HomeMy WebLinkAboutPW Authorize Payment Blayney-DyettCITY
5
OF i=, - ,1
1 AGENDA ITEM NO.:
SANRAFAEL MEETING DATE: February 3, 1986.
P 0 BOX 60 SAN RAFAEL CALIF 9491 5/PHONE 14151456.1 1 12 1
REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL,
SUBJECT: BLAYNEY-DYETT EAST SAN RAFAEL NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CONTRACT
SUBMITTEDBY: ....�.........................._.........................^ PPROVED BY:...........................
Planning Director (AM)City Manager
DATE: 1/30/86
RECOMMENDATION:
AUTHORIZE PAYMENT TO BLAYNEY-DYETT
BACKGROUND:
On May 21, 1984, the City Council authorized entering into
agreements with Blayney-Dyett for preparation of the East San
Rafael Neighborhood Plan and with the Canal Community Alliance
for disbursement of funds for partial cost of the East San
Rafael Neighborhood Plan. See attached copies. The Plan was
to be funded by a $42,000 San Francisco Foundation grant, up
to $48,000 from the Canal Community Alliance with a $10,000
contingency fund available from the Alliance if authorized
by the Alliance and the City, and $40,000 in City in-kind services.
All San Francisco Foundation grant funds have been expended
and over 80% of the Canal Community Alliance funds have been
authorized and paid to Blayney-Dyett. In August, Blayney-Dyett
submitted an invoice for professional services for completion
of the Neighborhood Plan Scope of Work and for some alleged
extra services. The Planning Director had numerous questions
about that invoice which resulted in receipt of a revised invoice
on November 21, 1985.
On November 25, 1985, then City Manager Gaebler, Planning Director
Moore, CCA Executive Director Kathy Campbell and CCA Board
President Bonnie Martz met to discuss that revised invoice.
After consultation with those CCA representatives, the Planning
Director determined that several of the charges in the revised
August invoice should not be paid. It was acknowledged by
the parties at that meeting that there were likely to be differences
between the City and the Canal Community Alliance as to which
of the invoiced charges should be paid. A letter dated December
20, 1985, was sent by the Planning Director to the Canal Community
REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL / PAGE: 2
Alliance specifying which charges she determined should be
paid and requesting Canal Community Alliance payment to the
City for those City authorized Blayney-Dyett services. See
attached letter.
Since that time, the City has received the January 23, 1986
letter from CCA Board President Bonnie Martz indicating that
the CCA Board disputes the amount requested due on the base
contract and will not authorize any payment until a satisfactory
accounting is given. The Board also agreed not to authorize
payment for any extra services except for $130 relating to
map revisions.
Staff recommends that the City pay the outstanding Planning
Director approved Blayney-Dyett charges at this time for several
reasons. The City is obligated in its agreement with Blayney-Dyett
to make payment regardless of the actions of the Canal Community
Alliance. The City agreement with the Canal Community Alliance
acknowledges that the City will be paying Blayney-Dyett based
on invoices submitted by the consultant and approved by the
Planning Director consistent with the consultant's approved
Scope of Work. While the agreement further states that charges
"shall be paid by the City after receipt of funds from the
Alliance", there is no discussion in the agreement of how to
handle a City -Canal Community Alliance dispute over payment.
At this time, it is unclear whether the dispute can be resolved.
City staff respectfully disagrees with the Canal Community
Alliance Board over charges pertaining to Tasks 4 and 6 of
the Blayney-Dyett Scope of Work and the extra services approved
by the Planning Director in the referenced December 20, 1985
letter to the Canal Community Alliance. The amount of time
which has been spent on this matter thus far has caused financial
hardship to the consultant who worked in good faith with the
City of San Rafael in performing City contracted for and authorized
services. Consequently, staff recommends that payment in the
amount of $10,633.50 be made to Blayney-Dyett. Further, staff
should be directed to strive to resolve the dispute with the
Canal Community Alliance to secure those funds due from that
organization.
As an aside, Canal Community Alliance Board President's January
23, 1986 letter mentions CCA letters of August 16, September
24, and October 4, 1985, which have not been formally responded
to by the City. Please be advised that there was an agreement
between then City Manager Gaebler and the Canal Community Alliance
Board President and Special Counsel that those letters would
not be formally responded to by the City.
e
AGREEMENT FOR DISBURSEMENT OF
CANAL COMMUNITY ALLIANCE FUNDS
TO CITY OF SAN RAFAEL IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE PREPARATION
OF A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN FOR EAST
SAN RAFAEL
This agreement is between the City of Sari Rafael (City) and
the Canal Community Alliance (Alliance) for the ouraose of
establishing the procedure for the disbursement of funds from the
Alliance to the City for consultant services for preparation of
the East San Rafael Neighborhood Plan.
RECITALS
(1) The City has received a grant in the amount of $42,000
from the San Francisco Foundation for the purpose of
retaining consultant services to assist in the
preparation of the East San Rafael Neighborhood Plan.
(2) The San Francisco Foundation has previously granted
funds to the Alliance for neighborhood planning
activities, and some of those funds are needed to
establish the $100,000 cash budget for consultant
services, which is supplemented by $40,000 in City in-
kind services.
(3) The City and Alliance desire to establish a procedure
to disburse the above -referenced Alliance funds to the
City so that the City can contract with and pay a
consultant for preparation of the East San Rafael
Neighborhood Plan.
AGREEMENT
(1) The City will pay the neighborhood plan consultant
every month based on invoices submitted by the
consultant and approved by the City's Planning
Director consistent with the approved consultant's
scope of work for the neighborhood plan.
(2) Copies of all invoices and Planning Director approvals
:ill be forwarded to the Executive Director of the
Alliance.
(3) The first $42,000 of invoiced consultant costs will
be paid by the City from the City's San Francisco
Page 2
Foundation grant. All invoice costs over and above
$42,000 and up to $90,000 shall be paid by the City
after receipt of funds from the Alliance. An Alliance
check, payable to the City and delivered to the
Planning Director, will be due within five (5) working
clays of receipt by the Alliance Executive Director of
the consultant's invoice approved by the Planning
Director.
(4) It is expressly understood that a $10,000 contingency
derived from Alliance funds is also established to
con?plete the $100,000 cash budget for the neighborhood
plan. Use of said contingency shall only be authorized
with the prior approval of both the Alliance and the
City. It is expected that the contingency fund would
be used only for currently unexpected additional
expenditures for consultant completion of a draft
neighborhood plan.
