Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1994-01-03SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/3/94 Page 1 IN CONFERENCE ROOM 201 OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, JANUARY 3, 1994, AT 7:00 PM CLOSED SESSION 1. DISCUSSION OF LITIGATION AND LABOR NEGOTIATIONS - File 1.4.1.a No. 94-1 (a) - #1 - Robert W. Copple, et al. v. City of San Rafael, et al No reportable action was taken. No. 94-1 (b) - #1 - Claire A. Christensen v. City of San Rafael Not discussed. No. 94-1 (c) - #7 No reportable action was taken. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, JANUARY 3, 1994, AT 8:00 PM Regular Meeting: San Rafael City Council Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Barbara Heller, Councilmember Joan Thayer, Councilmember David Zappetini, Councilmember Absent: None Others Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE RE: LIGHTED BUS SHELTER AND BILLBOARD - File 100 x 4-10-271 Bob Ford spoke of both his concern and that of his neighbors regarding the billboard and bus shelter within 300-500 feet of their homes constructed without notification. He also questioned the safety of having the shelter in the middle of the sidewalk because of the elderly and handicapped residents in the neighborhood, noting there is insufficient passage -way for them to go by. He questioned the City liability issue and asked why they were not notified that this structure would be built. Mr. Ford asked the Council to re- evaluate the need for this bus stop on their street. City Manager Nicolai stated that the decision to allow the bus shelters was made by both the Planning Commission and the City Council and required an amendment to the sign ordi- nance. She noted that this bus shelter is located right in front of the Villa Inn Motel on Lincoln Avenue which already has substantial lighted signs there, noting the bus shelters were put in areas that are major arterials and have high ridership. She stated there is an agreement with Gannett that the shelters must meet ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) standards, and agreed to verify that the shelter meets those standards. As far as notification, Ms. Nicolai stated that all of these were pre-existing bus stops and in the public right-of-way. Therefore, there is no requirement to notify neighbors when we put signs up for public safety and/or install anything in the right-of-way. The intent of the lighted shelter is also to encourage a sense of safety in the use of public transit. Ms. Nicolai said that she will ask Gannett about the possibility of putting timers on the lights so when the bus route ceases, the lights will go out. Mayor Boro asked City Manager Nicolai to report to the Council and inform Mr. Ford regarding the lighting and whether or not it can be put on timers. RE: "THREE STRIKES AND YOU'RE OUT" CRIME -CONTROL INITIATIVE - File 9-1 Fielding Greaves referred to the "Three Strikes and You're Out" initiative which he furnished to the Council. He asked that it be put on the agenda for the meeting of January 18, 1994 and that they endorse the initiative unanimously. He stated that it has already been endorsed by the Marin County Board of Supervisors, the Sheriff, District Attorney, Governor, Attorney General and U.S. Senators Boxer and Feinstein. A similar, but milder version of this initiative was passed by Washington State voters. He noted they expect to have a million signatures in California to put this before the voters. RE: COMPLAINTS - File 100 Irving Litchfield, stated there are 350 children in San Rafael who have AIDS, and he has a facility that has been available for the homeless and AIDS victims. However, the City Council and Planning Commission will not let him use it because it does not have the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/3/94 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/3/94 Page 2 required number of parking spaces. He suggested that since the City of San Rafael received money from the U.S. government to assist in the problem of the homeless, and because he cannot open his facility for this purpose, the money should be returned. RE: "THREE STRIKES AND YOU'RE OUT" CRIME -CONTROL INITIATION - File 9-1 Councilmember Thayer asked if the "Three Strikes You're Out" initiative could be con- sidered on tonight's agenda. Mayor Boro said that in order to do so we would have to declare an emergency. He stated we will add it to the agenda on January 18, 1994. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Zappetini seconded, to approve the recom- mended action on the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM 2. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of November 1, 1993 and Special Meeting of December 20, 1993 (CC) 3. Call for Applications to Fill Vacancy on Cultural Affairs Commission due to Resignation of James Boughey (CC) - File 9-2-24 5. Authorization to Call for Bids - San Rafael Women's Locker Room Expansion (PW) - File 4-1-465 RECOMMENDED ACTION Approved as submitted. Approved staff recommendation: a) Set Deadline for applications 1/11/94 at 12:00 Noon in City Clerk's Office; b) Set interviews for Special Council Meeting at 6:30 p.m., 2/7/94. Approved staff recommendation. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller and Zappetini (from Minutes of Regular Meeting of 11/1/93 only - newly elected 11/9/93) The following item was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion: 4.RESOLUTION APPROVING LOAN AGREEMENT FOR 1 "H" STREET AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT (RA) File 4-10-274 x 13-16 Councilmember Cohen asked why, although the proceeds of the loan will be used for construction of the project, there is no requirement to pay prevailing wages? Redevelopment Agency Assistant Executive Director Jake Ours stated that Agency Counsel Lee Rosenthal researched that question and concluded that with this source of funds, there was no requirement for prevailing wage rates because the funds are not coming from Redevelopment Agency funds; it is City -generated in -lieu fee money. He noted there is no City policy that we require prevailing wage rates as part of this type of contract. Councilmember Cohen stated in the past when we made these kinds of loans, he thought we included prevailing wages language in the agreements. Mr. Ours answered that most of the times these agreements are Redevelopment loans, and Redevelopment law does require it. But, this is not a Redevelopment loan. Mr. Cohen said it was his belief that they make the laws requiring the payment of prevailing wages to preserve a decent standard of living for those who work on construction projects and noted that paying prevailing wages generates incomes approximately of a level which would entitle someone to live in the project when it is completed. Councilmember Cohen asked that this issue be carried over to the meeting of January 18, 1994 so it can be resolved. Councilmember Thayer asked if Public Works contracts have prevailing wage clauses and, if not, why would this be treated any differently? City Manager Nicolai stated that we have the clause for bids and Public Works projects, and we have made Redevelopment loans to many of the projects. Redevelopment law requires it; if it gets Federal funding it requires it. She noted that this just happens to be a little pool of money that is going out as a loan in a different way - to a project that is not in our housing fund, noting if you want it to be a policy, that is fine, but to this point it has not been. Mayor Boro suggested that this item be brought back to Council on January 18, 1994, and SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/3/94 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/3/94 Page 3 requested some analysis of the full ramifications of this. He noted there have been other instances where the City has put up "seed money" on projects that have had community involvement which has multiplied that money. We also have had donations of time and services which are not prevailing wages, and asked what impact this would have on that type of activity? Councilmember Cohen stated that it is not his intent to impose wage requirements on volunteer labor. Councilmember Zappetini asked if a project is being built with private funds and then all of a sudden public funds go into it, how is the prevailing wage broken out? Mr. Ours stated there is a problem with that in this particular project. Many of the contracts have already been let, so some of the prices are already set. Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to carry this item over to the meeting of January 18, 1994. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SPECIAL PRESENTATION 6.PRESENTATION OF GIFT FROM SISTER CITY LONATE POZZOLO - File 128 x 105 Mary Ferrario O'Brien made a presentation of a commemorative plaque, a replica of a 1635 crest and a calendar from Sister City Lonate Pozzolo, Italy to the City Council to honor the Lonatesse Gardens to be constructed at Albert Park. She stated there is also a dedication plaque explaining the coat of arms. Judy Milani, Chairman of the Garden Project, was introduced. Mayor Boro thanked both Mrs. O'Brien and Mrs. Milani. 7.a.PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION OF JUNE 29, 1993, RE: CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF ED93-20, ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED WITHIN 100' OF A RIDGELINE; 91 BRET HARTE LANE; SHERROD AND SHARON HIXON, OWNERS; HARVEY AND MARILYN RICH, APPELLANTS; AP NO. 13-263-16 (P1) - File 10-7 x 10-2 b.APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION OF OCTOBER 26, 1993, RE: APPROVAL OF V93-9, VARIANCE TO FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE; 91 BRET HARTE LANE; SHERROD AND SHARON HIXON, OWNERS; HARVEY AND MARILYN RICH, APPELLANTS; AP NO. 13- 263-16 - File 10-4 x 10-2 Sheila Delimont, Principal Planner, highlighted the site plan which shows the Hixon house and the proposed residence which is the subject of this appeal. Adjacent to that is the Rich's property. She stated that this lot was created in 1981, and when the lot split was done, it was noted that it would be difficult to develop this lot because there were a number of geologic hazards on the site. The proposed house has been reviewed twice by the Design Review Board and was recommended and approved by the Planning Commission. It does conform to the Hillside Design Standards. The Board was concerned with some of the bulk on the side of the house, and the trellis was added to break that up. The trellis is repeated on the front of the house. The variance that is proposed is for the garage and the trellis because it does not con- form with the 20 foot required front yard setback. The garage itself will be 2 feet from the front yard property line, but it is actually 10 feet from the pavement because of the way the road sits. They will have to create a perimeter foundation and then backfill in order to create a flat area for the required two off-street parking spaces, as well as to get into the garage. For this appeal, Ms. Delimont stated she was addressing primarily the setback and the variance issues. Ms. Delimont stated they felt the parking in the front yard was appropriate because it is so constrained with the slope and it is the only way to get a level parking area. The Planning Commission also felt the variance was appropriate based on the steepness of the slope, the geotechnical constraints, the fact they had to define building area when this subdivision was reviewed, and also the need for parking. They believed it was a very well designed house and will be an asset to the community. They recommended that the Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision when they approved the Design Review of this house and also when they approved the variance. Ms. Delimont noted that there were other issues raised in the appeal, and they took them to the Zoning Administrator who believes they have successfully addressed those issues. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/3/94 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/3/94 Page 4 Councilmember Thayer stated she went by the site and had a difficult time visualizing how the additional parking would fit in. Ms. Delimont stated that a perimeter founda- tion must be created, then they will have to fill that portion of the site, so it will be off the street. Ms. Delimont passed around site photos. Councilmember Thayer stated that essentially the garage area has virtually no setback from the street. Ms. Delimont stated that from the property line, there is a 2 ft. setback which creates a pad, and the garage will be 10 ft. from the edge of pavement because they have to create the additional level area on the lot. Councilmember Heller asked if there were any other variances given through the years on this particular street or area? Ms. Delimont stated that she was not aware of any. Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened. Tom Gundlach, resident of 95 Bret Harte Road, across the street from the proposed site, stated that he had the same concerns as Mr. and Mrs. Rich and gave the follow- ing reasons why he believes this design needs to be reevaluated: a. Mr. Gundlach stated that he does not believe there have been any other variances granted to front yard setback requirements on the ridge with the exception of the Hixon's existing garage which is at curbside. This is a 14-16 foot wide lane one way. What the Hixon's are proposing for their new house is 2 feet back from the property line instead of 20 feet, which is an 18 foot variance. They also want to put an 80 foot long, 8 foot high fence which will look like a sound barrier. Behind that will be their house. It will not actually block the view from Mr. Gundlach's house or pool, but because of the uniqueness of the neighborhood, none of the houses are at street side. By affirming the variance, he feels it will be changing the character of the neighborhood. b. The second objection is the height of the trellis. When adding the garage to the trellis, it will be 100 feet of curbside construction where none exists right now. The trellis will be 10-12 feet back from curbside. Again, if the variance is granted he will have a 2 foot setback for the garage and an 8 foot setback for the trellis when the existing variance is 20 feet. Mr. Gundlach asked that the Hixon's house be built consistent with the existing variance. C. Another concern of Mr. Gundlach is the integrity of the hillside. In 1989, Mr. Hixon advised his neighbor that because of the integrity of the hillside, there could not be a sewer easement obtained. This same integrity should apply to the residence Mr. Hixon wants to build. Mr. Gundlach summarized that if proper engineering and development were used, Mr. and Mrs. Hixon could build their house at this location consistent with existing zoning requirements. Harvey Rich, resident of 97 Bret Harte Road, stated he had no objection to the Hixon's building a house on the lot but asked that they conform to the requirements of the City. Mr. Rich showed a photo montage to express his concern of the 80-100 foot long trellis along a narrow street that he did not feel was in keeping with the neighborhood. James Oswald, resident of 59 Bret Harte Road, stated he purchased their home 1-1/2 years ago, and as part of the disclosure statement given to them was a letter from Mr. Hixon to the prior owner stating the concerns about the sewer easement. Mr. Oswald stated that the easement is in place; it was applied for and granted in 1968. The letter advised the previous owner of the house as to the extreme hazardous condi- tions related to the hillside property. A slide occurred on the site of the easement in 1982. Extensive engineering work was done on the site to alleviate future slide problems. The letter also stated that any proposed trenching across this area could easily upset the conditions of the hillside and contribute to another slide. Mayor Boro asked if the Planning staff had a copy of this letter. Senior Planner Delimont answered that they did not but did have the geologic reports that were done in 1981. They also requested an engineer go to the property again to verify the previous report. There are conditions of approval that require the normal submittal of additional soils work and verification that all the foundation and site work are done according to those recommendations. Sherrod Hixon, owner of 91 & 85 Bret Harte Lane, stated that he is an architect, and he and his wife have lived at 85 Bret Harte Lane for 25 years. He noted that the trellis across the front of the house is actually 75 feet long and 6 feet 8 inches high. There are three steps down to the first level of the house. In reference to the sewer easement, Mr. Hixon stated that on the extreme east side of the property there was a slide in 1982, and extensive work was done to