Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1985-11-18SRCC MINUTES (Regula R E V I S E D 11/18/85 Page 1 In Conference Room 201 of the City of San Rafael, Monday, November 18, 1985 at 7:00 PM. Regular Meeting: CLOSED SESSION 1. CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS LITIGATION - File 1.4.1.a No. 85-22 - #1. Landmark Insurance Company v. City of San Rafael. No action was taken. In the Council Chambers of the City of San Rafael, Monday, November 18, 1985 at 8:00 PM. Regular Meeting: Present: Lawrence E. Mulryan, Mayor Dorothy L. Breiner, Councilmember Gary R. Frugoli, Councilmember Richard Nave, Councilmember Jerry Russom, Councilmember Absent: None Also Present: Ted A. Gaebler, City Manager; Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk; Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney INTRODUCTION OF NEW EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SAN RAFAEL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE - File 119 Mayor Mulryan welcomed Ms. Suzan Davis, Executive Director of the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to approve the recommended action on the following consent calendar items: Item 3. Resolution of Findings on Appeal of Handicapped Access Requirements - 824 Fifth Avenue (PW) - File 13-1-1 Recommended Action RESOLUTION NO. 7222 - CITY COUNCIL (IN ITS CAPA- ITY AS BOARD OF APPEALS) GRANTING APPEAL FROM STATE ACCESS REQUIREMENTS - 824 FIFTH AVENUE 4. Appeal of Building Official's Public Hearing Set for Enforcement of Section 504(b) December 2, 1985. of the Uniform Building Code - 901 "A" Street (PW)- File 1-6-1 x 9-3-40 5. Grant of Access Easement to Marin Rod and Gun Club (PW) - File 2-5-16 8. Proposition 4 Appropriations Limit: (Fin) - File 9-4 x 8-5 RESOLUTION NO. 7223 - AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF GRANT DEED OF EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS, AND UNDERGROUND UTILITIES TO MARIN ROD AND GUN CLUB a. Ordinance No. 1518 - An Ordinance of a. Accepted report. the People of the City of San Rafael Changing the Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Years 1985/1986 through 1988/1989 b. Resolution Implementing the Changes b. RESOLUTION NO. 7224 - in Proposition 4 Appropriations AMENDING THE APPROPRI- Limitation ATIONS LIMIT SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/85 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Regula_, 11/18/85 Page 2 9. Resolution Amending Resolution No. 6691 Pertaining to the Compensation for Management and Mid -Management Employees (CM) - File 7-3 RESOLUTION NO. 7225 - AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 6691 PERTAINING TO THE COMPENSATION FOR MANAGE- MENT AND MID -MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES (One Year Agreement, from 7/1/85 thru 6/30/86) 10. Request from San Rafael Chamber of Approved staff recommend - Commerce Re Closure of Portion of ation. Fourth Street, Between Court and A Streets for Annual Parade of Lights, Friday, December 6, 1985 (PD) - File 11-19 x 119 11. Call for Applications Re Appointment to Marin/Sonoma Mosquito Abatement District Board (CC) - File 9-2-9 12. 1985 Legislative Wrap -Up (CM) - File 9-1 13. Claim for Damages: 2. 6. Louis Phillipe Laguette (PW) - File No. 3-1-1030 Approved staff recommend- ation to call for Appli- cations re Appointment to Marin/Sonoma Mosquito Abatement District Board, including Incumbent, to serve as Trustee for years of 1986/1987, with deadline set for 12:Noon, Tuesday, December 10, 1985. Interviews set for Monday, December 16, 1985 at 6:45 PM, City Hall Confer- ence Room 201. Accepted staff report. Approved Insurance Consult- ing Associates, Inc. recommendation for denial of claim. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETINGS OF NOVEMBER 4, 1985, AND SPECIAL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 12, 1985 (CC) - File 1-4 Councilmember Breiner asked that Regular Minutes of November 4, 1985 be corrected - Page 8, Item 16, second paragraph, second sentence - Interim Overlay Ordinance, add,..."which would require a use permit for any use in the area". Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to approve the Minutes of Special Meetings of November 4 and November 12, 1985 as presented, and Minutes of Regular Meeting of November 4, 1985, as amended. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO CAPTAIN RICHARD DOUGLAS, SAN RAFAE.L POLICE DEPARTMENT, RETIRING AFTER 26 YEARS OF SERVICE (PD) - File 102 x 9-3-30 Councilmember Frugoli urged those who know Captain Douglas to attend his retirement party planned for Saturday, November 23, 1985, at the Peacock Gap Country Club. RESOLUTION NO. 7226 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO CAPTAIN RICHARD ALLEN DOUGLAS, JR. FOR 26 YEARS OF SERVICE, SAN RAFAEL POLICE DEPARTMENT AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/85 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Regular, 11/18/85 Page 3 7. RESOLUTION GRANTING APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION RE TWO LOT SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCE FOR REDUCTION IN LOT WIDTH; 148 BRET HARTE ROAD (Pl) - File 10-8 x 10-4 Mayor Mulryan referred to Exhibit A of the Resolution, under Planning Department (h), indicating that the setback was changed from 50 feet to 80 feet. RESOLUTION NO. 7227 - RESOLUTION UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AND APPROVING PARCEL MAP AND VARIANCE APPLICATIONS FOR A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 148 BRET HARTE ROAD (AP 13-251-11) (s84-12 and V85-21) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 14. PUBLIC HEARING - Z85-6; REZONING FROM P -C (PLANNED COMMUNITY) TO P -D (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) FOR PARCEL 6, PEACOCK RIDGE, OF THE PEACOCK GAP NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN; WEST OF PT. SAN PEDRO RD. BETWEEN RIVIERA DR. & CANTERA WAY; DIVIDEND DEVELOPMENT CORP., OWNER; JEFF McCLUNG, REP.; AP 184-010-54 (P1) File 10-3 x 166 Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened. Planning Director Moore stated that this property, owned by New York - Cal, was proposed for development by Dividend Development Corporation along San Pedro Road. The rezoning is a series of development standards as shown in Exhibit A, taken from the Neighborhood Plan, becoming the zoning regulations for the property. Staff is processing the use permit and design review and the tentative subdivision applications which will be submitted to the Planning Commission shortly so building permits can be issued for the project. As there were no comments from the public, Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing. RESOLUTION NO. 7228 - RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE PRIOR PEACOCK GAP NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN EIR AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTED BY REFERENCE BY SECTION 14.15.020 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA, SO AS TO RECLASSIFY CERTAIN REAL PROPETY FROM P -C (PLANNED COMMUNITY) DISTRICT TO P -D (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT (WEST OF PT. SAN PEDRO RD. BETWEEN RIVIERA DR. & CANTERA WAY)" Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Nave seconded, to dispense with the reading of the ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1519 to print by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 15. PUBLIC HEARING - UP82-65(b) & ED85-54; APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR BAYVIEW BUSINESS PARK; FRANCISCO BOULEVARD AT PELICAN WAY; LARRY TOLOMEI, L.C. TOLOMEI & CO., OWNER & APPELLANT; KEN HUGHES, VICKERMAN-ZACHARY-MILLER, REP.; AP 9-290-65 & 69 (P1) - File 10-5 x 10-7 Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened. Planning Director Moore stated that the Planning Commission had conditionally approved use and design review permits on October 1, 1985 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/85 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular 11/18/85 Page 4 for this project, and that several of the use and design review permit applications' conditions of approval are the subject of the appeal. Moore noted that the Planning Commission reviewed the project in 1983, and in January 1984, the Council approved the planned development zoning with a use permit specifying uses and a master site plan allowing the development of an 11 building project, 8 one-story light industrial buildings and 3 three-story office buildings. At that time, a Negative Declaration was certified with numerous mitigation measures. Among them were a specially negotiated traffic mitigation fee of $350,000, and three 18 to 24 month phases for the project; also there was discussion over the zoning condition 0-6 which was adopted in such a manner that the Council was obligated to take all reasonable actions to assure that there would be a reasonable traffic level of service at such time that the project was occupied. After Council approved the planned development zoning in January 1984, the property was sold to the current applicant, Reid Corporation. Applications for use permit and design review were then submitted for a redesign of the project, modified to a 7 -building project and reduced in square footage with one and two-story buildings. Part of the reason for the Commission imposing a condition requiring subsequent use permits is a concern that the design of the project lends itself to a combination of office, Research and Development, and light industrial uses in the buildings that are a combination of one and one and one-half stories; so that too much of the space could be converted to commercial or office uses. The staff proposed and Planning Commission concurred that since January 1984 numerous projects have been approved and constructed or are under construction in the areas tributary to the Bellam Boulevard critical intersections. Moore emphasized this is an issue that the Council has dealt with before, primarily when the Spinnaker -On -The -Bay project came up, and the question of phasing was addressed. Currently, the only improvements the City is assured will occur in the area are the interim improvements being totally funded by traffic mitigation fees. The improvements are behind schedule and will not start until after the holiday season, sometime in January, 1986. The Appellant is appealing the use permit condition (a) (3), which requires individual use permits for each tenant or occupant. The condition was imposed to insure that there is an overall rationing of the intensity of use among the buildings and a cap on the number of trips generated from the first phase of development. The Appellant is also seeking modification of use permit condition (a) (4), that requires phasing of building permits. The Planning Commission judged that changed circumstances were such that it was appropriate to change the phasing conditions imposed on this project in 1984, and to guarantee that sufficient traffic capacity is available in the surrounding street system to maintain acceptable levels of service. Two Design Review conditions being appealed pertain to the traffic mitigation fees. The Planning Commission recommended that the fee schedule being used at the present time be imposed for this current project. With subsequent phases, if the fee schedule remains the same, the total traffic mitigation fee exposure for the project would exceed the $350,000 that had been approved by the Council in January, 1984. Councilmember Nave asked if the Planning Commission is overruling the Council's decision of 1984 when Council set the $350,000 maximum fee and voted on the various phases for the project. Ms. Moore responded that the Commission found that current cirumstances are different from those in 1984, when the traffic mitigation fees were originally under review by the Council. The concern of the Council then had been to guarantee funding of the interim improvements. Councilmember Nave stated that there was a contract made in January 1984. Ms. Moore stated that there is no development agreement for the project and that the project is not vested in that no physical SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/85 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regula 11/18/85 Page 5 improvements have been made on the site consistent with building permits for buildings. The Planning Commission was aware of the lack of vested rights of the project and knew that there was no development agreement which would be a legally binding contract. Based on the changed conditions, the Commission took the action to modify the phasing. If the appeal is approved, Council would need to modify the environmental determination that had been made by the Planning Commission, as it will not be possible with evidence available at the present time to make a finding for a Negative Declaration. It would be likely that within the next three years there would be Level of Service F conditions in the area as projects proceed. Councilmember Nave stated that he did not see any vast problems in three years because of the six year phasing program, whereby after the first phase, the second phase would be 24 months later and the third phase 24 months later. Ms. Moore stated that the Planning Commission did not get into months or months and years but tied its decision to findings of acceptable levels of service. Councilmember Nave asked staff whether the Appellant, when he came to staff and worked to reduce the project from 11 to 7 buildings and produced a much better layout with less density, was told that the ground rules would be changed or if a letter was written to him by the Planning Commission or information given verbally, that the $350,000 or the phasing was to be changed. Ms. Moore responded that this information would come from staff, not the Commission and that Reid Corporation's representatives are on all mailing lists on projects in East San Rafael, and the East San Rafael Neighborhood Plan representatives are kept advised of the changes in traffic circumstances in the neighborhood. Mayor Mulryan inquired how the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission relate to the Neighborhood Plan as presently drafted, and how would the original conditions compare to the Neighborhood Plan as presently drafted. Ms. Moore stated that in relation to the Neighborhood Plan, the Planning Commission found that the project as conditioned was not prejudicial to the Neighborhood Plan. This was based primarily on the design merits of the project and also links back to the original zoning conditions that emphasized that at the time of occupancy of the building the City needed to find that Level of Service D would be maintained at the Bellam Boulevard Interchanges. The burden was put on the Council to take all reasonable steps and use all reasonable resources to see if that would, in fact, be the case. Ms. Moore responded to Councilmember Breiner's question as to what the traffic mitigation fee change