ATTEST:
Jeanne M. Leoncini
City Clerk
By: " . 1-/1 • ACL,'Yv�t�
Linda S. Downey rj
Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Robert F. Beyer; City Manager
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
-Lawrence E. Mulryan,,Mayor
CANAL COiL',1UNITY ALLIANCE
IH -
airman, Boar of Directors
4�Au'
Katn1 Can bell, r
Canal Community Alliance Executive Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM;
Peter Muzio,
San Rafael City Attorney
AGREEMENT
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
The fn
r:n^cin; �+,c incnt is a
corract coyly of the original
on fiie in this office.
X.
ANNE M. LEON N1, City Clerk
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into the 21 day ofMay, 1984 by and
between the City of San Rafael, a Municipal Corporation of the State of California,
hereinafter referred to as "City," and BLAYNEY-DYETT, a California Corporation,
70 Zoe Street, Suite 100, San Francisco, California, 94107, hereinafter referred to as
"Consultant."
I. A.DMRGSTRA71ON
Determinations and authorizations required by the City under this Agreeement shall
be made by the City's Planning Director. The Consultant's Project Manager shall be
John Blayney.
II. SCOPE OF WORK
Consultant agrees to provide professional services for preparation of a Neighborhood
Plan for East San Rafael' and a Draft Environmental Impact Report as described in
Attachment A "Approach" and Attachment B "Scope of Work." Attachment A is
intended to provide guidance and does not specify tasks or products other than those
specified in Attachment B.
The work to be done under this Agreement shall meet the requirements of Title 7,
Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8 of the California Government Code as it pertains to
specific plans, provided that standards and intent shall be prescribed for development
regulations, but ordinance amendments will not be prepared. Environmental analysis
shall be consistent with the Guidelines adopted pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act, as amended.
III. SCHEDULE
The Consultant shall adhere to the schedule prescribed in Attachment C provided that
changes may be approved by the Planning Director who shall consult with the
San Francisco Foundation and the Canal Community Alliance.
IV. PAYMENT
The City shall pay Consultant in accord with Consultant's statements of time and
direct costs as listed in Attachment D, provided that the total amount for completion
of the Scope of Work shall not exceed $90,000, except as provided in this Agreement.
Funds to be expended are to be secured by the City from the San Francisco Foundation
and the Canal Community Alliance. Consultant shall submit the first statement 15
days following execution of this Agreement and at monthly intervals thereafter. Each
statement shall be accompanied by a progress report showing the percentage of com-
pletion of each task. Not more than 50 percent of the budget allocated to a task shall
-1-
X-11611--m-'rA
5sy (044
be billed until that task is complete, provided that the Planning Director shall
authorize task payments exceeding 50 percent if, in the Director's judgment, more
than 50 percent of the work has been performed and completion of a task is delayed
through no fault of the Consultant.
For the purpose of determining maximum payment due, the task budgets shall be as
follows:
Task 1 $ 19,000
Task 2
102000
Task 3
18,000
Task 4
147000
Task 5
171000
Task 6
121000
Total $ 90,000
Statements shall be due and payable within 15 days of receipt by the City. The City
shall notify the Consultant of any disputed item within 10 working days following
receipt of an invoice.
V. ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
The following firms shall participate as described in this section as subcontractors to
Blayney-Dyett and shall be paid for time and expenses within the $90,000 maximum
budget. Substitutions or selection of firms other than those listed shall be only with
the approval of the Planning Director who shall consult with the San Francisco
Foundation and the Canal Community Alliance.
Kent Watson be Associates, Waterfront Planning and Design, Landscape Architecture,
will participate as prescribed in the Scope of Work within a maximum budget of
$6,000.
The following associated consultants shall participate if and to the extent needed as
determined by the Planning Director within a total budget not to exceed $17,000.
- Phillip Williams & Associates, Consultants in Hydrology, San
Francisco
- Donald Herzog & Associates, Inc., Mill Valley (Soils and geotechnical
engineering)
- Western Ecological Services Company (WESCO), Novato (Biology)
- JHK be Associates (Traffic)
Time and direct costs shall be billed as listed in Attachment D. Any portion of the
reserved budget not allocated to associated consultants shall be available to the
Consultant.
-2-
VI. ADDITIONAL WORK
It is understood and agreed by City and Consultant that maximum payment for
services is based upon normal professional service in preparing a Neighborhood Plan
and draft EIR as described in the attached Scope of Work. Any additional work
requested or required of the Consultant by the City shall be construed as an
amendment to this Agreement and shall be subject to negotiation. Said additional
work may include, but not be limited to, the following:
a. Public meeting attendance in addition to that specified in
Attachment B.
b. Meetings with interested parties at the direction of the Planning
Director other than meetings during the information gathering stage of
the planning process.
c. Unusual or unanticipated data collection, search, or analysis.
d. Preparation or testimony in defense of legal action against the
City in connection with the work.
VII. CONSULTANT STATUS
The Consultant is an independent contractor and shall not be deemed, directly or
indirectly, to be an officer or employee of the City. However, City shall assist
Consultant by providing timely response to Consultant's request for municipal data;
meeting with Consultant when necessary at mutually agreeable times; facilitating
necessary meetings with public officials and community associations; and providing
services and materials as outlined in the attached Scope of Work.
VIII. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The Consultant covenants that it has not previously and will not during the time of
this contract serve as consultant to any neighborhood organization or any individual,
organization or corporation representing major landowners in the area. Associated
consultants shall disclose all such relationships to the Planning Director prior to
execution of a subcontract with the Consultant and shall not accept additional work as
described in this paragraph for the duration of their subcontracts except with the
approval of the Planning Director. Existing work may be continued, but new clients
described in this paragraph shall be accepted during the period of work on the
Neighborhood Plan only with the approval of the Planning Director, which approval
shall be withheld only if the Director determines that the potential for conflict would
exceed that inherent in existing assignments and could interfere with an associated
consultant's ability to perform neighborhood planning tasks.
IX. TERMINATION
The City reserves the right to terminate this Agreement at any time by providing
written notice to the Consultant. Upon receipt of notice, all work under this contract
shall terminate, except for minor work required to provide the City with a clear
understanding of work completed and work remaining.
-3-
In the event of termination, City shall pay Consultant all sums then due and unpaid
under this Agreement, including sums for work not completed, but in preparation.
Payment by City of such compensation shall be considered full and final settlement
for all work performed by the Consultant under this Agreement.
X. ASSIGNMENT
Neither this Agreement nor any part thereof, nor any monies due or to become due
under this Agreement may be assigned by the Consultant without the written consent
of the City.
XI. CHANGES
This Agreement may be modified, as necessary for the successful and timely
completion of the services to be provided. Any alteration or variation shall be in
writing, as an amendment to this Agreement, and shall be approved by all parties.
XII. INSURANCE
Contractor agrees to maintain in full force and effect during the course of this
Agreement bodily injury liability insurance in the amount of $500,000 per occurrence
and property damage liability insurance in the amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence.
