Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1992-05-18(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/92 Page I IN CONFERENCE ROOM 201 OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, MAY 18, 1992, AT 7:00 PM CLOSED SESSION 1. DISCUSSION OF LITIGATION AND LABOR NEGOTIATIONS - File 1.4.1.a Closed Session was not held. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, MAY 18, 1992, AT 8:00 PM Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor San Rafael City Council Dorothy L. Breiner, Councilmember Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Joan Thayer, Councilmember Absent: Michael A. Shippey, Councilmember Also Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE I.SAN RAFAEL RESIDENT'S COMMEMORATION OF NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER - File 102 Marie Woelfl, 75 year resident of San Rafael, congratulated the City Council on the good job they were doing, noting she was praying for them, as well as the President of the United States and other government officials, and presented them with a small token of appreciation commemorating National Day of Prayer. II.CORRESPONDENCE FROM GERSTLE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION RE TRAFFIC MATTERS - File 11-1 x 9-2-8 Sandy Lollini, President of the Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association, requested action on a letter on traffic matters in their neighborhood recently submitted to Mayor Boro. Mayor Boro referred response to Public Works Director Bernardi, who will bring back report to the City Council at the meeting of June 1, 1992, outlining the schedule and timeline. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to approve the recommended action on the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 2.Approval of Minutes of Special and Regular Meetings Approved as submitted. of April 20, 1992 (CC) 3.Authorization to Call for Applications to Fill One Approved staff recommenda- Position on the Planning Commission Due to Expiration tion: of Term of Planning Commissioner Joyce B. Rifkind a) Called for applications, (CC) - File 9-2-6 w/deadline for receipt, Tues., 6/9/92 @ 12:00 Noon, City Clerk's Office; and Set interviews for Mon., 6/15/92 @ 6:00 PM in Conference Room 201, City Hall. 4.Authorization to Call for Applications to Fill One Approved staff recommenda- Position on the Design Review Board Due to Expiration tion: of Member Howard Frank Itzkowitz (CC) - a) Called for applications File 9-2-39 x (SRRA) R-65 (Architect or Landscape Architect), w/deadline for receipt, Tues., 6/9/92 @ 12:00 Noon, City Clerk's Office; and b) Set interviews for Mon., 6/15/92 @ 6:00 PM in Conference Room 201, City Hall. 5.Resolution Authorizing Execution of Subdivision ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8663 - Agreement - Fairhills Drive at Idlewood Place AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF (Subdivision of Lands of Laurel Properties) SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT (PW) - File 5-1-316 "SUBDIVISION OF LANDS OF LAUREL PROPERTIES" (Fairhills (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/92 Page 1 (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/92 Page 2 7.Authorization to Call for Bids for Repainting of Fifth and "C", and Third and Lootens Parking Structures (PW) - File 4-1-444a 8.Approval of $9,400 Contract With BioSystems Analysis, Inc., to Conduct Habitat Analysis for St. Vincent's/Silveira Property (Pl) - File 4-10-264 10. Resolution Extending Agreement for 3 Years With Dr. Michael Sexton, Liaison Physician for EMT -D Program (FD) - File 4-3-228 11.Authorization to Apply to the California State Library for a "Families for Literacy" Grant (Lib) - File 9-3-61 12. Authorization to Close the Library on Saturday, July 4, 1992 (Lib) - File 9-3-61 Drive at Idlewood Place - 4 - Lot Subdivision) Approved staff recommendation. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8664 - APPROVING A $9,400 CONTRACT WITH BIOSYSTEMS ANALYSIS, INC., TO PROVIDE A HABITAT ANALYSIS OF THE ST. VINCENT'S/ SILVEIRA PROPERTY 13. Authorization to Renew Contract With Insurance Consultants Associates, Inc., for Liability Claims Administration (CM) - File 4-10-184 14.Claims for Damages: ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8665 - AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT WITH DOCTOR MICHAEL SEXTON FOR SERVICES AS LIAISON PHYSICIAN FOR THE EMT -DEFIBRILLATION PROGRAM (4/2/92 - 4/1/95) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8666 - AUTHORIZING SAN RAFAEL PUBLIC LIBRARY TO APPLY TO THE CALIFORNIA STATE LIBRARY FOR GRANT FUNDS IN SUPPORT OF "THE FAMILY LITERACY PROGRAM" FOR THE SAN RAFAEL LIBRARY ADULT LITERACY PROGRAM Approved staff recommendation. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8667 - AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF A CONTRACT, LEASE OR AGREEMENT WITH INSURANCE CONSULTING ASSOCIATES, INC., EXTENDING AGREEMENT FOR ONE YEAR FROM APRIL 30, 1992 AND TERMINATING AT MIDNIGHT APRIL 30, 1993 a. Edward Cody Crown (PD) Approved City Attorney's Claim No. 3-1-1612 recommendation for denial of Claims a & b. b. Shucooh Niazmand (PD) Claim No. 3-1-1619 The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar for further discussion: 6.APPROVAL TO PARTICIPATE IN FENCE CONSTRUCTION - 3060/3070 KERNER BOULEVARD (PW) - File 9-3-40 x 8-5 Councilmember Thayer inquired if a fence would help to prevent the illegal dumping on the City site, and would the material be dumped over the fence? Public Works Director Bernardi explained that the fence would be six feet high, and that additional vigilance by the adjacent property owners will help to stop most of the illegal dumping. Councilmember Thayer inquired who has been monitoring the site, and Mr. Bernardi responded that Police Ranger Mark Hedeen has been monitoring, and also taking care of the abandoned car removal. Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to adopt the Resolution as recommended by staff, authorizing the expenditure of unappropriated reserves in the amount not to exceed $2,430.20. RESOLUTION NO. 8668 - AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURE FOR AND PARTICIPATION IN FENCE CONSTRUCTION ADJACENT TO CITY OWNED LAND AND 3060/3070 KERNER BOULEVARD (amount not to exceed $2,430.20, from unappropriated reserves) (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/92 Page 2 (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/92 Page 3 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Shippey 9.REPORT ON SAN RAFAEL SANITATION DISTRICT HUGHES, HEISS RECOMMENDATIONS (PW) - File 4-3-240 Councilmember Thayer noted that there were a number of recommendations in the Hughes, Heiss report about the Sanitation District possibly paying for some of the services now provided by the City. She stated it was not too clear in the report, but it did state that certain administrative costs could be reimbursed; however, given the broad spectrum of the Hughes, Heiss report, it was not clear just what costs were involved. Public Works Director Bernardi stated that administrative costs are those relating to processing of personnel actions and pay checks. He stated that there is 50 overhead charged on the budget for the City, which is reimbursed by the Sanitation District, and added that is about $25,000. In addition, there is a proportionate share in the cost of engaging a negotiator for the modifications to the City's MOU (Memorandum of Understanding). Councilmember Thayer inquired about reimbursement for engineering services, and Mayor Boro explained that is the time Mr. Bernardi spends which is charged back to the City. He added that transfer of street sweeping costs was discussed, but was considered infeasible. Councilmember Breiner inquired if a flat sum was considered, because of the difference in the boundaries? Mayor Boro responded that the people in the Country Club area would be charged one rate, and the San Rafael residents another; the Las Gallinas area would be charged differently, so it would not work. Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to accept the staff report. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Shippey 15.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 informed the Council that this item is a continued Public Hearing, which has been continued over the past few months at the request of the Appellant. He reported that the Jue family, the Appellants, have changed attorneys recently, and that the attorneys have requested additional time so they could become familiar with the case. Mr. Bernardi reported that the City Attorney's Office has spent considerable time working on this case with staff, and staff has incurred some out-of-pocket expenses on behalf of the City amounting to $11,000, to hire experts to review the information submitted by the Appellants. Mr. Bernardi stated that Building C is rebuildable, or repairable, but his notice to demolish the building still stands at this point pending the action by the Council tonight. Mr. Bernardi stated that there are four findings which staff would recommend the Council approve, as follows: 1) That Building "C" at 240 Canal Street in San Rafael is a dangerous building that must be demolished unless remedial work is accomplished; 2) That the Appellant obtain building permits for repair work within 45 days of Council action; 3) All decks serving Building "C" shall be repaired in conformance with current building codes; and 4) All work on Building "C" shall be completed within 120 days of issuance of a building permit. In the event remedial work is not completed within said 120 days, Building "C" is ordered demolished. Deputy City Attorney David Walker stated that he has spoken with the Jue family's attorneys, and they do not oppose this, but they are still reserving their position on the $11,000 and also the $6,000 staff money. He added that issue will come up at a later time, during the permit process. Mr. Walker recommended it might be appropriate to ask if anyone wishes to be heard. Mayor Boro inquired if anyone in the audience wishes to address the Council on this issue, and there were none. Mr. Walker stated that based on his conversations with the attorneys, he did not believe they intend to appear. Mayor Boro then declared the Public Hearing closed. (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/92 Page 3 (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/92 Page 4 Councilmember Breiner inquired if the repair work is done, will it improve the seismic stablility of the building? Mr. Bernardi replied that it will. He stated that is one of the key components of the repair. Mayor Boro inquired about the work on the other buildings, and if it is progressing. Mr. Bernardi responded that Building "B" work has just had its framing inspection, so they can put sheetrock on the inside of the units, so that building is well along. He added that they are beginning to bring Buildings "A" and "D" into compliance as well. