Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1992-12-07SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/7/92 Page I IN CONFERENCE ROOM 201 OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1992, AT 6:30 PM CLOSED SESSION 1. DISCUSSION OF LITIGATION AND LABOR NEGOTIATIONS - File 1.4.1.a No. 92-22(a) - #1 - Sidney Hendricks, et al, vs. City of San Rafael, San Rafael Redevelopment Agency, et al No. 92-22(b) - #1 - People of State of California vs. Fred Grange, et al No. 92-22(c) - #7 No reportable action was taken. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1992, AT 8:00 PM Regular Meeting: San Rafael City Council Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor Dorothy L. Breiner, Councilmember Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Michael A. Shippey, Councilmember Joan Thayer, Councilmember Absent: None Others Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager David B. Walker, Assistant City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE Irving Litchfield, owner of Litchfield's Emporium, stated he was closing his motel, The Bermuda Palms, and again complained about the restrictions made by the City with regard to obtaining a Use Permit for Litchfield's Emporium. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to approve the recommended action on the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 2. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meetings of November 2, Approved as submitted. and 16, 1992 (CC) 3. Report on Fair Political Practices Commission State- Accepted report. ments of Economic Interests for Designated Employees Who Fall Within the Newly Updated Filing Requirements (Forms 730) (CC) - File 9-4-3 4. Authorization for Library Fine Free Week and Canned Approved staff recommendation; Food Drive to Benefit the Marin Community Food Bank week of 12/8 thru 12/15/92. (Lib) - File 9-3-61 5. Authorization to Appropriate $6,217 From the Dollar ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8787 - Memorial Trust for Materials to Repair Leaks at APPROPRIATING $6,217 FROM THE Falkirk Cultural Center (Cult.Affs.) - File 8-19 x DOLLAR MEMORIAL TRUST FUND FOR 2-1- 49 x 9-3-84 MATERIALS TO REPAIR LEAKS AT FALKIRK CULTURAL CENTER 9. Authorization to Call for Bids - Wolfe Grade Subdrain Approved staff recommendation, - 1993 (PW) - File 4-1-456 authorizing staff to call for bids on subject project. 10. Freitas Parkway Interchange Improvements - Authoriz- Approved staff recommendation, ation to Call for "Request for Qualifications" State- authorizing staff to call for ments for Consultant Selection (PW) - File 11-15 x "Request for Qualifications" 11-1 x 9-3-40 Statements for subject project. 11. Resolution Denying Without Prejudice the Appeal of the ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8788 - Planning Commission's Decision Denying a Use Permit DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE Amendment to Legalize Existing Unapproved Dwelling APPEAL OF THE PLANNING Units and Directing Staff to Schedule an Abatement COMMISSION'S DECISION DENYING SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/7/92 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/7/92 Page 2 Hearing at the Council Meeting on January 19, 1993, A USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO Unless the Applicant has Submitted a Complete LEGALIZE EXISTING UNAPPROVED Application Within 60 Days; 822 "B" Street; California DWELLING UNITS AND DIRECTING Tenfold Developments, Inc., Joe Bohanec, Owner; STAFF TO SCHEDULE AN ABATEMENT John Sharp, Attorney, Rep.; AP #11-262-15 (Pl) - HEARING AT THE COUNCIL MEETING File 10-5 x 9-3-17 ON JANUARY 19, 1993, UNLESS THE SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/7/92 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/7/92 Page SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/7/92 Page SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/7/92 Page SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/7/92 Page SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/7/92 Page 5 12. Resolution Denying Without Prejudice the Appeal of ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8789 - the Planning Commission's Decision of October 13, 1992, DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE Re: Denial Without Prejudice of Application for Use APPEAL OF THE PLANNING Permit and Parking Variance (UP92-6) - 721 East COMMISSION'S DECISION OF Francisco Blvd., Litchfield's Emporium; Irving OCTOBER 13, 1992, RE: DENIAL Litchfield, Owner; Perry Litchfield, Attorney, Rep.; WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF AP #14-204-11 (Pl) - File 10-5 x 10-4 x 9-3-17 APPLICATION FOR USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE (UP92-6) - 721 EAST FRANCISCO BLVD., LITCHFIELD'S EMPORIUM; IRVING LITCHFIELD, OWNER; PERRY LITCHFIELD, ATTORNEY, REP.; AP #14-204-11 14. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. Approved final adoption of 1640 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING Ordinance No. 1640. TITLE 4 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, ADOPTING A UNIFORM FIRE CODE AND PRESCRIBING REGULATIONS GOVERNING CONDITIONS HAZARDOUS TO LIFE AND PROPERTY FROM FIRE, EXPLOSION AND OTHER DANGERS, AND ESTABLISHING A FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU AND PROVIDING OFFICERS THEREFOR, AND DEFINING THEIR DUTIES AND POWERS (1991 EDITION) (FD) - File 1-6-4 x 9-3-31 15. Service Agreements Re: City's Occupational Health Providers: (Pers) - File 7-1-35 a. Resolution Authorizing Continuation of an Agreement With Medical, Ergonomic and Therapeutic Services, Inc., (METS) to function as the City's Occupational Health Provider b. Resolution Authorizing Continuation of an Agreement With PharmChem Laboratories, Inc., to Provide Laboratory Drug Testing Services for the City ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8790 - AUTHORIZING CONTINUATION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH MEDICAL, ERGONOMIC AND THERAPEUTIC SERVICES, INC. (METS) TO FUNCTION AS THE CITY'S OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH PROVIDER (w/60 day termination clause) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8791 - AUTHORIZING CONTINUATION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH PHARMCHEM LABORATORIES, INC., TO PROVIDE LABORATORY DRUG TESTING SERVICES TO THE CITY (w/30 day termination clause) 16.Resolution Commemorating the 175th Anniversary of the ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8792 - Founding of Mission San Rafael (CM) - File 102 x 104 COMMEMORATING THE 175TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FOUNDING OF MISSION SAN RAFAEL (the weekend of December 12 & 13, 1992) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner (from approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of November 2, 1992 only, due to absence from meeting.) The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion: 6.RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PAYMENT OF TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEES - ORCHARD SUPPLY (PW) - File 9-3-40 x 10-2 x 11-1 Councilmember Shippey asked staff to expand on the reasons they feel the City has some control over eventual payment of the mitigation fees if the time is extended. Public Works Director Bernardi explained that there are two reasons for the assurance: First, SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/7/92 Page 5 V payment of these fees is a condition of the entitlement for the project so that, should of the Use Permit and there is a process in Secondly, the lease agreement between Mr. 8, that Orchard Supply will pay these fees Mr. Tolomei if Mr. Tolomei does not pay the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/7/92 Page original Use Permit and is part of the they not pay the fees it would be a violation our