Prior to the execution of this agreement Contractor will provide his insurance
company's endorsement evincing the above coverage and containing the following
language:
"It is understood and agreed that the City of San Rafael, its
officers, agents and employees are additional insureds under this
policy but only as respects liability arising out of the work
described in the Agreement between the City of San Rafael and
Blayney-Dyett, a California Corporation, for the preparation of a
Neighborhood Plan for East San Rafael and the related documenta-
tion described in that Agreement.
This insurance coverage will not be canceled or reduced without
first giving the City of San Rafael 15 working days advance
notice."
In addition, Contractor shall be responsible for and pay for all Workers Compensation
Insurance.
-4-
IN WITNESS THEREOF, City and Consultant have caused their authorized
representatives to execute this Agreement the day and year first above written.
� 1,
Lawrence Mulryan, Mayor Blayjiey-Dyett, Urban an 1 o ,planners
Attest:
Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk
By: Linda S. Downey, Deputy Ci y Clerk.
Approved as to content:
Anne Moore,an Rafael Planning Dire6T Z"
J
an Francisco Foundation
Y'A . ,
Canal Community Alliance
Approved as to form:
Peter J. Muzio, City Attorney
-5-
ATTACHMENT A
APPROACH
Since the mid 19501s, when development in San Rafael began to move eastward on an
already obsolete street and lot pattern, the future of the Canal area has been a
question mark. The demand for high density housing, and the myriad of commercial -
industrial enterprises which would seek space in Marin's central city was not foreseen
at that time, so the Canal Area, which had been a catchall, has remained one. While
the reasons that the City has failed to take full advantage of its shoreline site are
historically understandable, they should not now diminish remaining opportunities in
the neighborhood.
Access still is East San Rafael's number one problem, but the opportunities for a
stable and diverse community appear far better than might be expected. Marin
County's high buying power and limited choice of sites has stimulated relatively higher
priced and higher quality development in the neighborhood during the last few years.
Now, with the area approaching buildout, the issues that will determine long term
viability must be decided.
Needed are:
1. A traffic and transportation system design and assured means of implementation
that will provide acceptable levels of service at buildout.
2. A drainage system design and assured means of implementation that will prevent
flooding.
3. A land use and housing policy that will retain diversity of price and tenure while
preventing deterioration.
4. A combination—to be determined—of public amenities, public services, commercial
and cultural facilities, and design quality that will enhance community identity and
quality of life. How to do this while maintaining affordable housing will be one of
the most challenging issues to be resolved during the planning process.
5. Policies and regulations that will ensure that development intensity does not
exceed the capacity of public service systems.
6. Policies that will stabilize expectations about the future of East San Rafael and
that are specific enough to minimize the time and cost of processing development
proposals.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
To prepare a neighborhood plan that attracts wide support, the planning process must
include public participation at each stage. We propose a program designed so that
community members, business people, land owners, and developers will not act simply
as audience at meetings, or even commentors on proposed plan alternatives, but as
contributors to the plan and the planning process.
-1-
First Neighborhood Workshop
Initial public involvement will be at a workshop at which the scope of the plan is
explained. The aim of the workshop, however, will be to hear the participants express
their views of the problems, and to identify the concerns held by individuals and
different interest groups. The list of concerns developed at this stage will form the
basis of an Issues List presented in our Working Paper 2.
The breadth of participation in the first workshop will be particularly important.
Inclusion at this initial phase of all those who have a stake in the plan will demon-
strate the impartiality and openness of the planning process; give all participants a
sense of their 'ownership" of the process, i.e., the fact that the plan can reflect the
desires of any one who chooses to contribute; and will educate the community about
how the plan will be developed. An extra effort to include people in the first work-
shop will likely result in a better plan, and reduce or eliminate later complaints
regarding decisions made behind closed doors, meetings that went unpublicized, etc.
To achieve wide participation at the first stage, we propose holding two "identical"
workshops- at different times and places, most likely with one scheduled during a
weekday and one in the evening or on a weekend. Both would be held in East San
Rafael.
We would design a leaflet announcing workshops, to be translated and distributed by
others by:
Posting throughout the community (telephone poles, bulletin boards, shop
windows, etc.),
Sending copies home with students at Bahia Vista School,
Notice in the publications of all community and neighborhood associations in East
San Rafael.
Mailing to landowners as shown on assessment roles.
Second Neighborhood Workshop
The purpose of the second neighborhood workshop will be to lay the groundwork for
making later decisions by establishing a system for evaluation of alternative land use
scenarios. At this session the concerns identified at the prior workshop will be
discussed in relation to one another so that priorities can be set and concerns weighted
to reflect relative importance. This step will establish a shared basis for evaluation of
alternatives which will enable plans to be measured against an agreed upon standard.
The process of developing the evaluation system will indicate the areas where trade-
offs are most likely to be acceptable to the parties involved, as well as highlighting
those concerns of paramount importance.
The evaluation system is developed early in the planning process for three reasons.
First, it educates all of those involved as to the concerns of other participants.
Second, it encourages collaboration among participants who may become members of
opposing factions later in the process, and third, it assures participants that the
-2-
remainder of the process will be fair. While the development of an agreed-upon
system of evaluation will be difficult, it should greatly reduce antagonism when
alternatives are being compared, because everyone will be using the same standard.
Subsequent Meetings
Holding too many meetings can thwart balanced participation because boredom or
other time demands will discourage many who may support middle ground choices. We
believe that six to eight public meetings should be held during the seven month
planning period. Following the development of an evaluation system, meetings will be
held to elicit responses to planning options, to consider alternative sketch plans, and,
if necessary, to refine the draft plan.
We also will be available to participate in meetings with individuals and small groups
to understand their points of view. In many instances we will seek their help.
Ways to Make Meetings Effective
Different meeting times (night, day, Saturday) may be needed to reach all groups.
Participation at the first meetings will be an indicator of popular times and places. In
all cases, schedules and agendas will be set well in advance and material to be
discussed will be mailed in sufficient time to be read by those who wish to come to the
meeting prepared to debate specific points.
We believe that the workshops should be conducted by the Planning Commission or
chaired by a member of the Commission. This accomplishes several purposes:
- The link between the meetings and the decision-making process is clearly
established in everyone's mind.
- The Planning Commission benefits from first-hand exposure to the debate.
- The staff and consultants are clearly presenters rather than
moderators/presenters with an ambiguous role.
Workshops will be planned and structured by the consultants in consultation with city
staff. Large, readable drawings are important, and will be used throughout the
planning process, as detailed in the scope of work. Prior to the meeting at which
sketch plans are evaluated, the alternatives will be displayed somewhere within East
San Rafael (perhaps the new community center or the school). Slides of existing
conditions will be used at early meetings to achieve a common reference for
discussion of specific urban design issues, and graphics illustrating concepts will be
employed when appropriate.