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the four staff recommendations, as listed by Mr. Bernardi. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Shippey 16.PUBLIC HEARING - UP89-10(b) - APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT EXTENSION FOR A SECOND UNIT, 26 WILDWOOD WAY; AP #10-121-05; FAIRHILLS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, APPELLANTS; ROBERT AND CAROL BUTLER, OWNERS (Pl) File 10-5 Mayor Boro announced that the application has been withdrawn by the new owners (George and Michelle Huff), and no action is required. 17.PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S ADOPTION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE MAP AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT, TS92-1/ED91-100, FOR A 31 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT, S/W CORNER OF MISSION AVENUE & "B" STREET; BHC, OWNER; KUYKENDALL-CHATHAM, REP.; BOYD PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, APPELLANTS; AP #11-211-01, 04, 10 & 11 (Pl) - File 10-7 x 10-8 Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened. Planning Director Pendoley briefed the Council on the three points on which the Appeal is apparently based, although he stated the Appeal letter is not specific and references previous correspondence and testimony. The three points are: 1) The Appellants believe the project is inconsistent with the General Plan; 2) The Appellants believe the project is inconsistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, in that there are potential mitigating measures that have not yet been addressed and that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be required. They believe the project would have significant effects in the areas of Aesthetics/Archeological/Historical, Recreation and Traffic Circulation; and 3) The Appellants believe that Dr. Eric Scher was not permitted the necessary time to complete statements regarding additional concerns at the Planning Commission Public Hearing on April 14, 1992. Mr. Pendoley pointed out that staff had prepared written responses to the comments, and he briefed the Council on them. With respect to General Plan consistency, Mr. Pendoley explained the Land Use Designation and Policy LU -14 in the Land Use Element; also, the Downtown Land Use Element and Downtown Policies DT -1 and DT -15. He noted that the Downtown and General Housing Plan Policies strongly support high density, affordable housing on this site; Policy H-16, Mixed Use, encourages the development of residential uses in commercial areas. He then discussed DT -30, Housing Opportunity Site, and noted the compliance of this project. Mr. Pendoley then discussed Policy H-20, Affordable Housing Projects, which states that projects with high percentages of units affordable to low and moderate income households are desired, high priority projects. In addition, LU -23 states in part that in considering new development the historic character of the Downtown should be maintained, and DT -11 on relationship with neighborhoods states that a project should be compatible in terms of scale and use. Mr. Pendoley stated that the staff, Design Review Board and the Planning Commission gave a good deal of time to the design, and an effort was made to incorporate stylistic elements which reflect the Mission and the surrounding area. He noted that the color scheme came from the Boyd House. Also, instead of 5 feet, the building is now 9 feet from the property line. He stated that the first design was rejected, based on its height. The roofline was changed to reduce the apparent mass, and trellises applied. The Design Review Board concluded unanimously that this project is compatible. Mr. Pendoley stated that design is subject to interpretation, and the Council has discretion in this area. Mr. Pendoley stated that the desired findings have been explained in the staff report, and they are included in the Resolution. He stated that should the Council intend to deny, the Subdivision Map Act has possible findings for denial. Mr. Pendoley then referred to the last paragraph on Page 10 of the staff report, in which (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/92 Page 4 5 (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/92 Page it is stated that Government Code Section 65589.5 applies. He stated that the City Attorney says that Section does not apply to this project and we are not required to make findings under that Government Code. Councilmember Cohen asked Mr. Pendoley to clarify the restrictions on the Subdivision Map Act. Mr. Pendoley responded that, beginning at the bottom of Page 9 of the staff report and continuing on Page 10, there is a listing of seven findings, one of which would have to be made and supported by policies and facts, in order to grant the Appeal. He noted this is in accordance with Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act. Mr. Pendoley stated that in reviewing these findings with the City Attorney, staff feels that Findings 2 through 7 could not be supported, but the one which might be available to the Council would be No. 1, on General Plan consistency. Councilmember Cohen stated that he is not sure that No. 2 does not apply, regarding design and improvements. Mr. Pendoley explained that there is a specific definition of design, and a specific definition of improvements in the Subdivision Map Act, and as far as those definitions go staff does not feel there is support, and that this project is fully consistent. Mayor Boro called for public input. He asked Dr. Eric Scher if he would like to make a presentation, and Dr. Scher responded that seven people had signed the letter and some of them would like to speak first. Emil St. Augustine, a 13 -year resident of 333 Laurel Place, stated he is not a NIMBY (Not In My Backyard), but that this project should comply with at least some of the goals and objectives of the General Plan. He stated that so far in the process the interpretations of the General Plan compliance have favored the developer and the language of the General Plan has been obfuscated. He objected to granting the developer a number of exceptions to the Condominium Ordinance. Mr. St. Augustine stated that the General Plan Summary, Page 16, Item 2, states that the top range of 15 to 32 units per acre is consistent with prevailing densities in high density areas of the City. He stated that LU -10 sets up some exceptions to this rule, and that is his point - it is a crucial exception which puts 31 units on a 1/3 acre lot. He stated that the explanation refers to the rest of the block as part of the project when, in fact, there is absolutely no relationship. He added that the Planning staff has reported to the Planning Commission that this project is highly inconsistent with R-3 zoning lot coverage standards, and inconsistent with the General Plan, but that exceptions must be made. Mr. St. Augustine noted another example; Item 18 on the Environmental Checklist Form, where it asks in part, will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vistas or views open to the public. He stated the answer is "No", and he feels anyone who walks through or drives through the area would have said "Yes". He stated this is one of the last open views left in the Downtown, and is one of the prettiest, which lends a special ambience to a unique historical area. He stated that the extent and the import of the variances constitutes a mockery of any attempt to conform to any existing laws and standards. He stated this process deprives the citizens of any equality of the protections in the General Plan. He added they had tried to compromise, but have not been successful. Dr. Eric Scher requested the right, as an Appellant, to respond later in the hearing to present rebuttals. He stated that he will need clarification later, of some of the remarks made by Mr. Pendoley. Dr. Scher stated that, in spite of a 250 -signature petition, with additional names provided this evening, he feels his group has been turned away by the Planning Department and Planning Commission when introducing alternatives to the planned condominium project. He stated he has previously discussed numerous significant adverse impacts