Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1992-03-16SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/16/92 Page 1 IN CONFERENCE ROOM 201 OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, MARCH 16, 1992, AT 7:00 PM CLOSED SESSION 1. DISCUSSION OF LITIGATION AND LABOR NEGOTIATIONS - File 1.4.1.a No. 92-6(a) - #1 - Ellen L. Wright vs. City of San Rafael No. 92-6(b) - #1 - Pauline Chzankin vs. City of San Rafael No. 92-6(c) - #1 - Sanford I. Gossman vs. Dangerous Animal Board Hearing, et al No. 92-6(d) - #2 No. 92-6(e) - #7 No reportable action was taken. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, MARCH 16, 1992, AT 8:00 PM Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor San Rafael City Council Dorothy L. Breiner, Councilmember Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Michael A. Shippey, Councilmember Joan Thayer, Councilmember Absent: None Also Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk SPECIAL PRESENTATION 2. Presentation of Proclamation Proclaiming Week of March 22 through 28, 1992, as Mediation Week in the City of San Rafael - File 110 Mayor Boro presented the Proclamation to Jody Becker, Mediation Coordinator for Marin County, the Proclamation Proclaiming Week of March 22 through 28, 1992, as Mediation Week in the City of San Rafael. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE DANGEROUS ANIMAL BOARD HEARING, COUNTY OF MARIN - File 13-3 Sanford Gossman, 21 Cottonwood Drive, voiced his concern regarding his dogs being confined prior to a hearing of the Dangerous Animal Board, Marin County. Mayor Boro responded to Mr. Gossman's question regarding if this matter was, in fact, brought before the Closed Session held prior to the City Council meeting tonight. Mayor Boro stated it had been discussed in that Closed Session and the City Attorney would be contacting Mr. Gossman. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to approve the recommended action on the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM 4. Status Report on Baywood Terrace Subdivision Bret Harte Rd.; John Hoffmire, Owner; AP #13- 271-29 (PW) - File 5-1-314 5. St. Isabella's Senior Housing Project: (P1) - File 10-3 x 10-5 x 10-7 a. RATIFICATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 8624, DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDED ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF A SMALL SUBDIVISION, USE PERMIT AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (Z91-6, UP91-53, ED91-69) FOR A 62 -UNIT AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT; 1 TRINITY WAY; ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SAN FRANCISCO, OWNER; RECOMMENDED ACTION Accepted report. Ratified Resolution No. 8624 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/16/92 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/16/92 Page 2 CATHOLIC CHARITIES, REP.; MARJORIE GOLDMAN AND ALLAN J. TITUS, APPELLANTS (AP #175-181-26) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/16/92 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/16/92 Page 3 b. RATIFICATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 8625, WAIVING THE PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE, AND CERTIFYING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SMALL SUBDIVISION, USE PERMIT AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW, AND AMENDMENT OF THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL 14.15.020 OF THE CITY MUNICIPAL CODE OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA, SO AS TO RECLASSIFY CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE TERRA LINDA AREA (RE: Z91-6 - 1 TRINITY WAY - ST. ISABELLA'S, A 62 - UNIT AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT, AP #175-181-26) C. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1612 - 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 PROPERTY IN THE TERRA LINDA AREA (RE: Z91-6 - 1 TRINITY WAY - A 62 -UNIT AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT, AP #175-181-26) (ST. ISABELLA'S SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT) 7. Request for Funds for 1992 Safe Graduation Night Parties for: (CM) - File 105 a. San Rafael High School B. Terra Linda High School 9. Resolution Authorizing the Signing of an Agreement for Legal Services Between the City of San Rafael and Scott Guite, Attorney to Prosecute Criminal Municipal Code Violations (CA) - File 4-3-251a x 9-3-16 Ratified Resolution No. 8625. Approved final adoption of Ordinance No. 1612. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8626 - AUTHORIZING A DONATION TO SAN RAFAEL HIGH SCHOOL FOR SAFE GRADUATION NIGHT PARTY (in the amount of $100.00) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8627 - AUTHORIZING A DONATION TO TERRA LINDA HIGH SCHOOL FOR SAFE GRADUATION NIGHT PARTY (in the amount of $100.00) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8628 - AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF AN AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AND SCOTT GUITE, ATTORNEY (Commencing 3/2/92 for 12 mos.) (amount not to exceed $27,000) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion: 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SPECIAL JOINT MEETING WITH DIXIE AND SAN RAFAEL SCHOOL BOARDS ON FEBRUARY 12, 1992, SPECIAL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 20, 1992 AND REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 2, 1992 (CC) Councilmember Shippey made a correction to the Special Minutes of February 20, 1992, with regard to Page 9, the 80% response to the Hughes, Heiss survey given to the Police Department, stating "there was less than an average rating of morale within the Department" rather than "average response to the survey". Councilmember Shippey moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Special Joint Meeting with Dixie and San Rafael School Boards of February 12, 1992, Special Meeting of February 20, 1992, with changes stated by Councilmember Shippey, and Regular Meeting of March 2, 1992. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/16/92 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/16/92 Page 4 6. DATA COMMUNICATIONS IN PATROL VEHICLES: (PD) a. SELECTION OF THE WARNER GROUP TO DEVELOP AND DEFINE THE MOST BENEFICIAL AND COST EFFECTIVE METHOD TO PROVIDE THE SAN RAFAEL POLICE DEPARTMENT WITH DATA COMMUNICATIONS FOR ITS PATROL VEHICLES - File 4-3-252 x 9-3-30 b. PURCHASE OF FOUR (4) LAPTOP COMPUTERS FROM GRID SYSTEMS CORPORATION FOR FIELD TESTING AND USE IN PATROL VEHICLES - File 4-2-263 x 9-3-30 Councilmember Breiner asked staff to bring back a report on this with regard to using the drug seizure funds for this type of purchase. She stated a concern that these funds were being used correctly. City Manager Nicolai responded staff would do this and it would be part of the upcoming budget. Mrs. Breiner asked with regard to the SRCARD Program (San Rafael Computerized Arrest, Records and Dispatch), was the City able to recapture any fees from the victims of the auto thefts for the services of the Police Department. Ms. Nicolai answered negatively. Mrs. Breiner suggested this should be done to produce revenue to support the SRCARD program. Ms. Nicolai stated it would possibly be difficult to differentiate between one type of police follow-up action on a criminal activity from another. Mrs. Breiner suggested this was worthy of discussion at a future meeting. Ms. Nicolai agreed. Councilmember Thayer requested a list of items for which the Asset Seizure Funds have been used in the past, along with the total amount in the fund now. Mrs. Thayer stated with regard to the bids for the consultants and for Grid Systems for the four laptop computers, she noticed the City took the highest bidder, noting that for the four laptop computers, they were the only company who met the specifications. She asked how many bids were solicited originally. Acting Chief Robert Krolak responded that there were three bids and both the users' group and CMSI felt these companies were the ones with the most ability to complete the project. Mrs. Thayer asked if the users' group was composed of people within the Police Department who would be using this equipment. Acting Chief Krolak answered affirmatively. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to adopt the Resolution selecting the Warner Group as consultants, and to adopt the Resolution to purchase four (4) laptop computers from Grid Systems Corporation. RESOLUTION NO. 8629 - AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF AN AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AND THE WARNER GROUP, MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (At a fee not to exceed $15,625) RESOLUTION NO. 8630 - AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF LAPTOP COMPUTERS FROM GRID SYSTEMS CORPORATION (At a cost of $29,931.54) (Only bidder to meet the specifications of the bid) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 8. ADOPTION OF ADA (AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT) GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE (CM) - File 13- 1-1 x 9-3-11 Mayor Boro noted with regard to Item #2 on the first page of the staff report that one of the things that would be done with respect to complying with the Americans With Disabilities Act is a transition plan that will be developed by January 26, 1992, which he stated was reasonable. The next issue was bringing the City's facilities into compliance as expeditiously as possible. He asked with regard to the statement, "All reasonable achievable structural changes must be made by January 26, 1995", was that a mandated date. Assistant City Manager Golt responded affirmatively, noting that by July 26, 1992, the City needs to have a plan for how the City's facilities would be brought into compliance. Those physical changes in the facilities should be accomplished by a later date or if they will not be accomplished, the City would then need to prove that there is an undue hardship reason so the City would not be obligated for the physical structural changes. Mayor Boro stated his concern that the City does not know what the magnitude will be yet, even though they were adopting a Resolution indicating this would be done by a certain date. Ms. Golt stated that it was in the Federal legislation that it is mandatory to do this. She stated it was important to be aware that there may be very valid undue hardships present, in terms of City facilities, and staff may find that there are many City facilities already accessible. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/16/92 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/16/92 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/16/92 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/16/92 Page 6 Councilmember Shippey asked City Attorney Ragghianti if this Resolution would commit the City to any expenditures. City Attorney Ragghianti responded negatively. Ms. Golt stated she omitted one of the committee member's names in the report; that of Sharon McNamee, Recreation Director. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to adopt the Resolution stating the City's intent to comply with the ADA (Americans With Disabilities Act). RESOLUTION NO. 8631 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL STATING ITS INTENT TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT AND ADOPTION OF AN AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 10. PUBLIC HEARING - UP72-32(b)/ED 91-55 - APPEAL OF CONDITION 14, REQUIRING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS, REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 1730 SQ. FT. MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM FOR THE TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH, 333 WOODLAND AVE.; AP #13- 101-17; TRINITY EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH, OWNERS; GLEN PETERSON, ARCHITECT, REP. (PI) - File 10-5 x 10-7 Mayor Boro stated that the Council received a letter on this subject from Wendy James and Howard Itzkowitz that evening. Planning Director Pendoley briefed the Council on the staff report, stating the Planning Commission focused in particular on Condition 14, which would require the construction of a sidewalk along the Church's frontage. He then showed the sidewalk on an overhead projection. He stated the concern of the Commission was because of testimony from the Church that the cost of the sidewalk would be exceptionally high, $20,000 to $30,000. Mr. Pendoley stated this unusual cost was due to the topography in the immediate area, with a steep slope at the edge of the right-ofway, which requires building retaining walls. Mr. Pendoley stated he met with Public Works Director Bernardi and with church representatives on this project. He stated they discussed the policy adopted by the Council in May, 1980, of which part stated the City could participate in the construction of new sidewalks when there was an urgent safety problem. He stated he was recommending that there is an urgent safety problem, in this case, and the Council has the option of applying that policy in dealing with this Appeal. He recommended that the Church satisfy Condition 14 by paying a fee equivalent to the cost of building the sidewalk which staff estimates at $5,000. He also recommended that Public Works be authorized to apply Gas Tax funds to cover the retaining wall. He stated staff was recommending this partly because of equity issues to the Church, but more importantly in view of safety problems involving children walking to the Davidson School. Councilmember Thayer asked how much of the sidewalk would be in front of the Church and would there be any part of this sidewalk that would not be covered by this proposal. Mr. Pendoley stated the proposal was to close the entire gap, even though there is a