EMPHASIS ON PLANNING OPTIONS
Too many plans—even specific plans—offer little more than general goals or policies
with which few people would disagree. The East San Rafael Plan must be site-
specific, even though it may not fully resolve all development issues on all sites. Our
experience has been that the most efficient way to make useful decisions is to bypass
extensive general policy discussion and move quickly from a listing of issues to consid-
eration of planning options or choices.
-3-
Planning options, as we use the term, are specific actions that can be mapped or
measured. All potentially feasible planning options addressing a particular issue must
be examined. Thus for example, if "availability of affordable housing" is an issue, it
will be necessary to define "affordability" and to examine alternatives that would
affect supply. These might range from letting the market control to requiring a spe-
cific affordable share in each project, to requiring or encouraging mixed use projects,
to designating certain sites for higher densities, etc. The economic, social, fiscal and
environmental consequences of each choice must be evaluated.
Agreement on planning options clearly represents a much greater accomplishment
than acceptance of a vague policy, and it may be no harder or even less difficult to
attain. Many individuals on opposite sides of particular planning issues have
experienced having an adopted plan policy used as an argument against their position
although they felt the argument was not consistent with the intent at the time the
policy was adopted.
ATTENTION TO SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
In all our planning work we endeavor to stay aware of projects that have been
proposed or are likely to be proposed by reviewing plans and meeting with project
proponents. We will be prepared to review proposed projects on a schedule consistent
with the City's review process and to offer comments as requested.
To insure that all participants in the planning process are aware of the changing status
of development proposals, a display map of East San Rafael showing sites of proposed
projects will be displayed and updated at all public meetings.
DESIGN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
While rigid compartmentalization is not a formula for the ideal neighborhood, East San
Rafael suffers from an excessive mixture of uses that, coupled with a street pattern
that is difficult to understand, create a disoriented feeling. The process will look for
ways to create order—to make the' location of the water apparent, to point the way
from the freeways to the residential areas, and perhaps to mark these gateways with
resident -serving uses.
During the plan design process we will present specific ideas that may range from tree
planting to new lagoon or waterfront residential communities, office parks, or mixed
use complexes. Open space and landscape standards appropriate in one sector of the
neighborhood may be inappropriate in another.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AS AN INTEGRAL
PART OF THE PLANNING PROCESS
Although the EIR will be a separate report, at least 75 percent of its content will be
generated for the purpose of plan preparation and will appear in some form in working
papers. This reflects both the time schedule and our belief that a good planning
process requires early environmental assessment and automatically meets most CEQA
requirements.
-4-
COORDINATING WITH PUBLIC AGENCIES AND OTHER CONSULTANTS
Throughout the planning process, the consulting team will strive to minimize duplica-
tion of effort and unnecessary work by communicating with public agency personnel
and other consultants (primarily the team working on the traffic study). With the
assistance of City staff, key personnel at agencies active in East San Rafael will be
identified at the start of work.
Kent Watson Associates will utilize its expertise in dealing with the agencies having
jurisdiction over the Bay, shoreline and wetlands. Blayney-Dyett will contact pro-
viders of social services in the area; serve as the liason with the traffic engineering
team; and communicate with the City of Larkspur and conservation agencies regarding
preservation of Bartel Ridge. The traffic engineering team should keep us informed of
relevant agency actions regarding circulation and transit.
Contacts with agency personnel will be made early in the process so that information
on relevant policies and projects is taken into account, and so that staff will know that
they can contact us if they want to ask for or receive additional information at any
point.
WORKING WITH CITY STAFF
We endorse the concept of the consultant as an extension of the City staff.
Commitment of City staff time as proposed is, we believe, essential to obtaining full
value from the consultants' work and to preparation of an effective plan. We will
expect a full exchange of ideas, critical review of our work prior to publication, and
agreement on shared responsibility for specific tasks based on time available and
efficiency.
As the work moves toward the public hearing and adoption stage, the consultants'
public connection with the plan should diminish and it should become first a Planning
Department product and then Planning Commission and City Council policy.
ALLOCATING TIME AND BUDGET IN RESPONSE TO NEIGHBORHOOD NEEDS
Most of the existing documents specific to the Canal Area address environmental,
traffic and technical issues. We are proposing a budget that will allow for review of
relevant documents to establish those factors which will influence the plan. Most of
the budget, and the consultant's time, will be allocated to identifying and responding
to East San Rafael issues that have not previously been given close attention. We
believe that as allocated, the budget will provide for the coordination with agencies
and other consultants as described above, avoiding duplication of effort and allowing a
focus on original planning work in response to the needs and desires of the community.
-5-
ATTACHMENT B
SCOPE OF WORK
The following scope will result in a Specific Plan as described in Gov. Code Sec.
65451, provided that standards and intent will be prescribed for development regula-
tions, but ordinance amendments will not be prepared. The City staff will have
primary responsibility for preparation of traffic mitigation cost sharing proposals,
building on studies already completed.
Firm initials following tasks indicate primary responsibility.
Task 1: Data Collection and Analysis
The data collected in this task will serve as the information base for the entire
planning process.
a. Prepare base map from existing mapping. (B -D)
b. Prepare existing land use map. (B -D)
c. Determine approval status of all development projects; indicate on display
map. (B -D)
d. Determine ownership of uncommitted vacant land and plans, if any, of
owners. (B -D)
e. Map areas likely to be redeveloped based on low land payment capability of
current use or poor condition of existing structures. (B -D)
f. Map areas that have detrimental effects on the neighborhood due to poor
design or maintenance of structures on site. (B -D)
g. Develop profile of current resident population, working from 1980 Census
Neighborhood Statistics and available data that describe changes since 1980
Census (school data, electric meters, vacancies, postal data, interviews,
etc.). (B -D)
h. Review environmental documents and interview representatives of concerned
agencies and organizations to determine legal and environmental constraints
and opportunities affecting use and development of the canal and shoreline.
(KW be A)
i. Determine problems relating to flooding and utilities, prepare overview of
possible mitigation measures, and assess impacts on neighborhood plan. (PW &
A)
j. Review City, special district, state, and federal capital improvement
programs to determine type and timing of proposed projects affecting East
San Rafael. (Team)
-6-
k. Review published and in progress traffic studies and summarize problems and
proposed mitigations. (B -D)
1. Obtain a first cut indication of specific problems and needs as seen by
different interest groups by interviewing residents of different areas and
housing types, and operators of different sizes and types of businesses.
Interview proponents of major proposed projects and owners of vacant parcels
judged to have major importance for the neighborhood. (B -D)
m. Meet with representatives of school district and social services agencies to
understand current services, problems, and plans. (B -D)
n. Estimate spendable income available to support retail services desired by
residents, and interview potential providers to determine attitudes toward
East San Rafael locations. (B -D)
Product: Working Paper 11: East San R.afaeL• Existing Conditions 1984
Most of the material in this paper will be incorporated into the "setting" section of the
DEIR.