own Ordinance for staff to deal with that. Tolomei and Orchard Supply specifies, on Page and deduct a like amount from the rent owed to fees at the appropriate time. Mr. Shippey inquired of the City Attorney if that is sufficient assurance and Assistant City Attorney David Walker responded that he believed it would. He explained that the first item would be the City's remedy, and the second would be, as a practical matter, between Orchard supply and the landowner. Mayor Boro pointed out, as a matter of clarification, that this is nothing new, but what is new is the timing; that this is the existing agreement we have which has gone back and forward because of the time frame. Mr. Bernardi agreed, stating that Mr. Tolomei has requested an extension of time on the payment of the fees. Mr. Shippey questioned the date of 1994, and Mr. Bernardi explained that Mr. Tolomei had requested that date, and that February of 1994 would be approximately six months after the construction is complete. Mayor Boro noted that is the same schedule as before, but the difference is that we thought the project would be completed by 1991, and the fees would be paid six months after completion. Mr. Bernardi agreed. Councilmember Cohen stated that his question was much the same as Mr. Shippey's, and clarified that payment will be required six months after completion of the project. Mr. Bernardi stated this is correct and there is simply a change in date for payment of the fees, to comply with the construction. Mr. Cohen noted that the Traffic Mitigation Fees were to pay for traffic improvements to address the impact of this project, and asked what would those improvements be? Mr. Bernardi responded that would be the Irene Street Overcrossing. He noted there are still a number of issues which need to be resolved with getting that project underway. He explained that the fees which are paid for this particular project will go into the Traffic Mitigation Fee Fund for this area and will pay for the engineering, environmental review and, ultimately, the preparation of the plans and specifications and the construction. Mr. Cohen inquired if holding up this payment would in any way delay that construction, and Mr. Bernardi replied that it would not, since there are sufficient funds in that account to pay for the environmental documents and part of the preliminary engineering. He noted that there is a four-year time frame for implementing the overcrossing project, so there is plenty of time and the six months being discussed is adequate. Councilmember Thayer noted that this is simply an extension of time on something which had previously been decided, but she took exception to the incentives except perhaps the first item mentioned. She inquired about the collection of the mitigation fees, and Mr. Bernardi explained that there are a number of ways and that generally they are resolved at the time conditional approval is granted. He noted that the conditions of approval can require that the fees be paid upon issuance of the building permit, and that has been done in the past. He added that in some cases where we want to facilitate a business coming into town it has been requested or recommended that the fees be deferred until some tax flow has developed, and that is what was requested in this case originally, and concurred in by the Planning Commission. He noted that the Council could establish a policy whereby everyone would pay the traffic mitigation fees upon issuance of the building permit, and staff will comply. He explained that staff is trying to accommodate the businesses which come into the community. Mrs. Thayer inquired if there has been difficulty in the past, in collecting these fees, and Mr. Bernardi replied he has not had a problem. He explained that, commencing with the beginning of the PPP process (Priority Projects Procedure), the practice had been to set the payment of mitigation fees at some time in the future and when the money was needed staff would write a letter to the developers and give them the figures. He stated staff has much more control now than they had five or six years ago. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to adopt the Resolution authorizing extension of time for payment of traffic mitigation fees for Orchard Supply. RESOLUTION NO. 8793 - AUTHORIZING THE EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PAYMENT OF TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEES TO FEBRUARY 28, 1994 - 1151 ANDERSEN DRIVE (ORCHARD SUPPLY) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/7/92 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/7/92 Page 7 7.REPORT ON BID OPENING AND AWARD OF CONTRACT - 200 MISSION AVENUE STORM DRAIN REPLACEMENT (PW) - File 4-1-455 Councilmember Breiner noted that the award of contract is being recommended to a firm whose name she does not recall ever having seen on a list of bidders for this type of project. She noted that staff had contacted the Contractors' State Licensing Board and verified that Kristen Trucking has their valid California Class A License. She inquired if there had been any additional checking in terms of references for work done. Mr. Bernardi replied that staff had not inquired but, in other circumstances, where the contractor is not known, if there is no indication that he does not have the ability to perform the work, he must be selected as the lowest responsible bidder and be awarded the contract. He noted that Kristin is from Nevada. Mrs. Breiner explained that she is concerned about the disparity in the amounts of the bids, and Mr. Bernardi responded he feels that the number of bidders, and with bidders from so far away, is an indication of the economy. He explained that with the low bidder having a valid license, and with no indication he cannot do the job, there is no basis for not recommending award of the contract to him. Mrs. Breiner stated she would like extra monitoring in such cases. Councilmember Cohen stated that based on Mr. Bernardi's report, there is not much option in this case. He recommended putting some standards into our bids which would allow us to look into questions such as this. Mr. Cohen noted that the low bid is substantially below the Engineer's Estimate. He pointed out several figures within the low bid, which were so much lower than the other bidders that it caused him to question if the low bidder really understood the bid. He stated that if we have no basis to look into that, beyond the fact that he has been awarded a Contractor's License from the State of California, we should have some tools to address his track record and bonding ability. Mr. Cohen also expressed concern about, to the extent possible, spending tax dollars on businesses who pay taxes in the City of San Rafael. He added that spending tax dollars from San Rafael, California, on a Nevada contractor really bothers really bothered him. He stated that from what Mr. Bernardi has stated, we apparently do not have the language to question the procedure, and he would like the City to be able to investigate more in situations such as this. Mr. Bernardi pointed out that this project is relatively small in scope of work, but nonetheless staff was still requiring that they submit both materials bonds and performance bonds, so that if they fail to perform the work as specified, staff will go after the bonds and perform what is left of the work with a local contractor. He noted that the specifications require that prevailing wages be paid, to prevent a contractor coming in with a low price and assuming that they will pay minimum wage whereas our specifications require the prevailing wage as set by the State of California. Mr. Cohen stated he assumes that when obtaining the California Contractor's License, the bonds were properly issued, and Mr. Bernardi stated they were, since without them the contract is not