imparted by this proposal, with potential mitigation, and have argued that this project has many significant environmental impacts. He stated they agree that this is an appropriate housing opportunity site, and have never had a problem with that, but they are looking to mitigate throughout this project. He stated they feel they have been shut out by previous City authorities, and their only alternative was to appeal to the City Council, once the approval of the project was given. Dr. Scher noted that the staff report states that, "public controversy alone does not require preparation of an EIR if there is no substantial evidence that a project may have a significant environmental impact". He noted it further states that, "mere uncorroberated opinion or rumor does not constitute substantive evidence". He stated they have submitted evidence of view obstruction and historical view obliteration, utilized by photomontages from public access areas. He stated these were presented at the Planning Commission, and are being presented once again. He noted they show the story poles in one, and the public access areas in another. He stated that they illustrate the continued obstruction of the view of Mt. Tamalpais. Also, the steeple (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/92 Page 5 (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/92 Page of St. Raphael's Church is obliterated, as shown on the illustrations. He stated that these illustrations do not constitute rumor or uncorroberated evidence. He recommended that a third party graphics designer might be hired to come up with the view evidence. He feels this is not a marginal case, but that there is serious public controversy, with substantial evidence. He stated they have recommended decreasing the building size to one or two stories to lessen the significant impact, but staff has repeatedly quoted the Design Review Board to illustrate the compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, but they do not take into account the Minutes of the meetings of the Cultural Affairs Commission or the Marin Historical Society letter. They both say that this project, as proposed, is not congruent with the surrounding neighborhood. Dr. Scher stated that the Planning staff states that since the parking lot is not an historic site, there is not significant effect. He added that CEQA Guidelines define a significant effect on the environment as a substantial adverse change to any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including areas of historical and aesthetic significance. He stated they believe that the presence of the Boyd Carriage House, Falkirk and the San Rafael Mission make this area flavored with history. He asked that the Council take action tonight to deny the Negative Declaration and require an EIR, based on statements already made tonight, and others to follow. Dr. Scher said there is no question that this is a Housing Opportunity Site, but LU -23 is used by the Planning Department to illustrate General Plan consistency, and this policy states that new development should be compatible with historic buildings and areas. He pointed out that the Planning Department states that the site is not historic, but does not consider the area. Dr. Scher recommended decreased density to 12 to 15 units with a decrease in height. In closing, Dr. Scher stated they have met with the developer's representatives and the architect, but have had no response at all. He stated he would like to work with the system, but it is obvious that an EIR is required and there are major inconsistencies with the General Plan. Leslie Simons, representing Marin Heritage, agreed that this is an historic area. She noted that this street has the grace of an avenue, as it was when there were homes on both sides of the street. She stated there are not enough setbacks. Lionel Ashcroft, representing the Historical Society and the Cultural Affairs Commission, stated he does not think the building, in its present design, is compatible, and it casts a shadow on the Boyd House. He stated the concerns are being abbreviated as stated at the Planning Commission. He stated that both the Historical Society and Cultural Affairs Commission would like to see housing on that site, but would like less bulk. Niki Simons, a resident homeowner, stated she is concerned about the whole town. She stated that the view from Boyd House will be impacted, and she has a concern about the view looking up from the Downtown toward the House. Ms. Simons noted that the Visioning Process is going on for Downtown, and it involves input from the citizens. She stated this is the kind of input the process is talking about, what the citizens want their town to be, and not a monster in a historic area. Paul Shay Shaft, a "G" Street resident, noted that the building would hide the view of Mt. Tamalpais. He stated there are not many places in town where you have that view. He added this is not a NIMBY situation, but it seems an improper place for such a building. Art Chatham, a general partner in the partnership formed specifically to develop this property, complimented the staff on a very complete report. He stated that Planning, Public Works and the Design Review Board have put a lot of time into this project. He noted that in 1981 a five -story office building was approved for this site, but never built. Then in 1989 there was a proposal for an office building, by the current property owners, but the Planning Commission rejected that proposal and gave clear direction that housing, or a mixed use which included housing, would be appropriate. Mr. Chatham added that the General Plan specifically stated that infill housing was desirable, and this is one of the sites designated in the General Plan. He stated it does not seem reasonable to spend that amount of time to determine where the housing should be, and then reduce it to a point where it does not make economic sense. He stated that the result of his group's efforts, and those of the City staff and the Design Review Board, is 31 condominiums, affordable to low and moderate income households. He explained this is a leasehold. He added they are applying for money from CDBG and the Redevelopment Agency to see what assistance they can give. He (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/92 Page 6 7 (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/92 Page explained that the current design has resulted from a myriad of designs, and noted that the Housing Opportunity Site encompassed all of the land from "B" Street to "C" Street. However, the bank at Fifth Avenue and "C" Street has a 30 -year lease on part of the parking lot, so that had to be considered. He stated they considered stacking parking on that site and not having two levels of parking under the building, but that would have resulted in a two-story parking structure which would not be attractive. He stated he had considered putting housing over the parking and making the condominium building two stories, but that would have covered the area from "B" to "C" Streets. Mr. Chatham stated they are trying to have an affordable, quality housing project people could afford to buy. He added that the new design is a concept which does work, and does not connote "affordable". He noted they will be for sale, and he expects to have respectable, hard-working people living there and adding to the community. He stated they will use expensive material, and it will never become an eyesore, and likely would one day be a historic building which others would design around. He stated they could never hope to mimic Falkirk or the other buildings, as far as setbacks are concerned. He stated he feels this is a good design and that the project meetings the General Plan requirements. He concluded by stating he would like to reserve the right to comment on any issues which may come up. Councilmember Breiner inquired if any of the alternatives were discussed with the Design Review Board, since she does not recall seeing them in the Minutes. Mr. Chatham responded that by the time they went to the DRB they had already explored them and discussed them with staff, so their first presentation to the DRB encompassed the building staying within this parcel. Councilmember Thayer inquired about what the cost would be for the five units which would definitely be in the affordable range, and how much more will be added because of the homeowners' association fee? Mr. Chatham responded that the lowest was $80,000 for a total of five units dedicated to low or moderate income. There would be two at $80,000, and three at $90,000. The balance would still be at 100% of median income, about $130,000. He said they had hoped to have 100% of it at $120,000. Mayor Boro noted that the total payment will meet the amount of money under their earning power. Mr. Chatham explained that the homeowners' association fees will take care of not only the normal maintenance items, but also the ground lease payments. He stated that regardless of what the person will be paying for their unit, the amount they pay to the homeowners' association will be the same; they will not be graduated. However, to determine the prices they will pay for the units, the amount of money which will go to the homeowners' association monthly, has been calculated and removed from their income prior to reaching the price which they can afford on purchase of the home. Councilmember Thayer stated, then it has been tacked onto the monthly payments. She inquired if there is an estimate on the amount for the homeowners' association and land