Completion Date: July 15, 1984
Meetings: As discussed in the public participation section of this proposal,
mid -way through Task 1 the first community meeting (held at two
different times) will inform participants about the process and
identify issues of concern. At the end of the task, following
public distribution of the Working Paper, the workshop to develop
a system for evaluation of alternatives will be held.
Task 2: Identification of Issues and Planning Options (B -D, team)
The issues contributed by participants at the first community meeting will direct this
task, which will result in two or more planning options designed to satisfy each of the
principal concerns identified. Subsequent community discussion will be focused on
choosing among options and alternatives, rather than debating the validity of the
concerns of participating individuals and organizations.
Options will be courses of action that can be mapped or measured and that are within
the scope of the Specific Plan. They will range from land use designations and
development standards for specific sites to implementation programs designed to
achieve community goals such as affordable housing and improved services. The
relative merits, costs and effects of the various options, such as regulations for
heights and floor areas, or acquiring and maintaining additional open space, will be
discussed as necessary to facilitate decision making. Display graphics will be used to
illustrate design and regulatory concepts as appropriate.
Product: Working Paper #2: East San R.afaeL• Issues and Planning Options
Completion Date: August 15, 1984
wC
Meetings: Following distribution of the working paper, one or more meetings
will be needed to hear responses to the options and ideas
regarding how they would best be shown on alternative sketch
plans.
Task 3: Preparation of Alternative Sketch Plans (B -D)
Two to four sketch plans will be prepared, depending on the number of options which
received support. The plans will illustrate the feasible range of choice. Working
Paper 3, which will present the sketch plans, will compare their economic, fiscal,
social and environmental effects.
Product: Working Paper #3: East San Rafael:- Alternative Sketch Plans
The plan drawings will be prepared both at page size and as nonreproducible colored
display maps for use at meetings.
Completion Date: October 1, 1984
Meetings: An open workshop to review and compare the alternative sketch
plans will use the evaluation system developed as part of Task 1.
While the evaluation will highlight the relative merits of the
plans, their individual elements will also be assessed in case a
combination of options not illustrated on any one plan would best
satisfy the disparate interests of all concerned.
Task 4: Plan Refinement (B -D, team)
Following initial discussion of the alternative plans, revisions and refinements will be
made in response to comments and as a result of further study. At subsequent meet-
ings, points of disagreement among interest groups will be reviewed in an effort to
reach accommodation. Rather than presenting one preferred alternative, the draft
plan may contain two or more alternatives, all of which are technically feasible but
none of which has received full support from participants in the planning program. At
this stage the alternatives are likely to vary only in a few sectors.
We do not know now what level of agreement can be expected to be reached, but we
would not be surprised if some offers of accommodation are withheld until City
Council hearings. If this occurs, the consultants will prepare the plan in such a way
that major points of disagreement are clearly described and the effects of alternatives
on the community are apparent.
Necessary draft amendments to the San Rafael General Plan and Redevelopment Plan
will be prepared.
Product: Draft Specific Plan in form for public hearings by the Planning
Commission and City Council. In addition to a plan diagram,
sketches and small area illustrative site plans will be included as
appropriate. A summary suitable for wide distribution will be
prepared, to be mailed to all households in East San Rafael.
-8-
Completion Date: December 31, 1984
Meetings: At least one open meeting will be held to determine the extent of
agreement on the plan and to attempt to resolve remaining
differences through modifications or mitigation requirements.
Task 5: Draft Master Environmental Impact Report (B -D, team)
Using previous EIRs and material developed during preparation of the Draft
Neighborhood Plan, including alternatives to the recommended proposal, a DEIR will
be prepared. Work done during tasks 2 and 3 to evaluate options and alternatives will
be incorporated in the impact analyses, and mitigation measures will be chosen with
regard for community preference. The EIR will meet all CEQA requirements and will
address the fiscal impacts of the alternatives on the City of San Rafael.
Assuming the traffic analysis prepared under a separate agreement is incorporated and
the Specific Plan draft contains development standards, it should not be necessary to
prepare EIRs for development projects consistent with the adopted Specific Plan.
Product: Draft Environmental Impact Report
Completion Date: December 31, 1984
Task 6: Implementation Program (B -D)
Work on the implementation program will begin during preparation of the alternative
sketch plans, because some implementation measures will be needed by all
alternatives and because the feasibility of certain implementation measures will
determine the feasibility of one or more alternatives. The implementation program is
to be published separately from the Draft Specific Plan, although the Specific Plan
will incorporate portions in the form of standards or policies.
The program will describe East San Rafael Specific Plan needs under each of the
following headings and will propose funding sources, program changes, or regulations
as appropriate.
Zoning
Code Enforcement
Redevelopment (if appropriate)
Capital Improvements
Zoning regulations will be proposed, if needed, to improve the quality of development,
prevent uses deemed detrimental, and control the intensity of uses.
A capital improvement program will include cost estimates (range only) for needed
public improvements. The program will recommend (or estimate) expenditures of
revenues from different funding sources, including:
Non -city public sources
City of San Rafael General Fund
-9-
Private grants
East San Rafael assessments
Redevelopment Agency funds
Mitigation payments by new development projects
subject to discretionary review
Mitigation payments by new development projects
permitted as of right
Mitigation payments as a condition of
intensification of use
The level of detail of this product will depend on material produced by the city staff
and concurrent work by the traffic analysis consultant. Significant City staff work
already completed on means of financing trafficways improvements will be updated
and incorporated as appropriate.
Products Draft San Rafael Specific Plan Implementation Program
Completion Date: December 31, 1984
Products and Meetings
Camera-ready art will be provided for all reports. Display art will be provided for
meetings.
John Blayney will attend up to seven public meetings and Kent Watson and JHK's
project director will attend up to two public meetings.
-10-
Fy
C�
U1 Aja 4:
[v
N
r
X-
a �.
b K
a
d
CDw
'-
CLCEO)
a
] a
cD CD
O
m
o`
CD
o`
o'
I."
w
00
C
-
z
cw
❑
c
r
=
C�
a
=
�j.
¢.o '
O
/
_
�
O
i
•
�
v
s
Pel
�
f�4
10
���0
Fy
Personnel
John Blayney
Michael V. Dyett
Ellen Greenberg
Nicklaus von Rotz
Nicholas Gravina
Direct Charges
ATTACHMENT D - BILLING RATES
BLAYNEY-DYETT
Principal
Principal
Planning Analyst
Environmental Designer
Environmental Designer
Nord Processing
$75.00 per hr.