correct that slide. The SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/3/94 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/3/94 Page 5 property at 91 Bret Harte Lane is on the extreme west side of the property, and there has not been any slide activity. Mr. Hixon stated that in 1982 he went through the approval process for subdividing his one acre lot which resulted in the home site at 91 Bret Harte Lane. The proposed location of the house was recommended by the Project Geotechnic Report dated March 2, 1982 and updated March 17, 1993. The recommendations of the project engineer have been followed, as well as the recommendations of the Planning Department and Design Review Board including the new hillside design guidelines, and he agreed to comply with 53 conditions of approval by various City departments. He stated there have been two meetings with the Design Review Board and two with the Zoning Administrator and neighbors and two Public Hearings with the Planning Commission. He said he has received approvals for this project at each step of the process and has done every- thing reasonable to satisfy Mr. Rich. Mr. Hixon, addressing the issue of the design not fitting the character of the neighborhood, brought photographs of other houses in the neighborhood to show the character. He stated he believed his proposed house will have a positive effect on the neighborhood. He pointed out that most of the houses on the hillside lots are close to the streets. Mr. Hixon reviewed his design sketches, pointing out that the trees help block the view from the houses above and stated that the row of trees that separates the house between the Rich's house and his proposed house are very important to the privacy of both houses. If the house were moved down the hill, it would eliminate some of that privacy. Mr. Hixon showed sketches both with and without the trellis and indicated the importance of the trellis to cut down on the length of the house, to soften the effect and to provide shadows and interest and texture to the front and noted it is important to the landscape project. Mr. Hixon stated it is not a reasonable alternative to drop the house down the hill, not only in view of the geotechnical recommendations, but the total street presence would be gone. The house next door has 50 steps down to the entry, but that was to preserve oak trees at the top of the lot. Mr. Hixon's lot has no trees. Mr. Hixon asked the Council to deny the appeal and allow him to continue this project. In response to a question from Councilmember Zappetini, Mr. Hixon showed where the 2 foot setback was on the sketch. Mr. Hixon also stated that from the garage to the street is approximately 11 feet, so there really is a third parking spot. Council- member Zappetini asked if the parallel parking was on a one-way street, and Mr. Hixon replied that it was. Councilmember Thayer asked if anything had changed between the geotechnical report done in 1982 and the updated report in 1993. Mr. Hixon stated that the character of the site had not changed at all since the 1982 slide. Ms. Thayer asked what they had to do in terms of the update. Mr. Hixon replied that they were not required to do any more studies. They visited the site to check the basic character of the site, the slope and to see if any of the conditions had changed as far as the visual conditions, but it had not, so he used the same information he had gotten from the original borings. Councilmember Cohen referred to a letter dated March 17, 1993 by Robert Martin who also wrote the initial report. Mr. Cohen noted he felt the geotechnical issues have all been resolved, and the recommendation is very clear that this is the location where the house should be built. He asked how far back is the house itself from the trellis? Mr. Hixon stated that the house is approximately 7 feet from the lattice screen. Mr. Cohen asked how far it is from the front of the garage to the wall of the house? Mr. Hixon answered that it is about 9 feet, which means the house itself is actually about 12 feet from the property line. Mayor Boro stated he is trying to weigh the comments made by Mr. Gundlach and his concerns about no other variances given and the integrity of the hillside. Mayor Boro pointed out that on page 5 of the Staff Report that both the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board did find there were special circumstances, and therefore that is the basis for the variance. He stated it is not a matter that the applicant might not want to go back so many feet, but from a geotechnical point of view it makes sense to do that and the proper way to develop this site would be to grant the variance. Principal Planner Delimont stated that in dealing with the severe geotechnical constraints and the steepness of the lot from a Design Review Board and Planning Commission standpoint, they felt this was a very well designed house and that the site constraints warranted moving it to the street and the design solution was successful. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/3/94 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/3/94 Page 6 Benedict Vearing, 50 Bret Harte Lane, stated that those who are against the proposed house do not live on the lane and noted that Mr. Hixon has been trying for a year to begin construction. Mr. Vearing wanted to go on record that he approves of the home that Mr. Hixon wants to build. Hugo Landecker, Chairman of a committee that worked closely with the Planning Depart- ment in preparation of the zoning ordinance stated he was disappointed in the Planning Commission's decision on this project. He stated there are three variances the Council is being asked to approve: the placement of the building on the property, a 6 foot 8 inch trellis and the setback for the garage, noting that the Council could act on each of those issues independently. He specifically addressed the placement of the garage. He asked if the front lot line is right next to the Bret Harte Lane right-of-way and if the front of the garage is set back 2 feet. Ms. Delimont answered that it is 2 feet from the property line but 10 feet from the edge of pavement. Then Mr. Landecker asked if the pavement was on the right-of-way or was it off -set. Councilmember Cohen answered that the pavement is about 10 feet back from the pro- perty line. Mr. Landecker referred to the Zoning Ordinance which sets a standard of 26 feet as a proper turning radius into a parking space. This refers mainly to on- site parking situations, and this residence is a combination of on-site and off-site. Therefore, there is 10 feet between the garage and the pavement and a 12 foot 6 inch right-of-way which only adds up to 22 feet 6 inch. Mr. Landecker also addressed the issue of the trellis, noting that the Zoning Ordinance allows a 3 foot high fence, or 4 foot with 80% visibility between the 3 foot height and the 4 foot height. He indi- cated that this trellis would be the only one on Bret Harte Lane with such a high fence and stated that the Council is required to make specific findings before they grant any variance. One of those finding from the Zoning Ordinance is..."that this variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity in the zoning district in which the subject property is located". Mr. Landecker interpreted this to mean that by allowing the variance for the trellis, they would be allowing a special privilege to this property. Maureen Miller, 83 Bret Harte Road, stated that she has lived there for 24 years and cares very much for the neighborhood, but wanted to go on record saying she very much approves Mr. Hixon's plans for his house and believes it would be an asset to the neighborhood. Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing. Mayor Boro asked if there is a variance required for this trellis. Ms. Delimont answered that the variance is for the front yard set -back, the trellis treatment and for the garage. Councilmember Cohen asked that since there is a 20 foot front yard set -back and the house is only 12 feet from the property line, should there not also be a variance required for the house as well as the garage and the trellis. Ms. Delimont answered there is not because in the Hillside Design Guidelines, there is some exception language that allows structures to encroach up to half of the required front yard setback when there are special circumstances. In this case, this was processed with the exception for the house, and it was recommended by everyone who reviewed it. The screen and trellis are an integral part of the design, and an exception cannot be granted for that because it is beyond what is allowed; therefore a variance was necessary. Councilmember Cohen asked why the location of the screen is an integral part of the design solution and why there is no alternate design or alternate landscaping detail that would not require the variance that might allow the same affect. Ms. Delimont answered that when this was reviewed by the Design Review Board, they reviewed the screen as a part of the house project, not separately. They felt this was a success- ful design solution given the fact that the house was so close to the road and that the parking spaces were adjacent to it as well and presented a nice face to the street. The Planning Commission also looked at it as part of the total project and it has never been treated as if it were a separate element from the house. Mayor Boro stated that as a result of that logic, the trellis was considered as a part of the design of the house and they concluded that there was no granting of a variance and no special privilege given. Ms. Delimont stated it was part of the design that the Design Review Board recommended to the Planning Commission. They were aware that it did not meet the setback, and they felt given the lot and location of the house on the lot that this was the best solution. Planning Director Robert Pendoley stated that the slope of the property, the geologic conditions of the property and the affect of the Hillside Design Standards require that the front of the building be approximately 12 feet from the front property line which creates a design problem. Because of a need for privacy on this lot, the trellis was a proposed solution, noting there is no special privilege, but rather a SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/3/94 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/3/94 Page 7 burden imposed by the conditions of the property and the Hillside Design Standards. Councilmember Thayer asked if all these items needed to be considered in their total- ity because of the constraints of building on the downhill slope. Mr. Pendoley stated that was correct; that if this were a flat property, granting this variance for the fence height would be a special privilege because there would have been no need for it. Ms. Thayer asked if the issue of the turnaround was contrary to the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Delimont answered it was not; the turnaround is in the parking lot standards and does not apply to a single family house. She noted the Public Works Department has reviewed this issue and are satisfied with the project as proposed. Mr. Pendoley reiterated that the dimensions are 2 ft. setback from property line and approximately 9 feet from the edge of pavement, then the actual pavement, which is approximately 12 feet. Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the appeal of an environmental and design review permit. Ms. Thayer stated that she believes this is an excellent design and an integral design with overriding constraints on the property which dictate the design. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to approve the variance to the front yard setback and directed staff to prepare a resolution denying the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision and incorporate findings that approxi- mate the Planning Director's remarks about the relationship of the trellis to the house and the design imposed by the Hillside Standards to distinguish it from a fence. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: 8.REQUEST FOR STREET NAME CHANGE FROM EAST CANAL STREET TO SPINNAKER POINT DRIVE - File 11-2 x 9-3-40 City Manager Nicolai stated that this street name change request was made to begin at Portsmouth Cove. She noted that the responsibility for street name changes, other than in subdivisions which the Planning Commission handles, is with the City Council. She stated that from a staff point of view, it is not an issue of whether the name is changed or not; but whether if a street name were to change, was there a place where it makes a difference to the City's departments, particularly the Public Safety Departments. In discussing it with them, they said if it were to change, they would prefer the intersection at Kerner because it is a more logical break in that location. Councilmember Cohen asked if the name change was now at Portsmouth Cove. Ms. Nicolai responded that it was at Bedford Cove. Councilmember Zappetini asked if it is correct that they are going to change ten street signs. Public Works Director Bernardi answered that if it went from Kerner Boulevard, there would be 10 sign changes; from Portsmouth there would be 7 or 8. Mr. Zappetini asked if there was any charge to the City for this. Ms. Nicolai replied that the Neighborhood Association would fund the cost to make that change, which would be approximately $500. Councilmember Heller asked if all the City departments concurred that the name change should occur at Kerner rather than Portsmouth. Mr. Bernardi said they did and that was the staff recommendation to the Council. Mayor Boro stated he has talked with some of the neighbors regarding this point, and they were surprised because they thought the consensus was to start it at the origi- nal point. He asked how that all evolved. Ms. Nicolai answered that Fire Chief Marcucci indicated that if they had a choice, it should change at Kerner because the Police and Fire Departments do not focus on the difference between Canal and East Canal. She stated that it is not that the Police and Fire Departments cannot live without it being at Portsmouth Cove, it is just that one little difference in where a physical, logical break at a major intersection occurs, makes it a little more secure in dealing with response times and people's understanding of where the change occurs. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/3/94 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/3/94 Page 8 Councilmember Cohen asked if there is any difference in the cost of the mapping, signs, etc. Mr. Bernardi answered that if the request is approved, they would keep time sheets and charge the Homeowners' Association for the actual time spent. Lee Auer, resident of Spinnaker, stated that Spinnaker has 225 homes. She said they want the street name changed to pull the neighborhood together and give them a feeling of community. She stated she feels that if the Council insists that the name change start at Kerner Boulevard, it would create a burden to the people living in 130 units between the tennis courts and Kerner and would be very disruptive for them to have to notify banks, businesses, friends, etc. of a complete change of address. There are only nine address changes that would be necessary if the street change starts at Bedford Cove. Ken Compton, member of the Board of Directors for the Spinnaker Homeowners' Associa- tion, noting he was speaking as an individual, stated he felt they went through the correct process to initiate this name change and got the signatures of over 100 resi- dents very quickly in support of the project. He stated they were told the cost of the project for the area from the entrance to Spinnaker Point to Bedford Cove would be about $225. He noted that they have already collected that money without any consideration of the street name change going clear to Kerner. He stated that East Canal begins by the tennis court, and their recommendation is to not change anything on Canal Street, but only from East Canal to Spinnaker Point Drive. Mr. Compton stated that it is important to develop a strong sense of identity for the neighbor- hood in which they live, noting that the Canal itself ends before Pickleweed Park. He believed that where the name change begins has nothing to do with changing fire services or safety measures, because they would be responding to the same Canal address as they always have. The only difference would be the Spinnaker Point Drive. Michael Summers, showed a sketch of the streets in the Canal area and stated that the street numbering system runs from east to west. In Spinnaker Point, the street numbering system runs from west to east. Not only would the street name be changed from Canal to Spinnaker Point Drive, all of the addresses would have to change. He stated that they obtained 