send two letters. He stated if there is any possibility of misinterpreting what we say in this letter, they will misinterpret it to their benefit; and it should be clear, and he would like to make a motion to that effect. Mayor Boro stated he wants the County to see both ends of the issues. Ms. Nicolai stated if we sent a letter saying we are clearly withdrawing from the MOU and state very clearly we think this kind of agreement should be awarded by the JPA, and if they do not, then we are not interested in the JPA because they have pre-empted one of the critical options. She added she thinks it is important that they understand that one of the main reasons we think it is inappropriate for them to award the bid, aside from all of the arguments about the specific proposal, is that that should be something the JPA is considering. She stated it is a really important message to all the other jurisdictions, also, who are potential parties to this JPA and the MOU. Mayor Boro asked for the City Attorney's opinion. Mr. Ragghianti responded he thinks this is being made unduly complicated. He agrees with the concept as articulated by Councilmember Cohen, and thinks that the letter should be in substantially the same form as the letter before the Council. He would add a sentence which says that with respect to the City's participation in the JPA, please see the attached additional letter submitted herewith. He noted that one of the problems is that no one is certain that even delivering the letter tomorrow will get us out. There is this problem with the 60 -day period involved in the MOU which he and Assistant City Attorney Walker have discussed. He stated they had drafted the letter to say that we withdraw and want to make sure the County knows that we are not participating in any financial payment for any contractual obligations which are entered into as a result of tomorrow's action. He stated that if that is the Council's consensus, they can add a sentence to the letter saying that with regard to the City's position regarding the JPA, please see the attached separate letter. Councilmember Shippey stated he agrees and suggested there be two separate motions. He stated he has a lot of concerns with the JPA, and in the second letter we may want to say more than just considering the JPA if the contract is not passed tomorrow. He stated there are other contingencies we want to put, on whether we are going to con- sider being admitted to the JPA. Councilmember Cohen responded, if we are going to send the letter regarding the JPA, he feels that letter will stand on its own, the same way the other letter will stand on its own. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to send the letter which has been presented to the Council tonight so we are noticing the County that we are withdrawing from the MOU for joint City and County Waste Management Planning implementation and that we will not be responsible for any financial obligation arising from contracts not executed as of October 4, 1993. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/4/93 Page 16 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/4/93 Page 17 Mr. Ragghianti noted the letter should be signed by Mayor Boro and given to the City Manager so it can be delivered tomorrow. Mayor Boro then asked for discussion on the second letter regarding the JPA. Councilmember Cohen stated that at the same time, we FAX the second letter. He asked the City Attorney about his views on using the FAX for this purpose. Mr. Ragghianti responded that for purposes of withdrawal of this kind, he would suggest that we FAX the letter and also have someone deliver a copy to the County tomorrow as well. Councilmember Cohen recommended that at the same time the first letter is FAXED and delivered, we should send the second letter as well, which says effective October 4, the City of San Rafael has withdrawn from the MOU between the County and the Cities and that the reason we have taken this action is that we believe the decision which the County appears to be about to make should properly be undertaken by the JPA; and if, in fact, the County is to go ahead and award this contract, we are not likely - or we will not - join the JPA. He added we could state that if the County does not take this action and bind all parties to this proposed JPA, we have several other concerns about the JPA as proposed, and we would like to discuss them. Mayor Boro suggested the term 'we are willing to pursue joining the JPA'. Councilmember Cohen stated he has some real concerns about the JPA, but there is no point in discussing them until we see what action the County takes tomorrow. He stated that if the contract is not awarded and we are going to consider the JPA we should propose some language to clarify the issue regarding the financial liability with specifics. The method of voting is another issue to be pursued. He noted that at this point, although we have expressed our concerns, they have not been responded to. Councilmember Shippey agreed, but stated that the specifics need not be covered in this letter. He feels the second letter should say something to the effect that we will follow up with legal language which we believe would express our concerns about joining the JPA. Mr. Cohen explained he is not proposing that the legal language be included in the letter to go tomorrow. Mayor Boro stated he feels the Council have provided staff with the intent that we want to follow up with this letter tomorrow, to let them know that we are willing to pursue the JPA if they do not