70.00
32.50
32.50
27.50
25.00
Maps, graphics, reproduction, long distance telephone, local travel, out-of-town travel
and subsistence, additional insurance required for specific assignments, and miscella-
neous costs.
Mileage @ $.20 per mile
In-house xeroxing @ $.13 per page
(rates subject to revision January 1, 1985)
PHILLIP WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES,
CONSULTANTS IN HYDROLOGY
Phillip Williams
Bob Coats
Vinod Prabnakar
Hydrologists
$85.00 per hr.
65.00
50.00
40.00
1400 FIFTH AVENUE. P O BOX 60 SAN RAFAEL
CALIFORNIA 94915-0060 PHONE (4 15) 4 56 -1112
MAYOR
I AwtRf t 1C -C E 0.41i1 R\ AN
COMCIL IANARf-1i4
)f)R0111Y 1 RRFINFR
1 .ARY R FOWInL
RIC HAIiD 1' nAVI
IFFtR. RUSSnm
December 20, 1985
Kathy Campbell, Executive Director
Canal Community Alliance
175 Belvedere Street, #10
San Rafael, California 94901
Re: Final Invoices for Blayney-Dyett East San Rafael Neighborhood
Plan Work
Dear Kathy:
Consistent with the last meeting, you, Bonnie Martz, Ted Gaebler
and I had, this letter summarizes the City's request for Canal
Community Alliance payment for Blayney-Dyett services for the
East San Rafael Neighborhood Plan. Please refer to the attached
copy of Blayney-Dyett invoice number 84104.11, dated August
13, 1985, and subsequently revised and received in this department
on November 21, 1985.
Regarding the $9,000 amount due on the base contract, that
amount should be paid minus amounts for two subtasks within
the base contract which were not provided by Blayney-Dyett:
(1) Draft amendments to the San Rafael General Plan and
Redevelopment Plan as called for in Task 4 of the
May 21, 1984 agreement were not done. Assuming these
relatively minor subtasks in Task 4 would have taken
ten hours of Ellen Greenberg's time and one hour
of John Blayney's, the sum of $400 should be subtracted
from the base contract amount for these subtasks
which were not completed in Task 4.
(2) Regarding the items contracted for in Task 6 of the
May 21, 1984 agreement, separate written Neighborhood
Plan implementation program, zoning regulations and
capital improvement program documents were not done.
However, substantial Task 6 work is included in the
draft Neighborhood Plan in the form of the many implementing
policies included therein. Consequently, I have
Kathy Campbell, Executive Director
December 20, 1985
Page 2
determined that 15 hours of Ellen Greenberg's time
and two hours of John Blayney's time for a total
of $637.50 should be subtracted from the base contract
amount for these subtasks which were not completed
in Task 6.
In summary, a total of $1,037.50 should be withhold from the
base contract amount of $9,000 for the incompleteness of Tasks
4 and 6 as detailed above. This is consistent with our earlier
discussion of these matters. I have also advised John Blayney
of my determination that Tasks 4 and 6 were not complete.
Please refer to the extra services portion of the Blayney-Dyett
invoice number 84104.11. My determinations regarding appropriateness
of the extra services charges are as follows:
(1) $2,151 should be authorized as extra services payment
for Ellen Greenberg's preparation for and participation
at eight public meetings. At the time the original
agreement was entered into between Blayney-Dyett
and the City, it was not contemplated that John Blayney
would need to have another staff person attend all
those meetings. Consequently, the City requests
the Canal Community Alliance authorize payment for
those extra services.
(2) City staff concludes that the limited extra services
requested for Ellen Greenberg's extra research and
discussion on the child care facilities question
be authorized in the amount of $390. I realize from
our earlier discussions that Canal Community Alliance
staff and Board may not agree with this City staff
determination. However, I have concluded that the
amount of consultant time paid to the child care
issue was over and above that amount originally anticipated
by Blayney-Dyett or the City at the time the Neighborhood
Plan agreement was signed. I respectively request
the Canal Community Alliance consider paying this
extra services amount.
(3) I have concluded that no extra services should be
due for Blayney-Dyett's attendance at coordination
meetings with Canal Community Alliance staff and
Board members and Planning Department staff. At
no time did Blayney-Dyett staff indicate to me that
such meetings were viewed as extra services. It
had been made clear since prior to execution of the
agreement between the City and Blayney-Dyett that
a very high level of coordination with Canal Community
Alliance and the City would be necessary. Consequently,
Kathy Campbell, Executive Director
December 20, 1985
Page 3
I have concluded that this request for extra services
should be denied, and the City does not request Canal
Community Alliance consideration of this extra services
amount.
(4) I have concluded that there was not need over and
above that anticipated at the time the agreement
was signed for research on the affordable housing
issue. After reviewing the interview notes provided
by Blayney-Dyett on this subject, I have concluded
that this request for extra services should be rejected.
Those persons that were interviewed by Blayney-Dyett
regarding affordable housing were those that, at
the time the agreement was entered into, the City
reasonably expected should be interviewed. Since
Blayney-Dyett at no time indicated such contact was
considered extra services, I am not requesting the
Canal Community Alliance authorize payment for these
Blayney-Dyett charges.
(5) Regarding Blayney-Dyett's claimed extra services
regarding feasibility of locating a larger supermarket
in East San Rafael, City staff has concluded that,
in fact, this did not entail work over and above
that reasonably expected at the time the agreement
was entered into between Blayney-Dyett and the City
of San Rafael. Consequently, I am not requesting
the Canal Community Alliance to authorize payment
for those requested Blayney-Dyett charges.
(6) Lastly, there were map revisions required as a result
of modifications to the future circulation system
in East San Rafael from the separate Greater East
San Rafael Traffic Analysis work. Consequently,
I have concluded that the $130 indicated as extra
services are reasonable and request the Canal Community
Alliance authorize payment in that amount.
In summary, the City requests that the Canal Community Alliance
authorize final payment to Blaney-Dyett for preparation of
the draft East San Rafael Neighborhood Plan and EIR in the
amount of $10,633.50. That total is derived from $7,962.50
payable on the base contract amount and $2,671 in extra services.
City staff concluded that $1,037.50 should be deducted from
the base contract amount for the incomplete Tasks 4 and 6 and
that most Blayney-Dyett requests for extra services should
be rejected. Because the total amount of City requested extra
services would total only $1,633.50, we agreed that a formal
amendment of the original Blayney-Dyett - City contract is
not warranted.
Kathy Campbell, Executive Director
December 20, 1985
Page 4
If you have any questions on any of these items, please contact
me at your earliest convenience. I am hoping that we can have
the Blayney-Dyett account closed early in the new year and
be focusing all of our collective efforts on the forthcoming
January workshop, draft Plan revision and subsequent public
hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council.