would cost, stating that it was in the staff report of the Planning Commission, which Councilmember Russom verified to be approximately $20,000 or $30,000 more than the $350,000. Councilmember Frugoli inquired if there were 442 peak hour trips presently assigned to the project, and Ms. Moore replied that the trips are essentially the same, the square footage slightly less than the originally improved project, but that higher trip generation rates are being used than were used in 1983 when the original environmental review was done for the project. Mr. Rick Norman, appellant, representing Reid Corporation, spoke, saying that Ms. Moore gave a thorough general overview of the project, and described the revised plans from a map. Mr. Norman stated there was over 30% of the total site in landscaping, that every environmental concern had been addressed, and in general, they have attempted to address every concern the City staff or Design Review Board had. Jay Paxton, Attorney with Bianchi, Hoskins, Paxton and Engle representing Reid Corporation, sponsor of the project, referred to two issues of the appeal. Mr. Paxton clarified that they were not appealing from the requirement of individual use permits, which was the third issue. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/85 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regula�i 11/18/85 Page 6 Mr. Paxton asked for clarification of the record on two issues; one concerning "Use Permit" on the first page of the staff report, in a(3), with respect to the individual use permits concept, which they are not objecting to. He indicated the report states that they will not cause aggregate trip generation in excess of the 442 PM peak hour trips from the project as a whole, and asked that it be noted for the record, that this was based on the 1983/84 trip generation rates. Mr. Paxton continued by stating that the project was approved and those trips were allocated to them by the Planning Commission. Mr. Paxton noted that the second issue is the limit on the overall traffic fees. The specific fees referred to in the design review condition on the second page of the staff report, if prorated, would not significantly increase the traffic fees applicable to the project over the $350,000 limit, particularly since the $350,000 limitation was in 1983 dollars, and these are in current dollars. He indicated that Reid Corporation has a concern that the $350,000 limitation remain in place so it does not change again as the process progresses. Mr. Paxton stated that the significant policy issue is how the scarce resource of traffic is to be allocated in East San Rafael and pointed out two ways to allocate the scarce resource: By recognizing approvals when first granted to a project when traffic is considered, and when conditions with respect to traffic are imposed; or by allocating traffic at the building permit counter or when one comes to the approval preceding the building permit. One can either recognize allocations when made, in this case, 1984, or defer the issue of allocating the traffic resources when building permits are pulled. Appellant felt that the former should be taken, calling it fair in this project, because the applicant purchased the property with reliance on the specific and recent actions of the Council. The project predates the Neighborhood Plan and was assumed as complete in studies relating to this area with respect to traffic; however, the project has been somewhat deferred in coming to Council for a major redesign. Mr. Paxton requested that Council determine as a City policy that traffic be allocated in accordance with the commitments made by the Council at the zoning level which was specific with respect to traffic. The applicant sees a problem in doing it at the building permit stage as it puts a premium on accelerating development by forcing people to get their permits as quickly as possible; puts the City in a position of continuing to rethink how traffic will be done in respect to all projects and introducing uncertainty into the land development process. If done at the building permit window, one will not know if a project could be built until one has a building permit. Specifically, the Appellant is asking Council to revise condition (a) (4) as adopted by the Planning Commission to reflect the provisions of the P -D zoning. These provisions are on page two of the staff report under 0-7 which points out the project phasing. Mr. Paxton suggested Council modify the building phases that have been approved, Phase I Buildings B, C & E, Phase II, Buildings A & F, and Phase III, Buildings G & H, and that Council replace what was imposed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Paxton stated that he was presenting the policy issue before the Council, and asked Council to change a(4) to reaffirm the present zoning for the land, and urged Council to keep in mind the unfairness of both, imposing phasing that the applicants earlier agreed to do, and at the same time, imposing