signed. Councilmember Thayer inquired if staff had checked to determine if, when the company was bonded, were there any claims against their bonding. Mr. Bernardi responded that they did not, because the bonds we get for this particular project is for this project only, so there is no other claim on their bonds. She stated she feels staff should be very careful to check to see if there are claims against other bonds in a case such as this. Mayor Boro inquired if, on a job such as this, are we obligated to go outside of California, and could we stay within the State in the future? Mr. Bernardi responded that we did not advertise outside the State. We advertised with the Marin Builders Exchange, and others within the State. Mayor Boro inquired about a policy of advertising for bidders within the State of California. Mr. Bernardi deferred to the City Attorney's Office. Assistant City Attorney David Walker stated he does not believe there can be an exception made if a contractor is licensed with the State of California and has appropriate bonding, which would be considered a responsible bid. Mayor Boro then inquired would the bonding be based on bidder's estimate, or the Engineer's Estimate. Mr. Bernardi responded it would be based on what they bid the project for. Mayor Boro inquired about the City losing money, and Mr. Walker explained that there should be 100% Faithful Performance Bond and 100% Materials Bond, so in either case, there would be funds to complete the project. Mayor Boro then inquired about possibly doing as the County does by offering a preference, which would be offering a bonus which will cost the City more money, but it would bring more local contractors into these jobs. Mr. Bernardi stated he would check with the City of San Francisco on how they handle this, and Mayor Boro suggested checking also with the City of Petaluma. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to adopt the Resolution of Award of Contract, as recommended by staff. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/7/92 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/7/92 Page RESOLUTION NO. 8794 - RESOLUTION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT, STORM DRAIN REPLACEMENT AT 200 MISSION AVENUE (To Kristin Trucking, lowest responsible bidder, in the amount of $20,889) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 8.REPORT ON BID OPENING AND AWARD OF CONTRACT - STORM DRAIN REPLACEMENT AT GRAND AVENUE AND LINDEN LANE AND 270 PROSPECT DRIVE (PW) - File 4-1-453 Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to adopt the Resolution of Award of Contract, as recommended by staff. RESOLUTION NO. 8795 - RESOLUTION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT, STORM DRAIN REPLACEMENT AT GRAND AND LINDEN LANE AND 270 PROSPECT DRIVE (Project No. 006- 40696298000) to Kristin Trucking, lowest responsible bidder, in the amount of $13,996) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 13.APPROVAL OF CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATES, INC. (ESA), TO PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE NORTHVIEW TOWNHOUSE PROJECT (Pl) - File 4-3-246 x 9-3-17 Councilmember Breiner asked if there was any way to prevent this type of thing happening in the future, referring to the cost of the traffic information delay. She inquired if the delay is because the City does not have a Traffic Engineer. Planning Director Pendoley responded that is partly true, but it is the applicant's obligation. Mrs. Breiner noted the additional cost also covers a misrepresentation of project overlay on the aerial photograph presented in the DEIR (Draft Environmental Impact Report), and asked if that is something which could have been picked up earlier in the process. Mr. Pendoley responded it could not have, since the applicant had presented erroneous information to the City and needed to be corrected by ESA, which resulted in additional cost. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to adopt the Resolution approving the contract amendment with Environmental Science Associates, as recommended by staff. RESOLUTION NO. 8796 - APPROVING A CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATES (ESA) TO PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE NORTHVIEW TOWNHOUSE PROJECT ($4,780.50 additional costs) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 17.PUBLIC HEARING ON ADOPTION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 14.17.030 (EMERGENCY SHELTERS) OF CHAPTER 14 (ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL (Pl) - File 10-3 x 10-1 x 9-3-17 Mayor Boro opened the Public Hearing. Planning Director Pendoley briefed the Council, stating that during the final legal review of the proposed Zoning Ordinance the City Attorney had identified concerns with regard to the proposed Performance Standards for Emergency Shelters for the Homeless, and how they were proposed to be applied. He explained that the mandatory nature of the required performance standards for emergency shelters for the homeless may violate the legal principle of not regulating land uses by user characteristics. Mr. Pendoley stated staff would recommend that the item be referred back to the Planning Commission for their recommendation, and bring it back with their comments and recommendations. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/7/92 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/7/92 Page 9" There was no public input. Councilmember Shippey recommended the item be referred back to the Planning Commission for their opinion. Councilmember Shippey moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to refer the matter back to the Planning Commission, and continue the Public Hearing to the City Council meeting of January 4, 1993. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 18.PUBLIC HEARING ON ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES (MELLO-ROOS) DISTRICT CFD 1992-1, LOCH LOMOND #10: (PW) - File 6-50 x 5-1-297 x 9-3-40 a. HEARING REPORT - To be filed. b. CERTIFICATE OF ENGINEER - To be filed. C. CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK RE: WAIVER AND CONSENT - To be filed. d. RESOLUTION OF FORMATION OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT AND TO LEVY A SPECIAL TAX e. RESOLUTION CALLING SPECIAL MAILED -BALLOT ELECTION f. CITY CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF BALLOT - To be filed. g. CONDUCT ELECTION h. CITY CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF ELECTION RESULTS - To be filed. i. RESOLUTION DECLARING ELECTION RESULTS Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened. Public Works Director Bernardi briefed the Council, explaining that there are a number of actions before the Council tonight, provided by the Bond Counsel for the establishment of the CSD (Mello -Roos) District for Loch Lomond Unit #10. He stated that the establishment of this District is required under the original conditions of approval for the Tentative Map. He noted that Bond Counsel Daniel Bort is present, to explain details of the various actions which are to be taken. He added that a letter has been received from Mr. Mel Croner, copies of which have been provided to the Council, and Mr. Bort will deal with that issue also. Mr. Daniel Bort pointed out that at the close of the Public Hearing there are a number of steps to be taken, such as conducting the election which involves the imposition of a special tax which requires a two-thirds vote of the qualified electors. He stated that under the Mello -Roos Act, since the area is uninhabited, the qualified electors are the property owners, and in this case there is a single property owner. He explained that the law permits the waiving of a number of formalities in conducting the election. He stated he has received a waiver from the property owner, constituting 1000 of the qualified electors, which