Cordially,
ANNE MOORE
Planning Director
AM/dl
cc: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager
John Blayney, Blayney-Dyett Associates
70 Zoe Street, San Francisco 94107
lilayncy-Dym
11111;111 ;inLl 1Zcgio iml Pitinncr.s
.10111 A. Bhync�. \ICI'
=\lit-lmcl \' DyCH, AKT
August L3, 1985
( revised )
Inv,jico No. 8 11.J4. l L
lls. Anne Moore
lllanniii,5 Director
I_.ity of San I(r kell
PAY Box 60
am t(,:;.s� 1, CA 9-19L5
For professional services rendered on the Exist San Rafael Neighborhood
P1 in for the period March 1, 1985, through July 31, 1985.
PERSONNEL
] . B1r1y-,,cy
Greenberg
N. von Ho tz
1. nravina
1,. Beck
DIRECT COSTS
Travel
Telephone
f5raphics
119.50
hours
at
135.50
hours
at
148.50
hours
M
6.00
hours
at
49.50
hours
ca
$75.00
per
hour
$32.50
per
hour
$32.50
per
hour
$27.50
per
hour
$25.00
per
hour
Total Earned This Period
Balance Outstanding on Contract
Balance Outstaning Inv. No. 9
Novi Due on Base Contract
Subtotal of Extra Services
(see pave 2)
TOTAL NOW DUE
$8,962.50
$4,403.75
$4,826.25
$165.00
$.1 , 237_._50_
$77.35
$2.30
$19.90
$235.86
$335.41
$19,930.41
$8,233.91
$766.09
$9,000.00
$4,602.75
$13,602.75
'n /0V SUVL!l
ti.in I MIR iNCO, (:\'1.11117
1 111) Is 18'M
EXTRA SERVICES:
EAST SAN RAFAEL NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
Through July 31, 1985
Preparation for and participation in 8 public meetings
E. Greenberg 61.00 hours at $32.50 per hour $2,080.00
Travel $71.00
Research and discussion on child-care facilities
E. Greenberg 12.00 hours at $32.50 per hour $390.00
Attendance at four coordination meetings with CCA
staff and board members, and Planning Dept. staff
J. 131ayney 1.2.00 hours at $75.00 per hour $900.00
Travel $24.00
Topics investigated in greater detail
than anticipated by Scope of Work:
Means of providing affordable housing; meetings with providers
E. Greenberg 21.5 hours at $32.50 per hour $698.75
Travel $16.50
Conversations with realtors and supermarket site selection
personnel regarding feasibility of locating a larger super-
market in East San Rafael.
J. Stern 9.0 hours at $32.50 per hour $292.50
Map revisions to include revised freeway
interchange and overcrossing design
N. von Rotr.. 4.0 hours at $32.50 per hour $130.00
Subtotal $4,602.75
( 104-rb.wd)
-2-
C Y
OF
SAN
1400 FIFTH AVENUE, P O BOX 60 SA
CALIFORNIA 94915-0060 PHONE (415
MAYOR
LAWRENCE E MULRYAN
COUNCIL MEMBERS
DOROTHY L BREINER
GARY R FRUGOLI
RICHARD P NAVE
JERRY RUSSOM
EIL
N RAFAEL 1
456-1112 I `
V
December 20, 1985
Kathy Campbell, Executive Director
Canal Community Alliance
175 Belvedere Street, #10
San Rafael, California 94901
Re: Final Invoices for Blayney-Dyett East San Rafael Neighborhood
Plan Work
Dear Kathy:
Consistent with the last meeting, you, Bonnie Martz, Ted Gaebler
and I had, this letter summarizes the City's request for Canal
Community Alliance payment for Blayney-Dyett services for the
East San Rafael Neighborhood Plan. Please refer to the attached
copy of Blayney-Dyett invoice number 84104.11, dated August
13, 1985, and subsequently revised and received in this d�p�artment
on November 21, 1985.q Regarding the $9,000 amount due oralrA.ase
contract, that amount should be paid minus amounts for two
subtasks with' e base contract which were not provided by
Bla ne-Dyett; L) Sje-cTfteea� `raft amendments to the San Rafael
FGemnel Plan and Redevelopment Plan as called for in Task 4
May 21, 1984 agreement were not done. Assuming th"t.ely minor subtasks in Task 4 would have taken ten hours
n Greenberg's time and one hour of John Blayney's, the
$400 should be subtracte L
4W� ki-!ti� cam- !-�,
6� Regarding the items contracted for in Task 6 of the May 21,
1984 agreement, 4S separate written Neighborhood Plan implementation
program, zoning regulations and capital improvipment rograamm
:�Ee
uments were not done. However, substantial work Task
s included in the draft Neighborhood Plan in the form of
many implementing policies included therein. Consequently,
I have determined that 15 hours of Ellen Greenberg's time and
two hours of John Blayney's time for a total of $637.50 should
be subtracted from the base contract amount for these subtasks
which were not completed in Task 6.
Kathy Campbell
December 20, 1985
Page 2
In summary, z ���� ^�^������u�*�� a total of $1,037.50 should
be withhold from the base contract amount of $9,000 for the
incompleteness of Tasks 4 and 6 as detailed above. Thies islo
consistent with our earlier discussion of these matters, I
bi?--'also advised John Blayney of my determination that Tasks
and 6 were not complete.
Please refer to the extra services by ortion of the Blayney-Dyett
invoice number 84104.11.TiT - determinations regarding
appropriateness of the extra service charges are as follows:
(1) $2,151 should be authorized as extra services payment
for Ellen Greenberg's preparation for and participation
at eight public meetings. At the time the original
agreement was entered into between Blayney-Dyett
and the City, it was not contemplated that John Blayney
would need to have another staff person attend all
those meetings. Consequently, the City requests
the Canal Community Alliance authorize payment for
those extra services.
(2) City staff concludes that the limited extra services
requested for Ellen Greenberg's extra research and
discussion on the child care facilities question
be authorized in the amount of $390. I realize from
our earlier discussions that Canal Community Alliance
staff and Board may not agree with this City staff
determination. However, I have concluded that the
amount of consultant time paid to the chi_ld c e
issue was over and above that amount a ticipated
by Blayney-Dyett or the City at the time the Neighborhood
Plan agreement was signed. I respectively request
the Canal Community Alliance consider paying this
extra services amount.
(3) I have concluded that no extra services should be
due for Blayney-Dyett's attendance at coordination
meetings with Canal Community Alliance staff and
Board members and Planning Department staff. At
no time did Blayney-Dyett staff indicate to me that
such meetings were viewed as extra services. It
had been made clear since prior to execution of the
agreement between the City and Blayney-Dyett that
a very high level of coordination with Canal Community
Alliance and the City would be necessary. Consequently,
I have concluded that this request for extra services
should be denied, and the City does not request Canal
Community Alliance consideration of this extra services
amount.