pursue the MOU. Then we could say that if they agree to that in principle, we would then be willing to discuss our concerns. Ms. Nicolai responded that the question is, are we? Councilmember Shippey stated he is still concerned that if we send the second letter the way he understands, we will convey the intention that all the County has to do is withhold awarding of the contract and we will join the JPA; and these are just minor little things, and he does not want to give that impression. Councilmember Cohen responded he does not think we need to give that impression at all. He asked Councilmember Shippey if he is prepared to make a motion that we send a letter saying we are not going to join the JPA? Mr. Shippey responded he is not. Councilmember Cohen said they have been talking about the best approach but do not need to talk about details at this time. He stated it can be sent along with the first letter, or shortly after, but as quickly as possible tomorrow, so they receive it before them prior to making a decision. Councilmember Cohen moved and Mayor Boro seconded, that the Council send the second letter making that connection and saying that, although we have substantial concerns, we are still willing to discuss the possibility of participation in the JPA unless the County goes ahead and executes this contract tomorrow and binds the JPA to a five- year agreement. Councilmember Thayer stated she has many concerns about the JPA, and we are not going to join it if this contract is passed by the Board of Supervisors. She noted there are so many other problems and they should be articulated in this letter, very briefly. Mayor Boro noted we are saying we are willing to discuss the JPA if the County does not enter into this contract, and that there are other issues. We might articulate two or three of them in the letter, such as representation, ratepayer protection, and the cafeteria kind of approach, which we feel has been weakened in this agreement, which we want to discuss. Councilmember Thayer noted that the reason it is critical is that this County action could lead to other contracts. Ms. Nicolai pointed out that the concerns have not changed. They are the same ones the City has reiterated before, so she could easily add that we want to more clearly define the basic services which are too broad and basically negates the cafeteria plan; we are concerned about our representation and about the LEA. She agrees that unless we make it clear what we are looking at, there could be a group of the cities who might agree with us including Ross and Corte Madera, who are waiting to see what we do. They could understand why we are doing this and what we are proposing, and they can make the decision. She noted that Novato is the one City which did sign it. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/4/93 Page 17 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/4/93 Page 18 The points with which we are still concerned can be included in the letter. Mr. Cohen stated that unless we are confident that, within those four points, we cover every issue we want to take up with the JPA, we might want to say, "The main issues include but are not limited to...". AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner 17.RESOLUTION STATING THAT SAN RAFAEL WILL USE "OUR VISION FOR DOWNTOWN SAN RAFAEL" AS A BASIS FOR GENERAL PLAN, AND ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS, AND THAT APPLICANTS ARE TO BE SO NOTIFIED (Pl) - File 140 x 10-1 x 10-2 (SRRA) R-304 Councilmember Shippey moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the Resolution as recommended by staff. RESOLUTION NO. 9035 - THAT THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COUNCIL WILL USE OUR VISION FOR DOWNTOWN SAN RAFAEL AS THE BASIS FOR A DOWNTOWN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND RELATED ZONING AND SUBDI- VISION ORDINANCES CHANGES, AND APPLICANTS ARE TO BE SO NOTIFIED. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: 18.RE: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD - File 9-2-39 (Verbal) Mayor Boro stated he would like to report on the Business Issues Committee Meeting which was held with the Chamber of Commerce and the BID (Business Improvement Dis- trict). He noted a letter had been received from the Chamber regarding the Design Review Board (DRB), and it was discussed at the meeting. It was agreed that the Planning Director, representatives of the Chamber and the DRB would get together to pursue this issue. He stated everyone concurred that there is value to the DRB, and the problem seems to be in the process and how the meetings are conducted, and it will be pursued in that light. RE: IMPACTS OF NO -SMOKING ORDINANCE ON RESTAURANTS - File 13-4 (Verbal) Mayor Boro reported that last Thursday the Chamber invited all of the Chamber members who would be impacted by the No -Smoking Ordinance, and there were representatives from San Rafael Joe's, New George's and the Mayflower Inn. There was agreement among all of the businesses present, as at the prior meeting, that everyone supports the idea of keeping smoking outside of the area in which food is served. There was some concern about how that might be accomplished, which is a problem with the Mayflower. In the case of San Rafael Joe's, they were satisfied that their problems were re- solved. He noted that the first reading of the Ordinance will be before the Council at the October 18th meeting. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 1993 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/4/93 Page 18