will permit conducting the election here tonight if the Council so chooses. He stated he has the ballot which can be given to the voter by the City Clerk. He noted that the law also permits the City Clerk, once all ballots have been returned, to immediately declare the election closed and to declare the results. Mr. Bort pointed out that the Proof of Publication of Resolution of Intention; Certificate of Mailing Resolution of Intention; Certificate of Filing Boundary Map with County Recorder; and the Certificate of Engineer, are on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Bort then addressed the letter received from Mr. Mel Croner of 11 Locksly Lane in the Loch Lomond area. Mayor Boro noted, for the benefit of the audience, that the Councilmembers have copies of the letter. Mr. Bort read from the third paragraph of the letter, "I believe, if you review your decision to grant approval of the tentative map of Loch Lomond #10, that you will discover that the Council's purpose in requiring the creation of a $500,000 fund was to ensure that the mitigations would perform as required". Mr. Bort explained that Mr. Croner's point is that this is an obligation imposed on the developer, and his objection is that he sees this obligation being shifted to the future property owners of Loch Lomond #10. Mr. Bort stated that the other issue Mr. Croner seems to raise has to do with the paying of interest reimbursed to the developer through the Mello -Roos. Mr. Bort stated that he has read the Tentative Map conditions on several occasions and the first statement is simply incorrect, and that the conditions very clearly pass the burden of the self-insurance fund ultimately precisely to the property owners of Loch Lomond #10. He stated that is precisely what the Mello -Roos is supposed to do under the Tentative Map SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/7/92 Page 9 10 conditions. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/7/92 Page The issue of interest, Mr. Bort stated, is a little less clear and there are three implications that the repayment to the developer will include interest. However, nowhere is that explicit. Planning Director Pendoley noted that Condition K8, subparagraph C requires the formation of a Mello -Roos District, and states that the subdivision's contribution to the City of San Rafael self-insurance fund at a rate adequate to assure at least one-half million dollars capitalization in a ten year period. He added that this is linked to Condition (vv) which requires the applicant to contribute one-half million dollars to the self-insurance fund to pay the cost for damages to the City due to sliding, erosion, drainage, etc. Mr. Pendoley further explained that, basically, the developer is required to put up $500,000 at a time period by a scheduled series of payments. He noted that the condition concludes by stating that this money shall be repaid to the developer by the proceeds of the Mello - Roos District, which relates to the previous condition to which he had referred. That condition states that any interest which is accrued from those proceeds may be used to pay off the debt. He concluded by stating that these issues are covered by the conditions on the Subdivision Map. Councilmember Breiner disagreed, stating it seems to her that the interest which the money earns may be used to reimburse the developer, but not that he would earn interest on it. Mr. Pendoley responded that was what he intended to say, that the developer can be repaid by interest from the proceeds, but there is no profit involved. In other words, the Mello -Roos District can pay back from the interest it earned for itself. Mayor Boro clarified that the $500,000 is initially put up by the developer by bond, to form the District. He inquired, how does the District get the money to pay back the $500,000, and does it come from the buyers as the people buy in? Mr. Bort explained that probably starting next Summer a special tax will be levied annually against the property and, if the developer still owns the parcels he will have to pay the tax. When the parcels are sold the new owners will have to pay the tax. Mayor Boro inquired if the $500,000 is to be paid up front, and Mr. Bort responded that $250,000 is to be paid on the acceptance of the public improvements and $100,000 a year for the next few years. Mayor Boro concluded that, more than likely, depending on how the subdivision evolves, that money will be paid by the developer. Mr. Bort agreed, stating it would be either from him taxing himself, or when he sells the lots. Mayor Boro inquired about the pay -back to the developer, and Mr. Bort responded he would be paid back primarily by the taxes which the property owners pay each year and then, presumably also by the interest which is earned on the money held in the fund. He noted that the question is, is he being paid back the $500,000 plus interest, or is his payment being reduced by the money from the special taxes? He stated this is, essentially, a no -interest loan. Mr. Pendoley stated he understands the conditions of the Subdivision to state that the developer is being paid back without interest. Councilmember Breiner pointed out that Section C in Exhibit A states that, "these advances may be repaid under this authority, with reasonable interest. . .". She noted that the following paragraph refers to the "Fund Amount" of $500,000 plus interest actually earned. Mr. Bort explained that that is an entirely different concept, and Mrs. Breiner stated she understands, and that it needs to be reworded. Councilmember Cohen stated that under this interpretation, apparently it will not include interest. Mayor Boro explained that the clarification indicates it will be without interest. Mr. Bort noted there is an inconsistency, in that there is a specific provision - for example, the developer makes the original $200,000 deposit, and then for the next few years $100,000 a year. The condition specifically says that the interest earned the first year on the $200,000 can reduce the amount of the $100,000 payment, and the next year the interest from the previous year can reduce the next $100,000 payment. He stated that clearly in that case the developer is actually getting the benefit of that interest, because his contribution is going to be reduced by the amount of that interest. Councilmember Cohen noted that this clearly means that this would not only reduce his obligation, but would reduce the amount repaid by the fund over time from the earnings. So, if the payments are reduced by $10,000 for instance, in the third year, the developer will end up contributing $490,000, and he should be repaid only $490,000. He noted that does not say he is earning interest on the money which has been put up. Councilmember Breiner stated that is an important point. Mr. Bort added he is glad the point has been clarified. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/7/92 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/7/92 Page 11 Councilmember Cohen recommended that, in addition to Exhibit A, that changes in wording be made elsewhere in the documents as necessary. Mr. Cohen then stated that when this matter came forward before, he was on the Planning Commission, and he noted that in Mr. Croner's letter the last paragraph on Page 1 states that, "The Council shared with the Loch Lomond Homeowners' Association its fears that the mitigations, as designed, might not work". Mr. Cohen stated that, on record, he would have to disagree with that. He stated that, as a member of the Planning Commission at the time the mitigations were approved, he approved them with the understanding and the assurance of the Engineers, that these mitigations would work to offset the risks identified in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and that is why the approvals were granted. He stated he would hope that no one approving the project did so with the belief that the mitigations might not work. He stated he realizes that if the improvements were not maintained there could be a problem, but that is why we are having the Mello -Roos District, but he would hope no one would approve this project with the idea in mind that the mitigations were not sufficient, as Mr. Croner's letter implies. Councilmember Shippey stated that the Council was definitely concerned about the ongoing maintenance. Councilmember Breiner stated that, as a point of clarification, some Councilmembers felt that they were not totally fail-safe mitigation measures, but they would improve the situation over what it is in its natural state. Mayor Boro stated the Council would not have accepted the mitigations if they would not work, but they had approved the mitigations because it had been proven that they would work. However, if it later developed that they did not work, then we would have these funds in place. He stated he feels the Council approved the mitigation measures because they felt they would work, and the funding was as a backup. Mayor Boro then inquired, what if the mitigations were installed and there was a problem with the design or a similar situation, and the City needed $250,000 to fix the mitigations? He inquired how would the Fund get back up to $500,000, which is a requirement that it be sustained at that level? Or, what would be the procedure to get the funds back up if there was a disaster? Mr. Bort responded that in paragraph C in Exhibit A it states that once repayment is complete, then the interest accrues to the fund, and then the fund amount is defined to be $500,000 plus any interest that has actually accrued to the fund. He stated this paragraph goes on to say that if the fund is every tapped, which could be at any time, by a valid claim against the fund, it may be replenished up to the fund amount of $500,000, by this authority. He explained this actually means that if the repayment is completed, the fund amount, by definition, is $500,000. If we hit the fund, this taxing authority can continue to be used to build it back up to $500,000. He went on to state that if after the repayment has been completed the $500,000 grows to, for example, $600,000 that is by definition the fund amount if at that time the City has a disaster and then the authority to levy the tax can be used to replenish the fund up to $600,000, or whatever that amount is. Mayor Boro inquired how the Fund would get up to $500,000 if some of the money is withdrawn before the $500,000 has been deposited. Mr. Pendoley responded that Subdivision Condition (dd) provides that the City Self-insurance Fund shall allow instances to take precedence over the obligation to repay, and the agreement schedule may be extended accordingly. In other words, the repayment schedule could be extended. Mayor Boro called for public comment. Marianne Shaw, of the Loch Lomond Homeowners Association, stated she does not recall such extended discussion regarding the $500,000 bond in the past. She noted there had been considerable discussion about the proposed mitigation measures and performance liability, and the purpose of the bond was to insure that the devices were properly designed and would work for the lifetime of the area. She noted that the developer and his representatives had stated they would stake their reputations as proof of the performance of these mitigating devices. She added that engineer Lee Oberkamper had stated that it was not necessary to test the area to be designated as open space, because the terrain was too difficult to get equipment on, and it would cost a lot of money. She noted it was Mr. Oberkamper who had said these mitigations were going to work, and it was on this basis that it was approved, and also the reason the $500,000 bond was proposed to cover a failure in the mitigation measures. She asked that the Council reinstate the performance bond which had been discussed previously, and is not mentioned in Exhibit A. Mrs. Shaw added that on November 21st (1992), she had received a registered letter in which Dave Bernardi was requesting cooperation in the dedication of easements on her property to the City. Also included was a letter from Rob Ham dated November 20th (1992), two paragraphs of which she found offensive and inappropriate. She stated they threatened to acquire the easements through eminent domain. She explained the reason she took umbrage SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/7/92 Page 11 12 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/7/92 Page was that they had gone over the pending easements earlier, and she questioned who Mr. Bernardi is working for, the taxpayer homeowners of San Rafael or the developer, Rob Ham. Mr. Bernardi responded that he works for the City of San Rafael. Mrs. Shaw stated she really takes offense at the letter Mr. Bernardi included with his letter. Mr. Bernardi explained that Mr. Ham had included the letter, and Mrs. Shaw asked was he the boss in his office? Mayor Boro asked Mr. Bernardi what the issue is, and Mr. Bernardi responded he is not quite sure. He stated he had written a letter on behalf of Mr. Ham requesting that the property owners consider dedicating an easement to the City of San Rafael in order to comply with the conditions of approval for the drainage improvements. He explained that Mr. Ham included a letter of his own, explaining the ramifications of either dedicating or not dedicating those various easements. He added that in the letter he had read, it was explained that the way the State law reads, if a property owner chose not to dedicate the easements, it would invalidate the proceedings as they were currently approved, and the City Council would then be faced with two issues. One was either to relieve the contractor of the requirements under the conditions to dedicate the easements, or secondly, to acquire the easements by eminent domain. He explained that this issue had not been brought before the Council because Mr. Ham was working with various property owners to handle the easements' dedication, as required under the conditions. He stated that if Mr. Ham had decided to send the registered letters to everyone and some, like Mrs. Shaw, had signed the grant of easement already, he is not responsible for Mr. Ham's bookkeeping or record keeping. Mrs. Shaw stated her point is that Mr. Ham's letter was in a San Rafael City envelope with Mr. Bernardi's memorandum. She added that all of the neighbors she had spoken to had agreed to cooperate with the dedication of the easements, and she thinks this was very unnecessary and manhandling of the homeowners. Mayor Boro asked to see the letters which had been in the envelope, and noted it contained a letter from Mr. Bernardi dated November 12, 1992, a letter handwritten from the Loch Lomond Homeowners Association, and a separate letter dated the 20th written by Mr. Ham. He stated the connotation is that Mr. Bernardi supplied both letters. Councilmember Cohen asked Mrs. Shaw for the envelope in which the letters came, and asked Mr. Bernardi if he had sent this certified mail to the homeowners involved. Mr. Bernardi responded not to his knowledge, and he did not believe it was sent out by his office. Mr. Cohen stated he would like the matter researched and a report submitted, since it is on San Rafael stationery, sent by certified mail with return receipt requested. Mr. Bernardi agreed to do so. Mr. Larry Shaw then addressed the Council, noting that the developers represent themselves as owners, but it is a business. He pointed out that the residents are neighbors, and should be made aware of the situations as they develop, and should be able to make themselves understood, as well as being able to understand the situations completely. He explained that