lease. Mr. Chatham stated it starts at $220 per month, of which slightly over $100 a month is for the land lease. Councilmember Cohen inquired, does the land lease include the option to purchase? Mr. Chatham replied that it does. He stated that currently the lease is written for a 60 -year period with three ten-year options, giving a total availability of 90 years of lease. He added that options available to the lessees to purchase the property begin at the 30th year, and then any time thereafter during the whole course of the lease. He noted that all aspects of the lease, within reason, are subject to modification, and have already been agreed to by the owners, so that should we need to modify the lease to satisfy City concerns, or finance, legal or real estate concerns, we are prepared to do that. He said that presently they are discussing with the Department of Real Estate the concept of how the land lease works for condominiums, and what we should be doing to reserve an amount of money that would allow the condominium owners ultimately to purchase the land. Councilmember Cohen inquired if there is anything in the lease agreement about a potential price of the land? Mr. Chatham responded that the price would be subject to appraisal. Mr. Cohen stated it is not entirely out of the realm of possibility that something could be done at the other end of the site. Mr. Chatham responded that when they looked at the concept initially that did not seem to work, and at that time the Marin Community Bank people were adamantly opposed to anything being done to the rear parking lot. Mayor Boro stated there was a letter received from Dick Bornholdt, the City's housing consultant, regarding different funding programs, and he had recently found out that the State has very strict regulations regarding offering units to City employees or people working downtown. He stated he is concerned that people would not be coming, (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/92 Page 7 0 (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/92 Page for instance, from Petaluma, and working in San Francisco, and he would like to make sure that would not happen. Mr. Chatham said he would prefer that City workers and other local residents would buy the units. Chris Craiker, architect for the project, stated they have been working on this project for two years and have had three Planning Commission hearings, five Design Review Board hearings and two neighborhood meetings. He stated the first proposal was in January, 1990, and the Planning Commission had turned down the office proposal and was adamant about it being an all -housing proposal. He stated this last plan is their fourth design for the proposal. Mr. Craiker stated they had the two neighborhood meetings, and had responded to the neighbors' concerns regarding traffic and height. He added they had redesigned from contemporary to something which is compatible. He stated that the nearest residence is 250 feet away, and that this is a downtown site which presently is a sea of asphalt. He stated it is not an historic site, but clearly has historic neighbors. He stated it is a housing opportunity site, and noted the adequate parking, and that the building is stepped and terraced, with 12 units on the ground floor, 11 on the second, and 3 on the third floor. He noted that the Planning Commission and DRB had concerns about the tower design, and he has lowered it and set it back. He stated they will replace the broken sidewalk with a meandering sidewalk, 15 feet from the curb to the building, all the way to "C" Street. There will be a canopy of trees. He added that the building has a great deal of undulation and recesses for landscaping. He stated that with the new design it will not be out of character with the neighborhood, and the setbacks will not be out of character if they are taken from the curb. With regard to less units, Mr. Craiker stated that 31 is the bottom line, in order to keep them affordable. He stated every unit will be 1000 handicapped equipped and accessible. He noted that the lot is only 80 feet wide, and if they had 20 foot setbacks they would have a 60 foot wide building. With regard to notification, Mr. Craiker said all neighbors had been noticed, and he did not receive one letter. In closing, Mr. Craiker urged the Council to support the project, as one of their last opportunities to support a handicapped accessible, affordable project. Councilmember Cohen stated it sounds as though parking is driving the width of the building, and he asked could they shrink the building back from Mission and still have the garage? Mr. Craiker replied that they could not physically design double - loaded corridors in a 55 -foot wide building. Martin Malkin, attorney for the San Rafael Housing Group, spoke about the option clause. He stated the homeowners' association can exercise the option after 30 years so the appraisal is subject to arbitration and does not take into account the value of the improvements, only the land. He noted that the DRB and Planning Commission approved this unanimously after considerable review and re -review. He stated that the Planning Department's report to the City Council was based mainly on the views, and an EIR on the views is not necessary. He stated that to have an EIR to take care of the view controversy would just subject this process to a lengthy delay and increase the cost of the project, thus decreasing the affordability. He stated he concurs with the staff report. Also, he believes that the Government Code cited by the Planning Director does apply. He stated the staff report is wellreasoned and well thought out. Elissa Giambastiani, Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce, stated their Affordable Housing Task Force has been working for a couple of years because of the crisis in our community due to lack of affordable housing. She stated there is controversy because the sites are fewer and fewer. She added she does not believe the residents are against affordable housing, but density is inextricably involved with affordable housing. Mrs. Giambastiani noted that this project will be paid for by the developer with no public monies used, and she questioned how much the residents would want to be taxed to make up the affordability of the fewer units. She stated that because this project is an infill site, it should require less generation of traffic. She wondered if, in order to do this, we could reduce the parking requirement by allowing only one automobile per unit. She stated the more units we have, the better our community will be. There being no further public input, the Public Hearing was closed. Councilmember Cohen stated he has been a strong advocate of affordable housing, and there is a need for it in the City center. He stated that any project on this site will have some of the impacts enumerated this evening. He stated even a twostory structure would have an impact, and he noted that when this was designated as a Housing Opportunity Site, it ran the entire block. Councilmember Cohen inquired of the Planning Director whether there is a role for the (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/92 Page 8 v (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/92 Page Council to grant waivers to the Condominium Ordinance or is that a function of the Planning Commission? Mr. Pendoley responded that the Subdivision Map has been appealed as being inconsistent with the General Plan; the Subdivision Map is the condominium approval, and that is before the Council this evening. He stated the Appellant's letter was rather general, so staff interpreted it as best they could, based on what was before staff in the actual written appeal and the testimony on the record at the Planning Commission hearings. He stated he thinks the Council has the condominium issue, including the exceptions, before them this evening. Councilmember Cohen stated that as a result of a condo project on East Crescent he believed then, as he believes now, that the Condominium Ordinance needs to be revised to reflect this kind of urban condominium proposal. He stated he is not convinced that by making exceptions on a project -by -project basis is the best way to go. Mr. Cohen added that he is concerned about the building height. He stated that in looking at the language provided by staff in DT -1 and DT -15, DT -1 talks about small-town character with relatively low height limits and DT -15 talks about preserving views, particularly views out of the downtown area toward wooded hillsides and Mt. Tamalpais. He stated that since they wrote the General Plan, he believes they will have to look at height limits in some areas of downtown. He stated he does not think that the high point of the downtown area is the place for a building which, from the downhill side, looks like a five -story structure. Mr. Cohen stated he is also concerned about the land lease proposal, with this being offered as an affordable housing project and is more affordable than many others, the action to purchase concerns him. He contrasted this with Centertown, where the lease repayments will start for the City after a period of time. He stated that will bring the rent structures up, but they will remain affordable, and generate an increased tax flow which will enable the project to repay the City its loan and pay out the lease. He stated that because the option to purchase relies on the market rate price for the land, even though it is without improvements, there is no doubt that the land price in downtown San Rafael is going to continue to increase