a new condition stating that at that time when you meet the phasing deadline, only then can one compete for traffic. Ms. Moore referred to projects having phasing conditions imposed on them, i.e., Spinnaker -On -The -Bay, Andersen Business Park and the Francisco Business Center, and indicated the Planning Commission is not comfortable with the "first come, first served" system. Attention has been focused on this system in the discussions on the Draft East San Rafael Neighborhood Plan, and an implementing procedure has been discussed for how to allocate building permits and have projects compete for them, so that paper projects would not penalize ready to build and financed projects that the City would want built. There is no system in place at this time. The phasing and finding of acceptable SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/85 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regula -1 11/18/85 Page 7 Level of Service conditions have been the best approach that staff and the Planning Commission have. Mr. Richard Berger, representative of the Canal Community Alliance, requested that City Council uphold the action of the Planning Commission. Mr. Ralph Crocker, member of Friends of Spinnaker Point, read from a letter from the Marin County Planning Department dated October 15, 1985, re the funding to complete the Highway 101/I-580 Interchange improvements prior to 1995. Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing. Councilmember Frugoli inquired of Mr. Bernardi what the funding for the Irene Overcrossing would be, and Mr. Bernardi responded that it would first need to get into STIP, and in conversation with CalTrans, that because of the funding shortfall, it would be unlikely that the Bellam Boulevard I-580/Highway 101 Interchange improvements would be included in the upcoming STIP, and improvements would probably be another seven or eight years away. It is proposed to raise Highway 580 and put Irene Street underneath as an undercrossing, and the cost would be approximately $17,500,000. Discussion was held concerning how a project falls in line. Councilmember Russom inquired of Mayor Mulryan if he was suggesting that if, for example, a phased project such as the Bayview Business Park were in an 18 to 24 month phase, and a McDonald's came in tomorrow, that the City might have a policy that McDonald's would have to wait until the end of the phase period for the Bayview project and then look at the traffic conditions, and the phased project would have a priority? Mayor Mulryan responded affirmatively, stating that if they committed themselves, and if there was capacity for both, both would go; however, if there was only capacity for one, the phased would go first, and if there is capacity for neither, neither would go. Ms. Moore stated that these projects do not have all of the approvals on hand and cannot pull building permits. The Planning Commission, staff and some developers are becoming uneasy with this because some of the zoning approvals are good for a year and a half to two years. Councilmember Nave indicated that it is better to know that there is a project phased over a period of months, and if the phasing does not go through, then somebody else steps up, but the person coming in and putting his project on the line, should have some guarantee that he has a chance to finish his project. Councilmember Frugoli stated that the Council decided that this project would be phased into four years at a rate of $350,000, and that we are now saying that the game is changed because of traffic problems. Councilmember Breiner asked City Attorney Ragghianti whether the Council could change the $350,000 traffic mitigation fee limitiation given the fact that the whole project has changed with more office space square footage added, generating more traffic. City Attorney Ragghianti responded that he thought so, indicating that Mr. Paxton indicated that they did not mind being charged the extra traffic impact fees, but that the key to the entire project is in the P -D zoning condition 0-6, and probably vests the Council with the discretion that it now seeks to exercise in connection with increasing the impact fees and changing the phasing. Mr. Ragghianti repeated, that the Applicant knew full well that it would be the time of occupancy of the staged phases that would determine the impact that his development would have in the project area, and the original P -D zoning ordinance condition read, "The project is phased and located in the traffic sensitive area and the City Council would take all steps and use all reasonable resources to see that the project will not result at the time of occupancy in Service Level below D at the critical Bellam Boulevard Intersections". Mr. Ragghianti continued by stating that it is so vague and vests so much discretion in the Council that the least SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/85 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/85 Page 8 of the developers' problems