their homeowners' board meets and discusses the issues as they develop. However, the notice about this meeting was received on December 5th (1992), for a meeting on December 7th (1992). He stated that meant the only person who could appear from the Loch Lomond Homeowners' Board was his wife, Marianne Shaw. Mr. Shaw then discussed what he understands is a tax against 29 houses over three years, to be repaid based upon the interest. He noted that interest rates are very low and it will take a long time to build the amount of money up. Also, will they have all of the lots designated with living quarters within the three-year period? There being no further public input, the Public Hearing was closed. Mayor Boro addressed the last issue raised by Mr. Shaw, and stated it is his understanding that the burden will be initially undertaken by the property owner, who happens to be the developer, and will continue to build in proportion to the lots sold. Additionally, as the lots are sold part of the purchase price would be to repay the $500,000. Mr. Bort agreed, adding that the tax could be used to repay the principal, but the presence of the tax should have an effect on the purchase price of the home. He added it should sell for less with the tax than it would without it. Councilmember Breiner inquired if the Mello -Roos District remains in perpetuity. Mr. Bort responded that it does, and that the tax on the mitigation measures and maintenance, and the tax on the periodic ten year period sinking fund to replace the fences and such which need replacing, if this is approved will last forever, unless the Council takes action to restrict it. He added that the potential for the tax to replenish the Self-insurance Fund also lasts forever; although, as long as the fund is full, that tax will actually not be levied. He explained that 100 years from now there could be a "hit" on it, and the tax would kick back in to replenish the Self-insurance Fund. Mayor Boro inquired if all 29 of the new homeowners united to vote out of the District and not SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/7/92 Page 12 13 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/7/92 Page support it, what would happen? Mr. Bort responded there is a procedure by which that could be done, but it requires that this Council approve assuming the tax. Councilmember Breiner stated she realizes we could accrue the $500,000 plus interest, and inquired if we could go farther on that if we want to. Mr. Bort replied in the negative, but stated that what could be done if the fund has grown to, for instance, $600,000, it could be replenished, using the tax to the $600,000 level and it can continue to grow with interest, but due to inflation in terms of the exchange rate it will gradually, over the years, become less valuable in real dollars. Mayor Boro inquired about part of the money being used for ongoing maintenance. Mr. Bort responded that the $500,000 is really a long-term insurance fund, and the property owners are still going to be paying for maintaining the property on an annual basis. Mayor Boro pointed out that would be in addition to maintaining principal. Mr. Bort stated that is correct. Councilmember Thayer asked what would happen if there were a disaster on the property and the mitigation measures did not work, and there was extensive flooding and landslides and the like, and the fund was insufficient? She inquired if that would be the City's liability? City Manager Nicolai responded that this would not be an expected occurrence, but she would think the City's exposure would be through their self-insurance after deduction of the $500,000. Mayor Boro clarified that the City's insurance fund would pick up after that. Councilmember Cohen stated, to clarify the issue for Mrs. Shaw and others, that the $500,000 is essentially a performance bond. He stated that there is an obligation for a special tax for ongoing routine maintenance of the mitigation devices. In addition, we have taxing authority to create and maintain a $500,000 fund which represents our deductible for insurance in the event of cost for damages involving the drainage or erosion control attributable to property improvements which are covered by mitigation devices. He stated that is essentially a performance bond to cover damages, in addition to the tax to cover ongoing maintenance. He clarified that both of those are covered in the Mello -Roos. Mr. Pendoley stated that is correct. He added that this is better than a performance bond, because you often have to sue to collect on them, and this is your cash to spend. Secondly, another purpose of the District is to replace these facilities if they should ever need it. He explained that Public Works will inspect the facilities periodically and, ten or 15 years from now for instance, the fence will have to be repaired or replaced. He stated that is the purpose of the sinking fund, to pay that cost. Mayor Boro stated he recalled in previous discussions that the City will be reimbursed for the cost of the inspections, and for maintaining these facilities. Mr. Pendoley stated that is correct. Mr. Mel Croner appeared, and Mayor Boro informed him that the Public Hearing had been closed, but that his letter had been discussed. He then asked Mr. Pendoley to review for Mr. Croner the two points which had been discussed. Mr. Pendoley noted that there had been two points. The first concern was regarding the $500,000 that the Mello -Roos District is to raise toward the City's Self-insurance Fund. Mr. Croner thought that the developer is required to put up the money. Mr. Pendoley stated it is correct that the developer is required to put up $500,000, over a four-year period; however, the money is to be paid in scheduled payments established in the Tentative Map. Mr. Pendoley added that the second point raised by Mr. Croner in his letter was that he had understood there was to be a performance bond. Actually, a decision was made not to require a performance bond because it is not practical since you would have to sue to enforce it, and that rather it is better to use the City's self- insurance policy since the $500,000 could be considered a deductible. The final point was that the Mello -Roos District does not pay any interest to the developer; however, the interest proceeds can be used to help repay the $500,000. Mayor Boro noted there had been an error in Exhibit A in that regard, and recommended that in the second to last line in Paragraph C, where it refers to "reasonable interest" it should be changed to "without interest". Mr. Mel Croner apologized for being late, but he wished to remind the Council of one fact, in particular Councilmember Thayer. He stated that when this issue was presented, with all the difficulties with the property and all of the mitigations, you (Mrs. Thayer) was concerned about how these would work and wanted to get some assurance that there would be some fund. He stated that Mrs. Thayer actually said that she had hoped for a performance bond, to be posted by the developer for a period of time to ensure that those mitigations performed. Mr. Croner added that he had Mrs. Thayer's remarks in his notes. He stated that the proposal in front of the Council now places the responsibility not on the developer and his engineers, but on the homeowners. He added he had anticipated, as part SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/7/92 Page 13 14 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/7/92 Page of the approval process, the creation of this District to build the mitigation devices. He reminded the Council that their intention was to ensure that the design of these devices was assured by a performance bond, and that they had taken the word of a cadre of engineers. He stated that the Council has, through Mello -Roos, taken all of the responsibility off of the