at least at the rate of inflation, so there is not going to be any increased tax flow to make the land purchase 30 years from now. For that reason, there is no guarantee, when it comes time to purchase the site, that it is going to be affordable. He stated he is intrigued by the possibility that some of the bank parking might be used, which would give an opportunity for lowering the building somewhat. He stated that perhaps the bank parking lot could be used at night for the project, with the bank customers using it during the day. He stated that shared parking was at the heart of the mixed-use project the Planning Commission considered two years ago. Councilmember Thayer stated she has many of the same concerns as Mr. Cohen. She stated she feels housing is definitely appropriate for the site. She stated she has met with the developers, and with several of the homeowners in the area and has looked at the site and the story poles, and also balanced the need for affordable housing in terms of what the City would actually get with the structure, and she came to the conclusion that for five units of affordable housing, median income, if you consider the provisions of H-20 it refers to affordable housing as essentially moderate income is 80% to 1000 of median, and 50% to 800 of median is low income housing. Mrs. Thayer stated that median income in Marin County is fairly high compared with housing in the rest of the Nation. She stated that when they discussed what the units would cost, she did not feel they were all that affordable when you consider 26 of the units being 110% to 1150 of median income in Marin County. She stated it made her look at the project a little closer, and she felt that the Subdivision Map was inconsistent in some areas with the General Plan and, in those areas, the inconsistencies had to do with scale. She stated she looked at LU -23, which was cited in terms of compatibility with the historical nature of the area, along with the scale. She noted that DT -1 emphasizes pedestrian scale, and DT -15 which speaks of design and the building setbacks at corners, also views of Mt. Tamalpais should be preserved, although she stated she has doubt that a two-story structure would correct that. Mrs. Thayer stated she does not feel that this project is compatible, but she commended the Applicants for coming forward with the proposal for housing on that site. She stated she likes a lot of the detail on the building, and the color scheme, but that it is not compatible with the scale in that area. She stated the setbacks bother her, and the exceptions which would be required under the Condominium Ordinance, especially land coverage and setbacks. She stated she feels the project could be redesigned in some way, and she feels the key is the parking structure, and there should be a way to deal with the parking structure, and the scale, as they deal with the site as a whole. Councilmember Breiner stated many of her concerns have been addressed and she agrees with them. She stated the opportunity, in terms of the whole site, should not be overlooked. She stated she does not believe the whole block was an affordable (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/92 Page 9 10 (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/92 Page housing site, but the whole block should be looked at. Mrs. Breiner stated this is an important block to the downtown, and to the Mission Avenue ambience. She stated she thinks of Mission Avenue as a very gracious street, and somewhere between the photomontages from the Appellant and from the developer there is reality. Mrs. Breiner stated that the building is an attractive design, but too close to the street. She then referred to LU -19, Design Approach, which refers to major travel corridors, as something which is applicable here. Also, LU -34, which covers enhancing existing residential development through appropriate building scale and design, Mrs. Breiner stated may be applicable, but any new development should be respecting the existing development in the area. The overall area should be looked at. She noted that other relevant policies have already been addressed. Mrs. Breiner stated she is sorry that this proposal got as far as it did without having the Council's reaction to it. She stated she was surprised to see the story poles so close to the sidewalk, and would not feel comfortable proceeding at this point. Mayor Boro stated that the Council is supporting housing on the site, and so is the neighborhood. He stated he also has talked with both parties and the Planning staff and Commissioners. He added the issue has to do with carrying out the General Plan's housing opportunity site. Mayor Boro noted that there are many exceptions in this project. He supports the idea of shifting the parking to the bank lot. He noted that the bulk is critical, and the height is critical, and that even with lowering the building, there may still be a view concern. Mayor Boro noted that considerable time was spent on the St. Isabella's project about the impact on one home and providing that individual a 28 -foot setback when under the Ordinance they were only entitled to 5 feet. He stated we should do anything possible regarding the setback on this project. On the land lease, Mayor Boro stated there is a question about the cost of the land after 30 years. He stated he believes all 31 units are affordable, and this is a very affordable project, and merits some support. Mr. Chatham stated that all the controversy on this project which has come forward tonight will give his group a chance to bring modifications back to the Council rather than the Council making a decision tonight. Councilmember Cohen stated he does not know that anyone is served well with this process. He stated he agrees with the opinion that in order to get affordable housing, we have to give up something, and he feels we should work with the project proponents, and also clear up the legal issues. Mayor Boro stated it is the Applicant's choice whether the item is to be continued. Mr. Chatham agreed to a continuance. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to continue the item as agreed to by the Applicant, and have the Mayor work with Planning staff to see if there is some way to expedite the issues and improve the attractiveness of the project so it can move forward to meet the needs of the community. Councilmember Cohen asked for clarification on the process being proposed. Mayor Boro stated that as he understands it, the Applicant is asking that this item be continued, and they will take the information discussed here tonight and see if they can come up with a project which better meets the needs of the community, as well as the Council. Councilmember Cohen asked if there will be an opportunity for input from some of the parties who have spoken tonight? Mayor Boro stated it will come back to the Council for further hearing. Councilmember Breiner stated she would like to do something along the lines of what was done when the Embassy Suites Hotel was having a similar problem, and we had a workshop with the Architect and staff, as well as representatives from the Council and others. She added that a spokesperson from the neighborhood could be included. Mayor Boro stated that on Embassy Suites we had two sessions, and the panel included two representatives from the Design Review Board, Planning Commission, neighborhood members, and the Architect came back with a new concept. Mr. Pendoley stated there were six members, two from each body at a public workshop and at the end we asked for input from anyone in the audience. He stated it gave a consensus of the direction. Councilmember Thayer stated she would like to see the community work together. She stated we think it is a good project and will provide affordable housing which people will own; they will never be rental units, and ownership is important. Dr. Scher expressed dissatisfaction with the process. He stated that the Architect said he answered the neighborhood's concerns, but he did not. He stated the developer was given more time than the Appellants. (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/92 Page 10 (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/92 Page 11 Mayor Boro stated it is not a matter of how much time each side has, but the neighbors have said they agree with housing on the site, but the design is the problem. He added the Council is trying to meet the goals for affordable housing, and do it in a way which meets the need of the community. Dr. Scher stated it is difficult for them to continue in the process. Councilmember Breiner stated the Council is aware of many of the neighbors' concerns and they will be addressed whether or not the neighbors are present. Mayor Boro stated that the makeup of the Committee will be: two members of the City Council; two Planning Commissioners; two Design Review Board members; two neighborhood representatives, to work with the developers, Architect and staff. He stated it will be a Consent Calendar item at the June 1, 1992 meeting, with the names of those on the Committee. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Shippey 18.PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: - File 13-8 x 10-3 x 10-6 x 9-3-32 x 9-3-40 a.AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 2.50 TO PROVIDE FOR RECOVERY OF COSTS RELATED TO ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSING AND ENFORCEMENT OF CODE AND ZONING VIOLATIONS AND TO ADD SECTIONS 2.50.010, 2.50.020, 2.50.030 AND 2.50.040; b. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 2 TO AMEND CHAPTER 2.36 PROVIDING ARREST AUTHORITY OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, SENIOR LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEER, SUPERVISING BUILDING INSPECTOR AND OTHER CITY EMPLOYEES, AS THE CITY MANAGER MAY DIRECT Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened. Public Works Director Bernardi briefed the Council regarding the two proposed Ordinances, stating that City staff has been reviewing ways to cover City costs in all areas of the regulatory operations, and one area which has been identified as not having sufficient legislation is for the recovery costs in enforcement or abatement actions. He stated that the first Ordinance to be considered provides language and a procedure which will allow the City to collect fees for services provided to enforce the various provisions of the Municipal Code. He added that the City Attorney has prepared the proposed Ordinance, which was modeled after the County of Santa Barbara's cost recovery ordinance. With regard to the second proposed Ordinance, Mr. Bernardi explained that, with the exception of the Code Enforcement Officer, staff is currently powerless to effectively enforce provisions of the Municipal Code. The proposed Ordinance provides citation authority to the staff members designated. Mr. Bernardi added that this Ordinance will also assist City staff in its enforcement of the housing laws as they relate to the Council's Canal Action Plan. Robert Holmes of Marin Association of Realtors, spoke in reference to Ordinance "b". He questioned the necessity for providing arrest authority for the Director of Public Works, Code Enforcement Officer, Senior Land Development Engineer, Supervising Building Inspector, and other City employees designated by the City Manager. He stated it seems incomprehensible that a city the size of San Rafael cannot enforce their regulations, and it seems like a police state, and the City would be better served by having a court order, instead. Mr. Bernardi explained that the intent is to provide citation authority, and that a citation is considered an arrest and we would have that ability. Mayor Boro asked if staff was using that term because the Code requires it? Mr. Bernardi responded that is the reason. Mayor Boro asked if staff will come back with the fine-tuning of the process, and Mr. Bernardi stated they will. There being no further public input, the Public Hearing was closed. The titles of the Ordinances were read: a."AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 2 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD CHAPTER 2.50 TO PROVIDE FOR RECOVERY OF COSTS RELATED TO ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSING AND ENFORCEMENT OF CODE AND ZONING VIOLATIONS AND TO ADD SECTIONS 2.50.010, 2.50.020, 2.50.030 AND 2.50.040" (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/92 Page 11 12 (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/92 Page b. "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 2 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND CHAPTER 2.36 PROVIDING ARREST AUTHORITY OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, SENIOR LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEER, SUPERVISING BUILDING INSPECTOR AND OTHER CITY EMPLOYEES, AS THE CITY MANAGER MAY DIRECT" Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinances (a and b) in their entirety and refer to them by title only, and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1615 (Ordinance a), and Charter Ordinance No. 1616 (Ordinance b) to print by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Shippey 19.PUBLIC HEARING - TO CONSIDER A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING AND ADOPTING THE FOLLOWING CODES: 1991 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, 1991 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE STANDARDS, 1991 UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE, 1991 UNIFORM CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS, 1991 UNIFORM HOUSING CODE, 1991 UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE, 1991 UNIFORM SWIMMING POOL, SPA AND HOT TUB CODE, AND 1991 UNIFORM SOLAR ENERGY CODE (PW) - File 1-6-1 x 1-6-3 x 1-6-5 x 1-6-6 x 1-6-7 x 1-6-8 Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened. Public Works Director Bernardi reported that State law requires that the City adopt the edition of the Uniform Building Code in use by the State of California, as listed in the Ordinance. He described the major changes. Mr. Bernardi recommended that the Council adopt the Resolution of Findings and pass the Ordinance to print, noting the Ordinance will come back for final adoption on June 1, 1992. There being no public input, the Public Hearing was closed. Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the Resolution of Findings. RESOLUTION NO. 8669 - MAKING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTIONS 17958.5 AND 17958.7 RELATIVE TO THE ADOPTION OF THE 1991 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Shippey The title of the Ordinance was read: "ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING TITLE 12 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL BY AMENDING AND ADOPTING CHAPTER 12.12 'UNIFORM BUILDING CODE' (1991 ed.), 'UNIFORM BUILDING CODE STANDARDS' (1991 ed.), 'UNIFORM BUILDING CODE STANDARDS' (1991 ed.), CHAPTER 12.14 'UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE' (1991 ed.), CHAPTER 12.16 'UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE' (1991 ed.), CHAPTER 12.26 'UNIFORM HOUSING CODE' (1991 ed.), CHAPTER 12.28 'UNIFORM CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS' (1991 ed.), CHAPTER 12.32 'UNIFORM SWIMMING POOL, SPA AND HOT TUB CODE' (1991 ed.), AND CHAPTER 12.38 'UNIFORM SOLAR ENERGY CODE' (1991 ed.)" Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1617 to print by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Shippey 20.FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE JOB CENTER COMPONENT OF THE CANAL ACTION PLAN (CM) - File 231 x 9-2-43 x 218 x 9-1 Mayor Boro commended all members of the Committee, in having brought the Canal Action Plan to this point. Assistant City Manager Suzanne Golt briefed the Council, and gave a brief background of the Canal Action Plan. She listed the Committee members, and noted they had conducted a total of eleven meetings between February 13 and May 5, 1992. Ms. Golt then covered the key points which were discussed by the Committee, and its recommend- ations on each point. (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/92 Page 12 (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/92 Page 13 The first point was: How will the Job Center be operated? Ms. Golt reported that the Committee continues to support using the Brea Job Center as a model or guide for a San Rafael Job Center. Regarding the focus, the Committee recommends that the primary focus should be on matching employers with job seekers, centering on short- term, day employment services for documented and undocumented workers of all ethnicities, both men and women. Regarding the key operational recommendations, Ms. Golt reported that the lottery system, which is commonly used in the majority of day labor centers throughout the State, has proven to be the most equitable and objective way to distribute jobs. She noted that the lottery system does not preclude assigning jobs based on specific skill requirements. With regard to employer responsibilities, Ms. Golt stated that the Committee supports the concept of the Job Center being a safe, neutral place where employers and job seekers are brought together. She pointed out that the Job Center itself is not the employer. Ms. Golt then discussed the Committee's recommendation regarding ancillary services such as basic English or English as a Second Language (ESL) classes being held on the Job Center site, and that a wide variety of written information on other services and resources such as other employment opportunity information, immigration information, training, legal services, union information, etc., be made available to the workers. With respect to marketing the Job Center, Ms. Golt stated that the Committee unanimously supports marketing the services by targeting its outreach efforts to homeowners' associations, social agencies, church groups, etc. Ms. Golt then discussed the proposed location, stating that the proposal for using approximately one-third of the CalTrans Park and Ride Lot on Andersen Drive has been presented to the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District and is being reviewed, with several issues being resolved. She stated it is hoped that the proposal will meet with the District Committee's approval in May, and be referred to the full Board no later than its June meeting for approval. Ms. Golt then discussed: Who will operate the Job Center? She stated that, although the City and the County of Marin are co -sponsoring the Job Center, this is primarily for fund seeking and indemnification purposes, but does not necessarily mean that either agency will perform the day-to-day operational work of running the Center. Ms. Golt reported that the Committee thoroughly explored three options relating to who should run the Job Center, and developed specific qualification recommendations to be applied to whichever organization operates the Job Center. These qualifications include: 1) Marin County based organization with knowledge of and experience in employment programs and day labor programs and issues; 2) A stable, credible and neutral organization