would have been an increase in traffic mitigation fees at time of occupancy. Councilmember Russom stated that when Council approved the project including the phasing and fees last year, that the Council clearly stated its intention to maintain Level of Service D traffic and therefore the Planning Commission's action on the phasing issue is a valid one. Mr. Russom stated that he supports the cap on the mitigation fees of $350,000 on the project. Councilmember Russom moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, that Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's Conditions on Land Use and Intensity a(3) & a(4) and uphold the appeal on the Design Review Conditions (o) and (p), and stay with the $350,000 cap on the mitigation fee. Mr. Paxton asked for clarification of the motion, indicating that if it is the Council's intent to follow the Planning Commission's action, then his client would need to come in later with an amendment to the zoning to fulfill the intention of the Planning Commission. Mayor Mulryan stated that he understood that what they were voting on, if they approve the motion, is the language contained in a(4), page 1 of the staff report, and asked Councilmember Russom if that was his intention. Councilmember Russom responded affirmatively. Mr. Paxton then stated that they would want to come in with a modification of the existing zoning to conform with a(4). RESOLUTION NO. 7229 - DENYING A PORTION OF APPEAL AND PARTIALLY UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO CONDITIONALLY APPROVE USE AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMITS FOR BAYVIEW BUSINESS PARK FRANCISCO BOULEVARD EAST AT PELICAN WAY (UP82-65(b) AND ED85-54) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Russom stated that he would like to have Council begin looking at something along the lines of what Mayor Mulryan suggested earlier, and what Ms. Moore suggested on a merit basis, because the Council needs a clearer application. Councilmembers agreed. Councilmember Breiner inquired of Ms. Moore whether what would be coming to Council from the Neighborhood Plan would help them in that determination, and Ms. Moore responded that it would, but not in the near future. 16. CIVIC CENTER - NORTHGATE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT: (PW) - File 6-42 Public Works Director Bernardi gave background, stating that in 1984, the Council adopted a Resolution of Intention to form the Civic Center - Northgate Assessment District. The purpose of the district was to raise the necessary traffic mitigation fees to construct the Merrydale Overcrossing. Since then, the property owners have indicated they want to include additional improvements, as well as additional properties, in the assessment district. They want to expand to include the construction of the major sewage transport facilities, pump station and force main, construction of Avesta Drive from Civic Center Drive, 2,900 feet of road and the widening of Civic Center Drive. These are to be included as part of the cost of the assessment district and proportionately charged to each of the properties. Mr. Edwin Ness, Bond Counsel, asked that the Council adopt the resolutions concerning two public hearings to be held on the same night, December 16, 1985, and indicated the buyer of the bonds would be Stone and Youngberg. a. Additional Petitions - Filed. (100% of the property owners of the described land have signed the petition.) b. RESOLUTION NO. 7230 - RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ADDITIONAL PETITIONS, CIVIC CENTER, NORTHGATE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None C. Amended Certificate Re Petition - Filed. SRCC MINUTES (RegulE 11/18/85 Page 9 d. Amended Boundary Map - Filed. e. RESOLUTION NO. 7231 - RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDED BOUNDARY MAP, CIVIC CENTER - NORTHGATE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None f. RESOLUTION NO. 7232 - RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDED AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES, CIVIC CENTER - NORTHGATE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None g. RESOLUTION NO. 7233 - RESOLUTION OF PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION TO UNDERTAKE AMENDED SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND SETTING TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING, CIVIC CENTER - NORTHGATE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None h. RESOLUTION NO. 7234 - RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO AMEND THE PROCEEDINGS IN CIVIC CENTER - NORTHGATE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT IN THE MATTER OF THE WORK TO BE DONE, PROPOSED BOUNDARIES, COSTS THEREOF, THE ASSESSMENTS TO BE LEVIED, BOND PROVISIONS AND DIRECTING THE FILING OF AN AMENDED ENGINEER'S REPORT AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None i. Amended Engineer's Report - Filed. 