developer whose engineers cited the risks and the stability of the soils, and they are all in this together. He stated the purpose of the performance bond was to ensure the design of the mitigation devices. He suggested the Council go back and look at their own summaries and make a decision on the points previously discussed. He stated a performance bond should have been required as recommended by Mrs. Thayer, and the bond would cost money and not earn interest. Councilmember Thayer stated she recalls discussion about a performance bond, and she would like to go back and look at the Minutes. She added that it seems to her that, subsequent to that proposal, there was a statement by City Attorney Ragghianti at that time with regard to the legality of having someone post a bond for that period of time and that this was a way to have someone post the $500,000 for a lesser period of time for the repayment. Mr. Croner stated that was his understanding, but it was relative to the design and not the maintenance of the devices. Councilmember Cohen informed Mr. Croner that his point is valid, and in the discussion of his letter it was found that there was a misunderstanding between City staff and the attorney in this matter, and it had been clarified that there was no intent to pay the developer interest on the money. Mr. Cohen discussed the difference between a performance bond and the Mello -Roos approach, and stated he is more comfortable with the Mello -Roos District and that it provides greater security for the City of San Rafael. Councilmember Thayer stated that Mr. Croner's remarks tonight indicate that there may be a dichotomy between what was discussed previously and what is before us tonight. She stated she feels this is a serious enough problem to defer this at least until the next meeting so the minutes and records can be researched. Mayor Boro stated that, according to his recollection, we stated that we approved those conditions and that as part of those conditions we would have a Mello -Roos District, and we are still having a fund for performance as well as a tax for maintenance of the facilities once they are built. He stated that we, as a Council, decided to use this method, rather than a performance bond. Mr. Pendoley agreed, and explained that you are really having a performance bond in this plan, and that a performance bond is only good for two years after the improvement has been accepted, and the Council's concern was also for the maintenance and eventual replacement of the facilities. He noted the Council had made the developer liable for the initial $500,000 contribution to the Self-insurance Fund in setting up the Mello -Roos District. Councilmember Breiner inquired if any Councilmembers were concerned about Exhibit A, and recommended that the first sentence be amended to read, "Maintenance or replacement of the drainage/landslide hazard mitigation facilities. . .". Mrs. Breiner added that she would not mind delaying this discussion for another two weeks, so she could review her notes. Under Paragraph B of Exhibit A, referring to a sinking fund to be used to periodically make necessary replacements or repairs, if that is not a sufficient amount, we should be able to use the other fund for replacements if some of the devices do not operate the way we are expecting them to. She inquired if the Council was hampered by not having the word "replacement" under Paragraph A. Mr. Bernardi noted that Paragraph B covers replacements, and added that from time to time fences and pipes will have to be replaced. He noted we are setting aside funds for replacement of certain facilities. Mr. Bort noted that these categories are listed separately in the Subdivision Conditions. He stated he was not present at the meeting when this was previously discussed. He noted that Resolution No. 8242 was adopted on September 17, 1990, and he has read it although he was not at the meeting. He stated that the sense that one of the speakers had was that there had been a subtle shift of responsibility by virtue of the Mello -Roos proceedings, and if there was such a shift it occurred at the time Resolution No. 8242 was adopted, because that very clearly puts the burden on the property owner. Councilmember Shippey noted that a number of valid points have been raised here by the public, and he would hope we could address them by some minor wording changes which have been suggested. He stated he does not see what we would gain by going back into the legislative history within the next two weeks, while we have all of the information here tonight. Councilmember Cohen stated that from the remarks of the Planning Director and attorney, it SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/7/92 Page 14 15 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/7/92 Page seems clear from the record that the actions taken were consistent with what is in front of the Council tonight. He stated he would defer to a delay, but the record seems pretty clear. Mr. Cohen analyzed Exhibit A, and its conformance to the Resolution. He stated he feels it addresses the issues under discussion, except for the recommended change in the wording of Paragraph C regarding interest. Mayor Boro noted that this issue has been before the Council many times. He then referred to a comment by Mr. Croner, stating that he does not agree that the Council had commented that these mitigation measures would not work. He noted that if the Council felt they would not work, they would not have adopted this plan. Secondly, there is a perception which needs to be addressed, that the Planning Director started out with one approach and came back with another. He stated that this has been such a controversial project, and of such concern to the community, that it is important that we all feel comfortable with what we are doing. Mayor Boro suggested to the Council that this item be held over in order to address the issues discussed, particularly the way we got to the $500,000. Mayor Boro noted that the Public Hearing is closed, so it will come back with a report from staff on issues raised tonight, including clarifications on Exhibit A. Councilmember Thayer agreed, stating she feels it is necessary to look at the legislative history of the project. Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to defer this item to the next meeting, with directions to staff to bring back a report addressing those items which were discussed tonight (as an Old Business item). AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 19.PUBLIC HEARING - TO CONSIDER A THIRD AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN TISHMAN SPEYER MEDIQ MARIN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE §65868 AND PARTIAL TERMINATION AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO LONGER ENCOMPASSES LOT 5A, THE SITE WHERE SKILLED NURSING FACILITY IS NOW BEING CONSTRUCTED AS PART OF SMITH RANCH HOMES DEVELOPMENT (CA) - File 5-1-290 x 9-3-16 Mayor Boro opened the Public Hearing and noted there was a letter from the applicant's attorney requesting that this Public Hearing be postponed until December 21, 1992, and requested a motion to grant the continuance. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to continue the Public Hearing to December 21, 1992. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 20.MARIPOSA ROAD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro None None (PW) - File 6-49 x 9-3-40 a. Resolution Appointing Stone & Youngberg Managing Underwriter b. Resolution of Award of Contract to O.C. Jones & Sons for Construction Improvements C. Resolution Authorizing Public Works Director to Issue Change Orders Councilmember Breiner stated she was not present at the first meeting on this issue, and inquired if she is able to participate. Mayor Boro asked Assessment District Attorney Daniel Bort for an opinion, and Mr. Bort responded that he sees no reason why Mrs. Breiner could not participate. He explained he is special counsel for the Assessment District. Public Works Director Bernardi reported that there are three actions before the Council tonight: 1) To award the contract for the construction of the Mariposa Road; 2) To appoint Stone & Youngberg as managing underwriters for the Assessment District; and 3) To authorize the Public Works Director to issue Change Orders during the course of the project. He noted this is the second to last time the Council will be seeing this item, since it will be on the December 21, 1993, agenda for ratification of the bond sale. Mr. Bernardi added that the appeal period is now over. Mr. Bort stated that the underwriter has looked at the project and has not raised any issues. Mayor Boro noted that there are three issues before the Council, and the City Clerk has requested three separate Resolutions be voted upon. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/7/92 Page 15 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/7/92 Page 16 Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to adopt the Resolution appointing Stone & Youngberg Managing Underwriter for the Assessment District. RESOLUTION NO. 8797 - APPOINTING STONE & YOUNGBERG MANAGING UNDERWRITER, MARIPOSA ROAD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Shippey moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to adopt the Resolution awarding the contract to O.C. Jones & Sons. RESOLUTION NO. 8798 - AWARDING CONTRACT, MARIPOSA ROAD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT (To O.C. Jones & Sons, lowest responsible bidder, $104,213.90) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to adopt the Resolution authorizing the Public Works Director to issue Change Orders. RESOLUTION NO. 8799 - AUTHORIZING CHANGE ORDERS, MARIPOSA ROAD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT (To be issued by Public Works Director) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 21.CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: a. NEIGHBORHOOD REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE ST. VINCENT de PAUL DINING ROOM ADVISORY COMMITTEE (Pl) - File 10-2 x 9-2 Mayor Boro noted this item was put on the agenda at the request of Councilmember Cohen. Councilmember Cohen explained that at the time the Advisory Committee was formed to assist the St. Vincent de Paul in finding a suitable place for relocation, it had been agreed not to fill the place for a neighborhood representative until potential areas of the City were identified where a new location might be found. Mr. Cohen stated that the Committee has been working with the St. Vincent de Paul Society regarding their needs now and in the future, as a guide when searching for a suitable site. He reported that, based on that information, the Committee has tentatively identified the area described in the staff report from the Planning Director, which is the industrial area South of downtown between Highway 101 and Woodland Avenue, running from Second and Lincoln all the way over to Andersen Drive at the other end, presumably nearer to downtown than the other end. He explained that, based on that location, it was his assessment that Bret Harte and Picnic Valley neighborhoods would be impacted the most. He therefore contacted representatives of each of those neighborhood associations, and they both indicated an interest and willingness in serving on this Advisory Committee. He stated they understand the role of the Advisory Committee in assisting St. Vincent de Paul. Mr. Cohen stated he is recommending that Don Soldavini be appointed as a representative of Picnic Valley, and Frank Sangimino as a representative of Bret Harte. Mr. Cohen stated he had received a letter from Stephen Nass, to which he would like to refer. He stated that the day worker referral which had been taking place at St. Vincent de Paul's is no longer there, and has not been there for a month or six weeks. He explained that when he heard of it he tried to contact Mr. Kilty, who is the St. Vincent de Paul's representative on the Advisory Committee, but he was away. As soon as he returned, Mr. Cohen stressed to Mr. Kilty that giving Mr. Ortega a desk and telephone in the facility for that purpose was a poor idea and not in the interest of St. Vincent's. They agreed to terminate that service. Mr. Cohen then discussed in detail the circumstances under which St. Vincent's had taken title to the building which also houses the Dining Room, noting that it was acquired through default of the owner of the building on a loan, and was a negotiated settlement for an outstanding loan made by the St. Vincent's. He stated they have no interest in being a landlord or property owner, and perhaps the City could assist them in selling the building. Mr. Cohen explained that the Independent -Journal article had indicated that the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/7/92 Page 16 17 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/7/92 Page St. Vincent de Paul Society had found a home on "B" Street and had purchased the building, which was very misleading. He stated that the Advisory Committee, on Friday, had stressed their commitment toward finding a new location for the Dining Room. There will be an explanatory press release in the Independent -Journal soon. He concluded by stating he is very optimistic that by January there could be a positive report. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to appoint Don Soldavini, representing Picnic Valley and Frank Sangimino, representing Bret Harte Neighborhood Association to the St. Vincent's Dining Room Advisory Committee. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None b. REVENUE OPTIONS - File 9-2-42 x 9-4 Mayor Boro proposed a special Council meeting for the purpose of meeting with MRC Consultants, regarding the Revenue Options Ballot Measure for the June, 1993, election. He reported that the consultant will be available either January 8, 1993, or February 6, 1993. The City Manager's Secretary, Dorothy Lobedan, will finalize the date with the individual Councilmembers. ADD ITEMS: I.a. COUNCIL RETREAT (CM) - File 9-1 x 8-5 City Manager Nicolai proposed a City Council half-day retreat with Management staff to be held in January, 1993, to discuss Council priorities for the fiscal year 1993/94. Councilmember Shippey requested one of two Friday afternoons - either January 15, 1993 or January 29, 1993. Mrs. Nicolai recommended a Plan A or Plan B, depending on revenue. The City Manager's Office will finalize the arrangements. b. CLOSED SESSION - File 7-8-3 x 7-3 x 7-4 x 9-3-30 Ms. Nicolai reported a Closed Session to Discuss Police Labor Negotiations is being scheduled for Monday, December 14, 1992, at 5:00 PM, and stated she will confirm it with the Councilmembers. II.SAN RAFAEL LIBRARY - File 9-3-61 Public Works Director Bernardi stated they would be bringing this item to the next Council meeting on December 21, 1992, for authorization to call for bids on the Library project. He added that they would bring the contracts to the February 1, 1993 Council meeting. III.MERRYDALE OVERCROSSING - File 4-8-23 x 11-15 x 11-1 Councilmember Cohen inquired about the status of the Merrydale Overcrossing Project. Public Works Director Bernardi responded that staff is meeting with the County Right -of -Way group and the State Right -of -Way attorneys this Thursday, December 10, 1992, to finalize the paperwork between the City and San Francisco Catholic Archdiocese regarding the Mt. Olivet Cemetery property. He explained that once this has been accomplished, the project will move forward. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:05 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 1992 MAYOR OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/7/92 Page 17