which is accepted by the community; 3) An organization with multi-ethnic experience; and, 4) Staffed by a multi-ethnic/gender staff with appro- priate bilingual (i.e. English/Spanish) skills. Ms. Golt stated that Option 1 is for the City to operate the Job Center, in which case an Advisory Oversight Committee would be recommended to be appointed by the City Council to provide ongoing advice relating to the operation of the Job Center and staff and to ensure that the Job Center's goals and objectives are being met, including its acceptance by the community, day laborers and employers. Ms. Golt then recommended the following composition of the Advisory Oversight Committee: a) Two representatives of the day laborers; b) One representative from the City of San Rafael, preferably the Assistant City Manager; c) One representative from the County of Marin, preferably the Director of Employment and Training; d) One representative from the Human Rights Resource Center; e) One representative of organized labor, preferably from the building and trades field; f) One representative of the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce; g) Two representatives from local service providers, preferably the Canal Community Alliance and the Canal Ministry; h) One representative from the Marin County Regional Occupational Program (ROP); i) One representative from the Marin Employment and Training Consortium; and, j) One representative from the community, preferably from the East San Rafael Neighborhood Task Force. Ms. Golt added that the Council may wish to appoint one additional representative from the community. Ms. Golt then discussed the various issues which would be involved with the City operation of the Center. Ms. Golt then discussed Option 2, a Non -Profit Agency to run the Job Center. She stated that if this method is employed, the Committee recommends an open request -for - proposals (RFP) process be held to ensure that all qualified agencies could express their interest and be considered. She then discussed the advantages and disadvantages of contracting with a non-profit agency. Option 3, a Coalition of Agencies to operate the Job Center, was then discussed. Ms. Golt (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/92 Page 13 14 (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/92 Page stated a coalition or joint project of agencies would be formed, including the City and County, to run the Job Center. She noted that in such case one of the agencies should be named the fiscal agent for funding purposes or the Coalition itself would need to establish non-profit status to be the fiscal agent. Ms. Golt pointed out that a governing board of such a coalition could tend to blur the lines of authority, and would potentially dilute the City's control of the Job Center. Ms. Golt then discussed funding status information, including an application for Community Development Block Grant funding. Regarding liability issues, Ms. Golt stated that it is the Assistant City Attorney's opinion that once a worker and employer leave the Job Center site, the City should have no responsibility for any injuries which occur to the worker. She stated staff has also presented this issue to the City's Workers Compensation administrator, COMCO, who share this opinion. She stated staff will continue to work with the City Attorney's office in relation to developing proper Workers Compensation disclaimer forms to be used at the Job Center. Ms. Golt then discussed the Non -Solicitation of Employment Ordinance, a draft of which is attached to the staff report. She stated it was drafted at direction of the Council, to consider implementation at the time of the opening of the Job Center. She stated that the Deputy City Attorney conducted extensive research on such ordinances, and he believes it is supportable under applicable law. It does not totally prohibit solicitation, is not racially discriminatory, and addresses legitimate traffic and other health and welfare concerns. Gina Matthews, Co -Chair of the East San Rafael Neighborhood Task Force, expressed appreciation for the work done on the Job Center, which will be a positive benefit to the area. She then addressed Option 3, operation of the Job Center by a consortium of agencies. She stated it is important to have service providers involved, and if this option is accepted she stressed that it should be supported by all providers of services. Ms. Matthews reported that the Task Force had also reviewed the draft of the non- solicitation Ordinance, and does not support it. She stated some Task Force members felt it was racist and discriminatory. She stated it is a negative contrast to the positive Day Labor Center, and other municipalities have attempted such an ordinance only to have it struck down at the Superior Court level. She asked that the move forward not be destroyed by even considering the Ordinance. Gwen Davis, a Task Force member and resident homeowner, stated she was one of the members who did not support the Ordinance. She stated the Task Force has put a lot of work into putting the Day Labor Center together, and she feels the Ordinance is inappropriate. Lauren Hallinan, Attorney from Legal Aid of Marin, representing a coalition of day laborers, stated they are pleased that there are two day laborers proposed for the Advisory Board. She stated there are almost 700 of them, and she would like to see more than two on the proposed Board. Ms. Hallinan spoke in favor of having the Coalition run the Job Center, and opposed the Non -solicitation Ordinance. She stated she respectfully disagrees with the City Attorney on this point, and noted that solicitation of funds is different than solicitation of employment. She stated it would certainly be cut down in court, and noted there is no way of knowing if someone stops to talk to a person on the street whether it is a solicitation of employment. She stated that an Ordinance such as this creates litigation, fear and hostile reaction in the community, and criminalizes poverty. Sue Gilliam spoke of the poliferation of hungry special interest groups, and urged the Council to pay heed and respect to their legitimate citizens who have worked hard for justice and are upholding the laws of the land. She called on the Council to immediately enact Option 1, including the non -solicitation Ordinance. John Wallace of the Building Trades Council, stated that the building trades, as a whole, oppose the Job Center because of the undocumented workers and the unlicensed contractors. He stated that, having been a part of the Committee, and setting up the process of how the Center would work and the issues which would come up after the Center is in place, he believes that many of the concerns of the Building Trades Council can be met. He stated that commercial jobs should go to documented workers and licensed contractors. He stated that the City would have the cleanest line of command, and the Advisory Board should meet at least twice monthly for real oversight. He added that many of the problems that the day workers have can be met by the Oversight Board. Mr. Wallace concluded by stating he whole-heartedly concurs (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/92 Page 14 15 (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/92 Page with the staff recommendation for the City to run the Center. Bette Hammond stated she cannot conscientiously support a Job Center which condones illegal workers. She stated it pains her to hear that the Job Center will be servicing them, but will be overseen by day workers, some of whom may be illegal and against Federal law. She stated that if there must be a Job Center it should be run by the City. She pointed out that Brea spoke of the necessity for a non -solicitation ordinance. Ms. Hammond added that Brea had a non-profit agency run their Job Center for six months and the City had to take it over. She stated that if illegal immigrants would stop coming there would be no need for a Job Center, and no crime rampant in our streets. She urged that the Council not be persuaded by others, and that the Council has the last word. Tom Wilson stated he had served on the sub -committee, and they were unable to come up with one recommendation, but came up with three, for the operation of the Center. He stated he feels that all of the members of the Committee will go along with the Council's decision. He discussed Option 2, for a Non -Profit Agency to run the Job Center, and cautioned that there would be various agencies with differing opinions on how things should be done, and there may be problems. Mr. Wilson then expressed support for Option 3, for the Center to be run by a Coalition of Agencies, stating it would be a healthy way to have the Job Center work. He stated there are many unanswered questions, but he is sure they will be worked out in time. John Ortega expressed concern over the delay in the program, and he asked for a general meeting at Pickleweed Center to inform the people about the progress of the program, and now is asking for a delay of two weeks because a pamphlet has been distributed with an incorrect translation into Spanish wherein the Police appear to be involved. Mayor Boro inquired who had done the translation, and Ms. Golt said the Canal Community Alliance had done it. Elissa Giambastiani, Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce, stated she just got the report on Friday and the entire Board has not yet seen it. She stated that if the City runs the Job Center, the Chamber of Commerce would be happy to appoint someone to serve on