17. REPORT ON SAN RAFAEL CANAL DREDGING (PW) - File 12-10 Public Works Director Bernardi indicated that, as recommended by Council, staff is working with the City's Consultant, Mr. Michael H. Cheney, to develop the most cost effective method for dredging the inner channel. Mr. Cheney stated that Representative Barbara Boxer had announced that there was a million dollars available, and indicated he has asked the Corps to do the job in place early in the year so it could be dredged before the summer season. A problem still remains of finding a disposal site. Three sites are currently being evaluated: Carquinez Straits, Brothers Island, and Alcatraz Island. Councilmember Russom moved and Councilmember Nave seconded, to authorize staff to work with Mr. Michael H. Cheney, to develop the most cost effective method for dredging the inner channel. .AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 18. REPORT ON GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - File 115 Planning Director Moore stated that staff has been proceeding with general plan work for the Northgate Activitiy Center Plan and the East San Rafael Plan. Until the last month or two, it has not been clear as to how best to achieve this under a separate plan update umbrella. At this point, a project manager is needed, and associated transportation planning/traffic engineering expertise in advance planning expertise. The project should take a year to have draft revised total land use, circulation and noise elements updates for consideration. Ms. Moore noted that Jeff Baird has been authorized to perform preliminary tasks SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/85 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regula 11/18/85 Page 10 needed to develop a detailed General Plan update work program including: (1) Identifying those sections of the San Rafael General Plan needing revision given 1985 modifications to State planning law and to changed local conditions since 1974; (2) Evaluating the General Plan update programs of comparable cities undertaken within the past two to three years; and (3) Itemizing the general work program elements needed to accomplish the Council's mandate for an updated San Rafael General Plan. In response to a question from Mayor Mulryan, Ms. Moore advised that if this time frame were to be cut down from one year to six months, it would take two full time positions, one, a project manager at a Senior Planner level, and the other, a project Assistant Planner level. After discussion, Council accepted report, without motion. 19. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION - ORDINANCE No. 1517 - An ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING TITLE 12 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL BY AMENDING AND ADOPTING CHAPTER 12.12 "UNIFORM BUILDING CODE", CHAPTER 12.14 "UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE", CHAPTER 12.16 "UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE", CHAPTER 12.20 "ELECTRICAL CODE", CHAPTER 12.26 "UNIFORM HOUSING CODE", CHAPTER 12.28 "UNIFORM CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS", CHAPTER 12.32 "UNIFORM SWIMMING POOL, SPA AND HOT TUB CODE", AND CHAPTER 12.38 "UNIFORM SOLAR ENERGY CODE" (PW) - File 1-6-1 x 1-6-2 x 1-6-3 x 1-6-5 x 1-6-6 x 1-6-7 x 1-6-8 The title of the Ordinance was read: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING TITLE 12 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL BY AMENDING AND ADOPTING CHAPTER 12.12 "UNIFORM BUILDING CODE", CHAPTER 12.14 "UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE", CHAPTER 12.16 "UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE", CHAPTER 12.20 "ELECTRICAL CODE", CHAPTER 12.26 "UNIFORM HOUSING CODE, CHAPTER 12.28 "UNIFORM CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS", CHAPTER 12.32 "UNIFORM SWIMMING POOL, SPA AND HOT TUB CODE", AND CHAPTER 12.38 "UNIFORM SOLAR ENERGY CODE" (PW)" Conuncilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to dispense with the reading, to refer to it by title only, and adopt Charter Ordinance No. 1517 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 20. REPORT ON METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PROPOSED LEGISLATION FOR TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX (PW) - File 9-3-40 x 9-4 Public Works Director Bernardi stated that this proposal would enable any County in the Bay Area to place before the voters, a measure for additional taxes for transportation purposes. A number of hearings have taken place and will continue to take place. Other taxes are being considered and information will be provided at the various public hearings. In December, MTC will decide which tax to recommend and the final form of the ultimate legislative proposal. Issues to be made aware of are: If MTC is chosen to administer this program, 0.3 percent of the amount of funds will qo for administration costs. If the County administers it, it is 0.6 percent, with the County taking twice as much of the funding as MTC. It is proposed to have staff be involved in this project as it proceeds. Council accepted the staff report, without motion. 21. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO REACTIVATE THE MOBILE HOME PARK ADVISORY COMMITTEE - File 9-2-29 Council unanimously agreed that Councilmember Russom continue to be the liaison to the Contempo Marin Mobile Home Park. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/85 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Regula_, 11/18/85 Page 11 22. DISCUSSION ON TRAFFIC IMPACTS RE POST OFFICE MOVE TO BELLAM BOULEVARD (Pl) - File 11-13 (Verbal) Councilmember Frugoli suggested that staff meet with the representatives of the Post Office to discuss traffic problems that will be caused by the move to Bellam Boulevard, and that revised operational hours be considered. 23. DISCUSSION RE DEBRIS AT FOURTH AND HETHERTON (PW) - File 11-15 (Verbal) Councilmember Frugoli asked staff to contact Golden Gate Transit to assist the Public Works Department in trying to maintain and upgrade the area to keep it clean. Staff also to look into having more lights in the area with higher wattage. 24. P85-17; ANNUAL HOUSING REPORT (Pl) - File 13-16 Housing Specialist Jeff Baird gave a brief report covering data on housing conditions, including a summary of the success of the City's housing programs and establishing priority for implemnting housing programs and work that the City will undertake in the coming year. Councilmember Breiner referred to page 7 of the San Rafael Housing Annual Report, re the recommendation coming back in January 1986, asking that the date be modified to read June, 1986. Also on page 11, re Recommendations: and page 10, under B-1, if nothing could be done until the earliest, July 1987, she indicated she would like to have something done along the lines of having an Interim Freeze Overlay Zoning (Ordinance), so there would not be a massive loss of units. Staff indicated they would draft a Special Zoning District requiring a Use Permit for Demolition or Conversion of Existing Residential Units in a Specified Area Downtown and bring it back to Council for review. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Nave seconded, to accept Annual Housing Report. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 25. ORDINANCE CREATING AN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (IDA) - (Fin) - File 9-1-3 Finance Director Coleman recommended that in order for the Council to authorize sale of Industrial Development bonds that involve manufacturing firms, the Council pass an Ordinance to print declaring a need for an Industrial Development Authority. He indicated that after the second reading and final adoption of the Ordinance, that the Council adopt a Resolution declaring the City Council to be the Board of Directors of the Industrial Development Authority of San Rafael. The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL DECLARING A NEED FOR AN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND DECLARING THAT SUCH AUTHORITY SHALL FUNCTION" Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Nave seconded, to dispense with the reading of the ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only, and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1520 to print by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 26. DISCUSSION OF CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS (CC) - File 9-1 Council unanimously approved two year appointments as listed, with the following exceptions/additions: Councilmember Breiner asked that the Marin Arts Council be eliminated from the list of City Council appointments. Councilmember Nave to be the alternate on the Highway 101 Corridor Council Study Committee. Councilmembers agreed to suggest to the League of California Cities - Redwood Empire Division, altering SRCC MINUTES (Reular) 11/18/85 Page 11 • SRCC MINUTES (Regula_, 11/18/85 Page 12 the boundaries. Councilmember Frugoli asked that the position of liaison to the Canal Community Project Board of Directors be eliminated as this involved the Pickleweed Park project which is completed and the position is no longer necessary. ADD ITEMS 1. STREET SWEEPING BUDGET - File 8-5 Mayor Mulryan asked Public Works Director Bernardi for an update on a street sweeping program which was to be brought back to Council for budget amendment. Mr. Bernardi stated that they were in the process of gathering the information, and a report would be brought to the Council at the meeting of December 16, 1985. 2. CHANGE OF MATERIAL ON EQUITEC BUILDING - File 10-2 Councilmember Russom asked Planning Department staff or the City Attorney for a brief analysis of what the fallback position would be for Council if the solution that the Equitec Company comes up with concerning painting their building is not satisfactory. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned to closed session to discuss personnel. No action was taken. JE -M. LEONCINI�City k APPROVED THIS DAY OF MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/85 Page 12 1985