small area in front of another property that would be the City's cost, but it was a very minor amount. He stated the frontage was 50 feet. Mrs. Thayer stated she believed Council had received a proposal, approximately two years ago, from concerned citizens with regard to the children using the area across the street from this frontage more frequently. Mayor Boro stated that part of the problem with the children using the opposite side of the street was an unfinished, privately owned street which intersects the sidewalk in that area. He stated this makes it more of a safety hazard. Public Works Director Bernardi stated that there was a drainage problem with the rain, making the children walk out into the street because there is too much water on the sides of the street. Councilmember Breiner asked Mr. Bernardi with regard to his comment about possibly using school district funding for this. Mr. Bernardi responded he had talked to Bob Vasser, Principal of Davidson School, who indicated he was not very hopeful, but would try to get some funding through their property management people. Councilmember Shippey asked Mr. Pendoley about the letter received that night, where one of the senders, Howard Itzkowitz, was on the Design Review Board. He asked why SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/16/92 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/16/92 Page 7 this was not addressed in the Design Review Board. Mr. Pendoley responded that the sidewalk was not usually brought before the Design Review Board. Councilmember Cohen stated he felt Mr. Itzowitz had a right to comment on this now. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/16/92 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/16/92 Page 8 Councilmember Cohen asked if there was another improvement project on this site and wondered why this was not done then. Mr. Pendoley responded he did not remember when that occurred. Secondly, Mr. Cohen stated, with regard to the policy mentioned above which was brought before the Council May, 1980, under Paragraph 2, "The City will participate in the construction of new sidewalks equally not to exceed onehalf of the construction cost". He suggested that the retaining wall and sidewalk be tied in together as a whole project, therefore determining the cost for both the City and the Church. Mr. Bernardi quoted Statement #3, "The City will construct at City cost new sidewalks, including curb and gutter, at locations that pose extreme hazard to pedestrians". He stated the Church has agreed to pay some cost of this sidewalk, rather than the City picking up the entire cost of the sidewalk. He stated this was a compromise reached by staff, and does not comply strictly with Statement #2, but he felt it reached the intent of the policy. Councilmember Cohen asked about the liability issues involved in the construction of the retaining wall. Mr. Bernardi responded the City will be responsible for maintaining this retaining wall. The sidewalk is the responsibility of the property owner, unless it was damaged by a City tree. Mayor Boro asked if the Church would incur an additional liability from the retaining wall. Mr. Bernardi responded staff would check the slope carefully before building the retaining wall is built to insure a solid wall. Gerry Heermann, member of the Building Committee for Trinity Lutheran Church, stated the Committee did meet with staff and felt they had come to an understanding on this issue. He stated their main objective was to make the neighborhood safer for the children in particular. He stated the Church was in agreement with staff to pay $5,000 towards the sidewalk. Judy Yonyess, 6 Alvina Ave., stated she endorsed the addition of the multi-purpose room at Trinity Lutheran Church which will make more room for more children. Sandra Lollini, resident of Gerstle Park area, stated she agreed that this church school is vital to the community. She stated if the Church was charged $30,000 to do this, they would not be able to do so. Secondly, she stated she felt the City does have a responsibility for the safety of the children. She stated the Redevelopment Agency allowed McPhail's to use a City easement for parking on Lindaro Street and never put a contingent or condition of approval to put new sidewalks in this area, so there are no sidewalks for the children on Lindaro Street. She suggested instead of taking vegetation out when building the retaining wall, eliminate the parking on Woodland where the children need to walk to school. She also suggested putting in underground drains for the rain water to drain off. Mrs. Lollini stated, as President of the Gerstle Park Homeowners' Association, at the February 11, 1992 Planning Commission hearing addressed the 8 foot high cyclone fence along the property. She was concerned about the upcoming new zoning ordinance and the height requirements being put into this ordinance. She stated some of the other concerns by the Gerstle Park Homeowners' Association were the landscaping on hillsides and the commercial vehicles that pass through the area going from Ross Valley to Woodland Avenue when the children are walking to and from school. There being no further public input, Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing. Councilmember Breiner asked about the possibility of bringing the sidewalk out into the street to prevent liability due to possible landslides. Mr. Bernardi stated that to construct a sidewalk over the existing gutter would create more of a problem from debris collecting, creating a drainage problem. He stated he did not recommend narrowing the street, as Mrs. Lollini suggested, because of the amount of traffic. Councilmember Thayer asked if there was any potential liability if the sidewalk was not constructed. Mr. Bernardi stated staff was just presenting what the Applicant was proposing. He stated the Council could vote not to do this project. Councilmember Shippey asked Mr. Bernardi to look at Mrs. Lollini's proposal to see if it could be done that way. Councilmember Breiner stated there should be a way to construct a filtering barrier to help with the runoff. Mayor Boro suggested to Mr. Bernardi that he have the soils test done and come back to the Council with the results and asked how long this would take. Mr. Bernardi SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/16/92 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/16/92 Page 9 responded it could be brought back to the next Council meeting, April 6, 1992. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/16/92 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/16/92 Page 10 Councilmember Cohen voiced his concern about the liability issue and asked for more information concerning the 8 foot fence, per Mrs. Lollini's comments. Mr. Pendoley responded the fence was approved with a variance in 1980, but was constructed three years later. The variance dealt with both the setback from the parking lot and its height. Mr. Heermann stated that the Church's concern was to be able to go ahead with the project in order to meet a deadline for September in order to be ready for the new school year. He asked Council to grant their Appeal, and allow them to pay the $5,000 contingency so they could proceed in getting their building permit. Mayor Boro suggested continuing this item to April 6, 1992, on Old Business. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to carry the item to the April 6, 1992, Council meeting under Old Business. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None City Attorney Ragghianti confirmed that when this item would come back on the meeting of April 6, 1992, the Public Hearing has been closed, but the Appeal had been continued for Council discussion with staff only. Mayor Boro answered affirmatively. 11. PUBLIC HEARING - FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND REZONING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 176 -UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX (OAKRIDGE APARTMENTS); SMITH RANCH ROAD PROPERTIES, OWNER; LINCOLN PROPERTY CO., INC., REP.; AP #155-251-08 & 09 (P1) - File 10-3 x 10-6 Mayor Boro opened the Public Hearing. Planning Director Pendoley gave the Council a brief history of the proposed project and how it evolved through the Design Review process. He noted the Planning Commission approved it by a vote of 6-0-1 at meeting of February 6, 1992. He then referred the Council to Project Planner Chantry Bell who gave a brief project description. Ms. Bell stated at the February 6, 1992 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission approved as part of the project proposal, a subdivision of the project site which consisted of 161-� acres. She stated this site was divided into two parcels, Parcel 1, 141,2 acres in size and Parcel 2, two acres in size, which would be the site for a future medical facility that has not yet been proposed. She stated the 14%� acre parcel is where the Oakridge project would be located. She then explained the size of the structures and the building materials involved in constructing them. Ms. Bell stated the parking would be located in carport structures, uncovered parking stalls and underground garages, with an underground tunnel connecting the parking garage between Building #2 and Building #7. Ms. Bell stated the density for this project was 12.6 units per acre and the project received priority project approval status last year. She stated 27 of the units will be below market rate and 8% of those will be affordable to moderate income households and 7% will be affordable to low income households. Ms. Bell then discussed the final Environmental Impact Report. She stated the staff report lists all the significant impacts identified in the EIR and then identifies some mitigation measures for these impacts. She reviewed how the project was revised, and stated the first issue involved soils, vegetation and wildlife. The original grading plan proposed was recommended to be significantly reduced to protect wildlife and vegetation. She added another wildlife issue noted was if the development was approved as proposed, it would hinder animal movement from the project area to adjacent open space areas, so the EIR came out with a figure which was labeled "Development Opportunity Areas". She stated the project was redesigned to keep development within these areas and to allow for an extensive wildlife corridor. Ms. Bell explained the hydrology and water quality issues. She stated that in the original project proposal, all drainage drained into the pond area, and the EIR stated the drainage system should consist of two systems, one would drain all of the adjacent open space areas, and the second would take the drainage from the developed area to the storm drain system. She stated they were able to take the adjacent 6 acre watershed area drainage and funnel it into the pond to keep the pond levels current. She added that the EIR also stated that a Pond Management Plan should be developed to monitor the pond for sedimentation and maintain its water levels, due to an existing SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/16/92 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/16/92 Page 11 deteriorating condition, which was not to be considered for the mitigation of a significant impact. She stated this plan would be prepared prior to issuance of a building permit. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/16/92 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/16/92 Page 12 Ms. Bell explained the 2 acre subdivision was discussed at length at the Planning Commission meeting, where the EIR consultant was instructed to prepare a conceptual plan for the future medical office building and to look at potential significant impacts of that project and define the mitigation measures that would be necessary to incorporate into the EIR. Ms. Bell stated with regard to Parkland Dedication Fees, the letter included with the staff report from the Applicant requested waiver of fees for the below market rate units and he is also requesting a 50% credit for on-site recreation facilities be granted. She stated the City Attorney's Office advised staff that based on the definitions in the Parkland Dedication Fee Ordinance that the apartment complex, as proposed, is not eligible for waiver of fees based on the on-site recreation facilities which are being proposed. Ms. Bell stated she had some modifications to the Resolution for the certification of the EIR. The first one on Page 9, Paragraph #2 under "Statement of Facts" regarding the issue of domestic pets, whether or not they should be banned or have leash laws to control them. She stated there was a lengthy discussion by the Planning Commission on this issue. She stated the Commission concluded that the animals needed to be monitored in some fashion and prohibited from the common areas of the development and from wandering in the nearby open space. She recommended adding a Condition of Approval which states that prior to issuance of a building permit that a management plan be prepared for proposing how to deal with domestic animals. Ms. Bell stated the other item was on Page 3, Item #11, under "A landscape berm. " it should state "A landscape berm, dense vegetation and fence at least 5' high shall be constructed. . .". Planning Director Pendoley added that he felt this was an excellent report produced by staff for this development. Councilmember Shippey asked Ms. Bell if the medical building site would interfere with the wildlife corridor being proposed. Ms. Bell showed him the area on the drawings which were provided for the meeting. Mr. Pendoley stated that there was a portion of the 2 acre parcel for this building that was the wildlife corridor which was prohibited for development. Councilmember Shippey asked