the Advisory Board. She stated if the Job Center stops the loitering, it should be done. With reference to the proposed Ordinance, Mrs. Giambastiani suggested delaying a decision until after the Job Center is operating, and see if the Ordinance is still needed. Bill Weeks, a Task Force member, stated this report is well thought out, and we know we have a plan which will work and it should be moving ahead. He stated he supports the Job Center as proposed, and he feels that the City should run it. He stated he feels that having some of the social service agencies run it would not work, and he pointed out it was the City and not the social service groups who went to Brea and came back with the solution. He stated he would like to see a broader spectrum of the community on the Oversight Committee, and not just members of the East San Rafael Task Force. He stated a local businessman, local tenant and a local property owner should be on the Committee. He stated with the entire community involved, it can work. With respect to the Ordinance, he stated he has a petition with over 150 signatures, and asked that a fair approach be made to a non -solicitation ordinance. He stated if we tell the employers they cannot hire on the streets, they will use the Center. He stated he would appreciate the City enacting an Ordinance to help make the Job Center successful. Derek Knell stated he is a business owner in the area and had taken a poll, and the majority felt that the City would be the best to run the Center. He stated the business owners and operators whole-heartedly want the Job Center as a control of loitering. He recommended the Advisory Committee have more business owners and people involved with the business community. He stated that this Ordinance is not what is needed at this time, but will be if the Job Center process does not work. He stated most of the people he spoke with do not see a need for it yet. Ignatius Bau, an immigration attorney with the San Francisco Lawyers Committee for Urban Affairs, thanked the staff and Assistant City Manager for a thorough report. With regard to the Ordinance, Mr. Bau stated, with due respect to the City Attorney's Office, that there have been numerous ordinances, in Costa Mesa and Encinitas among others, which were struck down as unconstitutional, with Agora Hills still in litigation. He stated that this Ordinance, as drafted, is very vulnerable to legal challenge. He stated it is against the employers, as well as employees, and may raise the subject of a legal challenge. He stated it could remain as an option for the future. (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/92 Page 15 (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/92 Page 16 Luther Wallace stated he would like a copy of the tape of this meeting because he believes he heard slander connected with his name. Dora Knell, who owns an apartment house in the Canal area, but is not a resident there, congratulated Ms. Golt on her report. She stated she feels the City should keep this process as simple as possible, and just have the Center as a place to go for jobs, and simply give them the information on where they can go for lessons in English and other services. She stated the Canal Community Alliance already has that. Mrs. Knell recommended not taking any action on the Ordinance at this time. Jorge Yllescas inquired what happens to the rest of the people on the street when there are not enough jobs? He asked that the Council wait six weeks or more before they enact the Ordinance. He stated the workers want a better life and want to have respect, and he has 44 signatures to support the Day Labor Center. Janet Beatty who works in the Canal area, congratulated everyone who compiled the report. She spoke in favor of a Coalition running the Job Center, as being more equitable. She recommended delaying action on the Ordinance until after the Job Center is in progress. David Levinson, a Canal resident, stated this has been a marvelous job, but he feels that the Ordinance, as proposed, would be very divisive and very harmful for putting together the much-needed Job Center. He stated he hopes it never becomes a consideration for the Council. Mayor Boro then called for Council discussion. He stated he is in favor of Option 1, with the City running the Job Center, and with perhaps some changes in the Oversight Committee. He stated he would hope the hours of operation of the Job Center would be from 7:00 AM to 12:00 Noon, until we see how things work out. Councilmember Breiner stated she is willing to wait on the Ordinance. She added she had felt earlier that it would be enacted at the same time as the Job Center was opened; however, it is always available to the City and she is confident that the City Attorney could frame it in words which would withstand a legal challenge. Councilmember Thayer stated that tonight they had witnessed democracy at work. She stated there was no consensus, but various people sharing their viewpoints. She stated she believes that the Oversight Committee should be very broad in its composition. She stated that, at this time, since these are new and uncharted waters, the City should maintain control over the Day Labor Center to get it off the ground. She added she would like to see the City manage the Center and, hopefully, put people there who speak Spanish which she feels is critical. Mrs. Thayer pointed out that the Job Center is for anyone who needs a job in the area. Regarding the Ordinance, Mrs. Thayer stated there could be some constitutional issues involved, and she would like to know more about the Supreme Court cases. She did not know what one such ordinance is currently being challenged, and she would like to wait on the Ordinance. She stated we will let the workers who are congregating on the street corners know the availability of the Job Center, and do it by word of mouth originally. Councilmember Cohen noted that this cannot be the final hearing on the Job Center until we get the liability issues resolved, and he is not prepared to vote. He stated that we require people who take out a building permit to certify that they have Workers' Compensation and we should require it of the employers who would use the Job Center. Regarding the City running the Job Center, Mr. Cohen stated that we need a lot of input and a broad-based Oversight Committee, with the City taking the leadership role. Mr. Cohen noted that what is really driving this issue is the business community wanting to get the hiring off the street, and there are many complicated issues related to this, such as fair employment practices. He noted that legitimate businesses are concerned about the "underground economy", where employers pay cash and do not report. He stated that the Marin Builders' Exchange letter received tonight has very important points regarding the unlicensed contractors. He stated we have been urged by representatives of legitimate businesses in the City to make sure that we are not supporting the Code Enforcement Officer as an arresting authority. Mr. Cohen commended Ms. Golt and the other workers on the program. With regard to the proposed Ordinance, Mr. Cohen stated it will not stop people from being on the streets, and he has serious concerns about people being arrested for just being on the streets. He stated his preference would be an Ordinance targeted at employers, and he would like to hold this as a possibility. He recommended opening the Job Center first, and be prepared to go with the Ordinance if the Center does not solve the problem. Mayor Boro inquired of the City Attorney if there is any illegality with the City (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/92 Page 16 17 (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/92 Page operating the site, and City Attorney Ragghianti replied there is none. Mayor Boro inquired if the City would be breaking any laws by running the Center, and Mr. Ragghianti replied, nothing except the Immigration Law. Mayor Boro stated the City's goal has been to address the basic issue, get the men off the streets and get a place where they can be treated fairly. He noted there has been abuse regarding pay. He stated we have to keep our eyes on the goal to have a safe place for people to seek work. Mayor Boro said he has great concerns about the Ordinance, from both points of view, and we should make sure the Job Center works as soon as it opens. He stated he supports Option 1, with the City running the Center. He also recommended considering an Ordinance targeted at the employers. Mayor Boro stated the Council is giving staff direction on proceeding with the operation of the Center, and with the basic Structure of the Oversight Committee. He stated if the Job Center works, there will be no need for an Ordinance. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to adopt Option 1, with the proviso that the Oversight Committee, as outlined, be revised with final recommendation coming back to the Council. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Shippey Ms. Golt stated that the Committee working on the recommendation for the Ordinance did not support the Ordinance and thought it would be divisive and difficult to enforce. Also, Brea does not have a non -solicitation ordinance. Mayor Boro stated this will come back as a Consent item at the meeting of June 15, 1992. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:55 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 1992 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL (REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/92 Page 17