Kathy Campbell
December 20, 1985
Page 3
(4 ) Cil: — �te!F hag concluded that there was not need
over and above that anticipated at the time the agreement
was signed for research on the affordable housing
issue. After reviewing the interview notes provided
by Blayney-Dyett on this subject, I have concluded
that this request for extra services should be rejected.
Those persons that were interviewed by Blayneyett _
regarding affordable housing were those thatA e
City reonably_ e_xpected �h9uld be interview!
at the time the agreement was entered into -j Since
:b1d.yuuy-uye-c-r, ac nu t iwe inaicai eu 5uua uuntact was
considered extra services, I am not requesting the
Canal Community Alliance authorize payment for these
9equested I� �'•�
(5) Regarding Blayney-Dyett's claimed extra services
regarding feasibility of locating a larger supermarket
in East San Rafael, City staff has concluded that,
in fact, this did not entail work over and above
that reasonably expected at the time the agreement
was entered into between Blayney-Dyett and the City
of San Rafael. Consequently I am not requesting
the Canal Community AlliancetiLthorize payment for
those requested e*t a C -A.
(6) Lastly, there were map revisions required as a result
of modifications to the future circulation s WT.-
in East San Rafael 4u1�i ���ul from theeater
East San Rafael Traffic Analysis work. Consequently,
I have concluded that the $130 indicated as extra
services .reasonable and request the Canal Community
Alliance authorize payment in that amount.
In summar , the Ci y requests th t the Canal Community Alliance
authorize payment in the amount of $10,633.50. That total
is derived from $7,962.50 payable on the base contract amount
and $2,671 in extra services. City staff concluded that $1,037.50
should be degucted from the base contract amount for the incomplete
Tasks 4 and and that Blayney-Dyett requests for
extra services should be rejected.
9C14?�.A�u�s-e.-, �'8'teG� �!`bfx•�� d-�s-L.��i' /!o S 3. Se)" t�e�
If you ave any questions on any of these items, please contact
me at your earliest convenience. I am hoping that we can have
the Blayney-Dyett account closed:.,- L:.. the year and
zt"v� &''•' kkal�
Kathy Campbell
December 20, 1985
Page 4
be focusing a 1 of our ollective efforts on the forthcoming
workshop ands i earings �i 1.7.
eel
Cordially,
ANNE MOORE
Planning Director
AM/dl
cc: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager
John Blayney, Blayney-Dyett Associates
70 Zoe Street, San Francisco 94107
CANAL
COM M U N ITY - (415) 454-2640
ALLIANCE
January 23, 1986
Anne Moore, Planning Director
City of San Rafael
P.O. Box 60
San Rafael, CA 94915-0060
Dear Anne:
We apologize for the delay in responding to your viritten request of
December 20, 1985 (received December 26, 1985) for payment on the Blayney-
Dyett contract. After considerable del;berarion by the Canal Community
Alliance Board of Directors and consultation with zhe law Firm of Shute,
Mihaly and Weinberger, the Board nas unanimously agreed to wirhhold payment
on the base contract at this time.
The CCA Board disputes the amount requested due on the base contract
and will not authorize payment until a satisfactory accounting is given.
Specifically, the Board questions the following items as out:ined in
your letter of December 20.
(1) Task 4 - Plan Refinement
The Board does not concur that the draft amendments to the San
Rafael General Plan and Redevelopment Plan are relatively
minor subtasks. In light of the City of San Rafael' -s understand-
ing of the inadequacy of the General Plan coupled with the
intended use of the East San Rafael Neighborhood Plan in revising
the General Plan, we find it hard to understand how this task-
would
askwould only have accounted for merely 2.8% of the total task bud-
get.
(2) Task 6 - Implementation Program
This task has a total budget of $12,000.00. The Board does
not concur with your determination that $637.50 be deducted
for work not performed under this task. Using your reasoning,
you concluded that the work not performed by the consultant
amounted to approximately 5% of the task budget. In light of
the fact that a separate document was not prepared, nor were
East San Rafael needs described under the headings of zoning, code
enforcement, redevelopment, and to some degree capital improve-
ments, we do not agree that the amount of the deduct is sufficient.
175 Belvedere #10, San Rafael, California 94901
Extra Services
The Board also unanimously agreed not to honor Blayney-Dyett's
and your request for payment of extra services except for $130.00
relating to map revisions. It is the Board's opinion that what
Blayney-Dyett claimed as extra services were not, but actually
part of the base contract. Regardless, if Blayney-Dyett felt
extra services were needed, they should have formally consulted
and had written approval prior to committing to such expenditures.
We would also like to bring to your attention that our letters
of August 16, September 24, and October 4, 1985 have not been formally
responded to by the City.
I am sure you would agree that a Board of Directors has contractual
and fiduciary obligations and duties regarding disbursement of funds.
While it is also our desire to,expedite this issue, it would be neg-
ligent to authorize payment of the requested amounts without a thorough
accounting of determinations made.
Yo rs Ad_�
Bonnie Martz
Canal Community Alliance Board President
cc: Pam Nicolai, City Manager
Kathy Campbell, CCA Executive Director
John Blayney, Blayney-Dyett Associates
E. Clement Shute, Jr., Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger
Henry Izumizaki, San Francisco Foundation
'G CANAL
COMMUNITY
ALLIANCE
RTCI.-CITY CUC
3 5-3 8b 9 t 1
January 31, 1986
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
City Of San Rafael
1400 Fifth Avenue
San Rafael. California 94901
ADDENDUM TO
SRCC Item #5
(2/3/86)
(415) 454-2640
SUBJECT: Blayney-Dyett East San Rafael Neighborhood Plan Contract
Staff Report
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers;
After receipt of the staff report regarding the Blayney-Dyett East
San Rafael Neighborhood Plan Contract, we would like to clarify
and set the record straight pertaining to a statement made in the
last paragraph on page 2.
The staff report states "that there was an agreement between then
City Manager Gaebler and the Canal Community Alliance Board
President and Special Counsel that those letters would not be
formally responded to by the City." The Canal Community Alliance
did not agree to Mr. Gaebler's decision to not have the City
formally respond to our letters of August 16, September 24, and
October 4, 1985. Furthermore, our attorney, Mr. E. Clement Shute,
referred to as "Special Counsel" in the staff report, has never
met nor had a conversation with Mr. Gaebler regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
9Ut;Qi ft4
Bonnie Martz
CCA Board President
cc: Kathy Campbell
CCA Executive Director
Mr. E. Clement Shute
Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger
Pam Nicolai
San Rafael City Manager
Anne Moore
San Rafael Planning Director
175 Belvedere #10, San Rafael, California 94901