with regard to the waiver of the Parkland Dedication Fees, if this was part of the Resolution. Mr. Pendoley stated this was not included in the Resolution and staff had given Council the opportunity to make the decision to waive these fees, if they chose to do so. Councilmember Breiner asked with regard to the EIR, why the difference between the 25' setback in the 2 acre parcel stated in the report now and the 80' setback shown in the 1976 & 78 PD Zoning in the Smith Ranch Master Plan. She stated there should have been some comparison or discussion on this in the report by the consultant, John Roberto. Ms. Bell responded affirmatively, that this setback was not addressed. She stated Mr. Roberto was looking at the Environmental Impacts in relation to the adjacent pond. Councilmember Thayer noted there was a grease trap associated with one of the drainage systems and the drainage system which would deal with the runoff from the improved surfaces to collect the grease and asked if this would protect the creek. Ms. Bell answered affirmatively. Mrs. Thayer then asked what the percentage of slope was. Mr. Pendoley answered roughly 35%. She asked if there were any steeper portions in the Oakridge area. Mr. Pendoley answered negatively. She asked if this was not subject to the hillside standards (Ordinance). Mr. Pendoley answered affirmatively. Mrs. Thayer asked if the windows and balconies on the units which were near the pond were to be turned away from the pond. Ms. Bell responded that this related to a building that was no longer to be built. Mrs. Thayer asked about the private open space parcel and if it was to be developed. Ms. Bell answered negatively. Mrs. Thayer asked why the Conditions of Approval did not include the Pond Management Plan. She noted the Planning Commission decided not to include them because they were not considered mitigation in the EIR and she asked if this was correct. Ms. Bell answered affirmatively. She stated the conditions she attached to the City Council report only relate to significant EIR impacts. She stated she separated the Conditions into two sections, one dealing with mitigation measures which were necessary to certify the EIR VS. Conditions of Approval for the Design Review part of the application. She stated there was a Condition of the preparation of a Pond Management Plan. Mrs. Thayer asked to clarify that the responsibility will shared between the owners of parcel 3 and this project. Ms. Bell answered affirmatively, and included the 2 acre parcel. Mrs. Thayer asked how the 2 acre parcel would fit SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/16/92 Page 12 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/16/92 Page 13 both the wildlife corridor and the medical building or is it on the 1418 acre parcel. Mr. Pendoley showed on the slide where the wildlife corridor is situated both on the 141 acre parcel and partially on the 2 acre parcel. Mrs. Thayer asked how they could impose a requirement on this parcel when the medical building project has not been proposed yet. Mr. Pendoley answered that the subdivision is a project and it is appropriate to put mitigation measures on the 2 acre parcel to protect the environment. Councilmember Breiner stated the Condition referred to above was on Page 21, Condition 102 in the Report to the Planning Commission. Mrs. Breiner stated this EIR is covering both parcels, predicated on a certain configuration on parcel 2 of the medical office building and if there are changes made to this, does it make the findings for the EIR for this parcel. City Attorney Ragghianti answered negatively. He stated a supplemental EIR may be necessary depending on the time frame. Councilmember Cohen stated with regard to construction impact and hydrology and water impact, on the Parcel 3 project the developer was required to water the project to reduce the dust impact. He stated they were then concerned with the potential for water runoff from the watering into the pond carrying with it a high sediment load. He indicated he did not see this referenced in this report. He asked if this was monitored, was there any feedback on how this worked and should there be a similar requirement on this project. Mr. Pendoley responded that the drainage was being routed away from the pond. Mr. Cohen asked if this would be in place and operating before any other grading takes place up stream of the pond. Mr. Pendoley answered affirmatively. Mr. Cohen asked if, during the summer time, there would be watering to prevent the creation of dust and if there will be water in sufficient volume to create runoff and where it will go. Mr. Pendoley answered staff did not think there would be enough watering to cause runoff. Mr. Cohen asked that this be monitored. Mr. Pendoley agreed. Councilmember Cohen asked with regard to the v -ditch if there would be a method of capturing runoff on both sides of the development envelope to capture the runoff from the current drainage basin. Mr. Pendoley answered affirmatively. Mr. Cohen asked whether the v -ditch that will pick up the new drainage will go into a pipe under the subdivided parcel could go forward now prior to any future development on the medical office parcel and this future development will not negatively impact the ability of this system to collect the runoff. He referred this to the Engineer in charge of this. Councilmember Cohen asked who would be responsible for preparing the Pond Management Plan. Mr. Pendoley answered the requirement would be prepared under the supervision of the City by a consultant chosen by the City and the Advisory Committee of the Pond Management Plan. He stated the cost would be paid by the developer. The follow-up of the plan would be approved by the Planning Commission. Mayor Boro clarified this by stating the three property owners would be responsible for paying for the preparation of the report and they will form the Landscape and Lighting District. Mr. Pendoley answered affirmatively. He stated the maintenance cost should be low and they might discover the Landscape and Lighting District will not be applicable in this instance. Councilmember Cohen asked if the maintenance of the v -ditch, the runoff system, is included in this Plan. Mr. Pendoley answered affirmatively. Councilmember Cohen commented with regard to the Parkland Dedication Fee waiver, that he felt they should consider a waiver for the fee for the Below Market Units. He stated that if this was a condominium project instead of an apartment project the City would be within the guidelines of the law and reasonable behavior to waive a portion of the fees and give credit for private recreation space on site. He stated this should be done even though these are apartments, because the City does set a policy encouraging building of apartment projects. Councilmember Breiner stated with regard to waiving the Parkland Dedication Fee, about her concerns regarding the affordability of these affordable units. She would consider waiving the fees if the units were really affordable, but some of the Conditions of Approval would need to be changed. She stated she would probably vote against the Rezoning unless some of the issues she felt were important were changed. Mr. Pendoley stated there was not a precedent set in the decisions on waiving fees in the St. Isabella's' project. He stated this was a nonprofit project while the Oakridge project is a for profit project, but there is a request to waive fees on this project. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/16/92 Page 13 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/16/92 Page 14 Councilmember Thayer stated she did not think $1200 a month was considered to be an affordable unit. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/16/92 Page 14 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/16/92 Page 15 Albert Bianchi, Attorney representing Marin General Hospital, the owner of the property, stated this was a very desirable project, but unless the fees are waived in substantial part, the project is not going to be built. He referred to a report done on this project by Sedway and Associates, which states, "Given alternative forms of investment and the level of risk associated with the project, these returns are not considered adequate" - if the fees are imposed. He stated the fees are not minor and are in excess of $700,000 and the owners want to work with the Council in achieving the building of this project, but cannot if the fees are not waived. He stated the project will provide its own recreational amenities. He then referred to letter from Rick Juarez, the representative of the Lincoln Properties Co., to the Planning Department on this project, which points out that the affordable component of this project could increase from 15%, which is now proposed, to 20% in the event that tax exempt bond financing is used in which the requirement by law is a minimum of 20% affordable housing. He went on the describe the recreational facilities and space being proposed as being more than adequate. Mr. Bianchi pointed out that since the Council imposed these fees, they can waive them. He also stated that there was no reasonable rationale for differentiating between an apartment project or a condominium project. He quoted the law that permits and authorizes recreational impact fees, "A dedication requirement is excessive to the extent it is not reasonably necessary to meet public needs arising as a result of the subdivision". He also quoted a section of this same law which deals specifically with the impact fees, "The amount and location of the land to be dedicated or the fees to be paid shall bear a reasonable relationship to the use of the park and recreational facilities to the future inhabitants of the subdivision". He stated that it said in the City's Ordinance, that this "may be waived or modified by a development agreement adopted pursuant to Section 65864 of the Government Code". Mr. Bianchi stated the owners have requested a development agreement to authorize the City Council to exercise their full discretion in waiving the entirety of the Park and Recreation fees before them. Mayor Boro stated that Council had just received Mr. Bianchi's letter and would not be able to reach a decision on this issue tonight. Rick Juarez, Vice -President of Lincoln Properties Co., followed up on Mr. Bianchi's statements concerning the Parkland Dedication Fee waiver and the 20% affordability associated with tax exempt bonds. He stated that when the tax exempt bonds are used, the affordability condition eliminates the moderate level and requires 20% for the low category. Councilmember Thayer stated there was a move in Congress to rescind the tax exempt bonds at the present time from the Department of Treasury. She stated that the City stands to lose this in the near future. Mr. Juarez stated the owners saw taxes and bond financing as the only realistic way to achieve the construction of the project. Mr. Juarez stated there was a problem now with getting enough water for the project and the real estate market is much different now making it more difficult to finance these types of projects. He stated the owners had an independent study done of this by Lynn Sedway. Mayor Boro stated he found it very unusual that a for profit developer would be asking for this type of approach and, therefore, would like to take a look at the rate structure on all the apartments, not just the affordable 15%, to determine what the other apartments will cost. Lynn Sedway, Urban Real Estate Economist, stated they first looked at the afford- ability issue. She stated they assumed that 15% of the units would be affordable to households earning 80% of the median. She stated they looked at the balance of the units, 85%, and what the market rate is based on comparables in the area and found those to be in the moderate income range. She stated the market rate units, one bedroom, were affordable to households earning 86% of the median income and the two bedroom units are affordable to households earning 92% of the median income. Ms. Sedway stated the proposed fees pushed this project below what is feasible. She stated that the cash return would be too low if the Parkland Dedication Fees were put into effect. Mayor Boro asked if the water fees were factored in and Ms. Sedway answered they were not factored in. Ms. Sedway stated her group did a recent survey of impact fees in Bay Area cities and San Rafael has the highest Park and Traffic fees of the 13 cities they surveyed. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/16/92 Page 15 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/16/92 Page 16 Councilmember Cohen stated that in her report Ms. Sedway stated that even with the reduction in fees, both Traffic and Park, the project was still infeasible. He asked for an explanation of this. Ms. Sedway explained that this was infeasible in today's economic environment, given the proposed level of traffic and mitigation fees. Councilmember Cohen asked if this should be put over to another meeting. Mayor Boro answered affirmatively, to review this issue. Mayor Boro asked Mr. Pendoley to review the letter from Mr. Bianchi date March 12, 1992, including Ms. Sedway's letter of March 11, 1992, on this issue. Barbara Saltzman, representing the Marin Audubon Society, stated the Society consistently opposed the subdivision of this land. Mayor Boro stated the subdivision was not before the Council at this time. He stated it had been approved at the Planning Commission. Ms. Saltzman addressed three other issues in the Resolution being proposed. They were: 1) Page 7, Item #7, regarding erosion control measures. She asked that a reference be put into this item stating the intent was to keep any sediment and/or water from running into the pond during construction. 2) Page 9, Item #10, regarding fencing. She stated their concerns about the length of the fence and placement of it around the pond. She stated this should be decided upon by the Pond Management Plan and advisory group identified for this. 3) Also on Page 9, regarding the domestic pet issue, she stated they would be very detrimental to the wildlife surrounding the project area. She suggested a compromise to require through the Homeowners' Association by Ordinance that dogs and cats not be allowed to roam loose on the property. Councilmember Breiner asked since they have offered not to allow dogs and cats in the apartments if this would not fulfill the Society's request. Ms. Saltzman stated this would be ideal, but she did not get an affirmative response from the Planning Commission on this. Chris Craiker, Architect for the development, stated Milton Goes, the Design Architect, Lee Oberkamper, the Civil Engineer, and Bob Danielson were there to respond to any questions about this project. He then discussed some of the things that will benefit the City. He stated there were some items brought up in the Planning Commission meeting as condition modifications, sent to Ms. Bell in a letter, which the Commission "seemed" to agree with. He indicated that Ms. Bell stated the final conditions will be modified to include these modifications. Mayor Boro stated Council should get a copy of these modifications when this comes back to Council. There being no further public input, Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing. He directed Mr. Pendoley to bring back information on: 1) the composition of the affordable units; 2) the issue of fees, Parkland Dedication Fees as well as Traffic Mitigation Fees and an analysis of the material received from Lynn Sedway; 3) rates for the other units, not affordable units, and the possibility of tax exempt money; 4) Pond Management Plan; Councilmember Shippey added, 5) Audubon Society's issue of domestic pets; 6) recap precedents set regarding fees. Councilmember Thayer stated her concern on getting information about tax exempt bonds and waiving of the fees. She stated the second item was the developer's offer to enforce a restriction on domestic pets and the advisability of making this a Condition of Approval. The next item was the chain link fence, whether this should be decided in the Pond Management Plan or by the Council tonight. Councilmember Cohen stated he was satisfied with the EIR, as discussed tonight, including the comments made about the fence being incorporated into the Pond Manage- ment Plan. He stated with regard to the fee waiver, he would like more comments included in the response - 1) the challenges of the Parkland Dedication Fee structure; and 2) looking at the economic situation in a year and consider waiving fees then. Mr. Ragghianti stated the easiest way to make the decision on reducing fees was to extract 100% of the fees and wait for one year and impose a specific condition in the approval, and refund a part of the fees or the entire fees at that time. Councilmember Breiner stated she would like staff to bring back information on the aesthetics in terms of an 80' setback vs. the 25' setback. She asked Mr. Pendoley if the BMR agreement does include administration by the Housing Authority. Mr. Pendoley answered affirmatively. He stated a standard part of the contract is that they monitor every year on the compliance with the fee rate. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/16/92 Page 16 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/16/92 Page 17 Mr. Pendoley stated the original issue was the EIR and the answers were in the report. He stated on the issue of drainage, on Page 7 of the Resolution it provides quite specifically at the end of Paragraph #7, "The temporary diversion of runoff from erosion from proposed areas shall be considered during construction". He stated this should also address one of Councilmember Cohen's concerns. He stated with regard to the question about the fence, in that same paragraph, it states, "The location of the fence shall be further defined by the Pond Management Plan and is subject to modification". He stated with regard to dogs and cats, in the staff report they recommended that it "shall be the responsibility of the applicant to prepare a plan for managing domestic pets, including being assured they are controlled in the common area". This plan has to be approved by the Planning Commission before building permits can be issued. He stated it should be the responsibility of the Applicant not the City Council, to enforce this issue and not have the City Code Enforcement Officer checking from time to time to make sure this is being enforced. Councilmember Breiner suggested the Council could make the domestic pet issue a condition, but the complex would have to enforce it. Mr. Pendoley agreed. Mr. Bianchi addressed the domestic pets issue by saying this also involves the installation of the fence, and if domestic pets were banned this would take away the need for the fence. Mayor Boro stated he did not agree with banning domestic pets on a complex of this size. Councilmember Cohen stated he agreed with this and if the owners of the complex decide to ban these animals, then they should enforce it. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, adopting a Resolution to certify the final EIR for the Oakridge project. RESOLUTION NO. 8632 - CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE OAKRIDGE APARTMENTS, A 176 -UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX TO BE LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF SMITH RANCH ROAD AND DEER VALLEY ROAD. INCLUDING THE SUBDIVISION OF A 2.0 ACRE PARCEL FOR THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF A MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Thayer ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Breiner to continue the rezoning issue to meeting of April 6, 1992, not as a public hearing, but for discussion under Old Business. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 12. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEALING BUILDING OFFICIAL'S NOTICE AND ORDER REQUIRING VACATION AND DEMOLITION OF 240 CANAL STREET, BUILDING C; JUN W. AND LILLIE JUE, OWNERS; AP #8-020-07 (PW) - File 3-3-46 x 9-3-32 Mayor Boro opened the Public Hearing. Public Works Director Bernardi stated Mr. David A. Stein, Attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Jue, has requested the Public Hearing be continued to May 4, 1992, rather than April 20, 1992, because he will be absent on April 20, 1992, and noted this is satisfactory to staff. Mayor Boro asked for an update on this. Mr. Bernardi answered staff has been working with an engineer to resolve some of the issues raised previously by the Department. He anticipated resolution of these issues before the April 20th meeting. Mr. Stein requested being present at the Public Hearing and due to his absence on April 20, he has requested the meeting be continued to May 4, 1992. Mayor Boro requested they put a reasonable time line on this prior to the motion for this action. Councilmember Shippey stated he is not in agreement with the continuance due to the fact this is a public safety issue which is highly visible to the public. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/16/92 Page 17 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/16/92 Page 18 Councilmember Shippey moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, granting the continuance of this Public Hearing to the April 20, 1992 meeting. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 13. REVIEW OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR CANAL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT (Pl) - File 12-9 x 12-10 Mayor Boro stated the Council received a letter tonight from Allan T. Larkins, dated March 14, 1992. Planning Director Pendoley briefed the Council on the staff report. Mayor Boro asked with regard to the flood walls on Canalways, mentioned on Pages 3 and 4 of the staff report, where they were to be located. He stated this should prevent some of the natural flooding of this site. Mr. Bernardi stated the two issues were, 1) the location of the levee, on the Holiday Magic property is private. He stated while some of this area was wetland, there was still some development potential there; and 2) the drainage pond there now, which is owned and maintained by the City, cannot operate if this land is exposed to tidal action. Mayor Boro asked if the City acquired this parcel, where would the wall be placed. Mr. Bernardi stated he recommended putting it on the outboard side, the Eastern side, primarily because if the levee ever broke there would be the same flooding problem as now. Mayor Boro asked for a staff report for the April 20, 1992 meeting on drainage of this area. Mr. Bernardi stated the City has been notified by the current property owner to get the City's water off their land. He stated he would ask the City Attorney's office to investigate this. Councilmember Breiner asked if it was a direct cost to the City to be pumping the water now. She asked if some of this cost could be recovered. Mr. Bernardi answered it was the City's water and its responsibility. Councilmember Breiner asked with regard to the letter from Allan Larkins, how this would affect the Council. Mr. Bernardi stated these same questions were addressed to the Corps of Engineers, too. Mayor Boro referred to a memo sent to the Council on November 13, 1991, in which it stated the City can include this work as part of the project and assess each property owner for their respective share of the cost or delete this work from the project and have each owner make their own arrangements for temporary removal and reconstruction at their expense. He asked what action the Corps has taken. Mr. Bernardi stated the Corps has taken the position that any facility that is there without a Corps permit, the Corps will not pay for its relocation or rebuilding. He stated if it is a permitted facility, then within the standard Corps of Engineers' permit there is a phrase which requires the property owner to pay for relocation should the Corps come through this area. He stated basically, the Corps' position is that it is the owners' responsibility, regardless of what position the City might take. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to accept the staff report. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 14. APPROVAL OF BUDGET AND FINAL WORK PROGRAM FOR ST. VINCENT'S/SILVEIRA OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS (Pl) - File 9-2-45 x 10-2 Planning Director Pendoley requested a two-week continuance on this item because staff needed to address some concerns raised by St. Vincent's representatives today. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to continue this item to the meeting of April 20, 1992. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/16/92 Page 18 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/16/92 Page 19 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/16/92 Page 19 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/16/92 Page 20 15. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS a. REPORT ON COUNTYWIDE PLAN - File 191 (Verbal) Mayor Boro reported attending the Countywide Planning Hearing Meeting two weeks ago with presentations from various groups as to their reaction to the proposed Countywide Plan. He stated there would be another meeting the last Thursday in March for the remainder of the presentations. He stated he would bring this information to the Council meeting of April 20, 1992. b. HIGHWAY 101 GAP CLOSURE PROJECT: URBAN DESIGN OPPORTUNITIES IN THE CORRIDOR THROUGH CENTRAL SAN RAFAEL - File 170 x 11-1 Mayor Boro referred to the report included in the Council packet from Tom Lollini, on this subject. He stated this was for Council information, and Councilmember Breiner will be working on this in the Transportation Committee she attends. ADD ITEMS: I. ST. VINCENT DE PAUL DINING ROOM FACILITIES COMMITTEE - File 10-2 x 9-2 Councilmember Cohen gave a progress report on this committee. He stated they were addressing the need for a new location for the dining room, and requested Council consider what was needed to bring more people onto the Committee. II. UNREINFORCED MASONRY ORDINANCE - File 4-3-235 x 13-1 x 9-3-40 x 1-6-1 Councilmember Cohen asked Public Works, Planning and Redevelopment to look at the buildings identified for structural improvements Re "actual highest best use". III. FREITAS PARK, TERRA LINDA - File 12-5 x 9-3-66 Councilmember Shippey asked Public Works Director Bernardi if, since there was more rain this year, the City will be able to turn the water back on at Freitas Park, including the pond area. Mr. Bernardi stated they will look into the cost and report back. IV. WEED CONTROL IN TERRA LINDA AREA - File 9-3-53 x 4-13-84 Councilmember Breiner asked Mr. Bernardi if there was anything being done in the Terra Linda area to deal with the large amount of weeds, since there no longer were any sheep there. Mr. Bernardi stated the open space was now being operated and maintained by the Marin County Open Space District, and he will discuss this with the County. V. AB939 RECYCLING LEGISLATION - File 13-2 x 4-3-32 Councilmember Thayer asked City Manager Nicolai if there would be a modification of the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) in regard to AB939. Ms. Nicolai stated several City Managers are working with the County on redrafting the proposal (JPA) as well as awaiting Joe Garbarino's proposal (mini JPA). There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 P.M. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 1992 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/16/92 Page 20