50 signatures of the people who live in the apartments who would prefer that the street name and number not change. Gay Brown, wheelchair resident of Spinnaker Point, stated that all the curbs are cut away in Spinnaker Point, and she can go all over the community in safety and ease. She noted Canal Street has no cut -away curbs. Jerry Mitchell, resident of Spinnaker Point, stated that the whole purpose behind the name change request was to preserve and enhance the community spirit. He asked those people in the audience who live in Spinnaker Point to stand to show how much support and community spirit they have. He noted that Kerner Boulevard was not in Spinnaker Point. Lonnie Ferdell, whose address is Salem Cove, but her house fronts on East Canal, stated that on numerous occasions people have come to her door looking for an address on Canal Street, rather than East Canal. She read a letter from another resident, Gay Muller, who wanted the Council to know that she and her husband support the street name change as requested because they have had a lot of difficulty with mail, UPS and Federal Express deliveries. Robert Hoffmann, stated he believes the name change will have a significant effect on all of the safety services because it will stop the confusion between Canal Street and East Canal Street and believes it will actually do the City a service, if for no other reason than to serve all the people on both sides of this street. Jim Erickson, 10 Bedford Cove, stated East Canal moves parallel along Shoreline Park. By extending Spinnaker Point Drive to Kerner, there would be a perception that Pickleweed Park was also a part of Spinnaker Point. Councilmember Zappetini suggested the street name be changed at the tennis courts because it would be less of a burden on the residents from Bahia Way to Kerner Boulevard. Councilmember Cohen stated that since only nine addresses would be affected by the change from East Canal to Spinnaker Point, there would be little impact on safety services, therefore, he also supported the name change as requested. Councilmember Thayer stated that the safety issue was a minor consideration and agreed with the request. Councilmember Heller asked if the nine people who would be impacted by the address change concurred with the change and was told that all nine approved. Ms. Heller stated that she agreed with the request because she had not realized that there was both a SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/3/94 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/3/94 Page 9 Canal Street and an East Canal Street. Mayor Boro agreed that it makes sense to change East Canal to Spinnaker Point Drive in order to achieve the identity they want, and at the same time to minimize the confusion. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Zappetini seconded, to approve changing the street name from East Canal to Spinnaker Point Drive at the intersection of Portsmouth Cove, and that the expenses be borne by the Neighborhood Association for the name change. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 9. FORMATION OF A BUDGET OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE - File 9-2-48 x 8-5 x 9-2 City Manager Nicolai reported that last summer when working with the Measure K Committee, a suggestion was made that we have an ongoing oversight committee made up of a hand- picked group of citizens in the community having expertise who would be involved in the process of evaluating ongoing opportunities to save money. She noted the Council conceptually agreed to that, so tonight staff was ask- ing for guidance for what will be the charge of that Committee, the size and make-up, and the process for the creation of that Committee. She stated her recommendation was that the Committee not just do a line item review of the budget but rather will look at various City programs and how they might be done more cost effectively. Ms. Nicolai suggested the Committee be comprised of 7-9 people who want to do this and that they understand the time commitment at least initially. She also recommended that the Committee be specifically invited people with specific expertise. Mayor Boro stated that in addition to CEO's of corporations in San Rafael he feels we should also look for people who have business experience. He noted we should look for people who can perhaps direct us to a better approach to providing more basic services. Mayor Boro stated that we had also previously discussed the need to have some level of employee involvement on the Committee, probably two representatives, noting both represented and nonrepresented employee bodies should get together and collectively come up with two people who could represent employees. Councilmember Heller concurred that there should be employee input on the Committee. She suggested that we have a larger Committee than 7-9 in case some dropped out and to make it easier for them to break up into small groups within the Committee. City Manager Nicolai stated that her intent was to be able to pull in other people for various analytical projects as part of a subcommittee so that the Committee itself can expand and contract depending on the issues that come up. Councilmember Thayer asked if the Committee members had to be from San Rafael. She noted there may be some people outside the City who could and would serve and whose expertise would be highly beneficial. Ms. Nicolai answered that it was up to the Council; however, most advisory committees have kept to the concept that members be from San Rafael. She noted that there are political issues which would impact the members. Councilmember Cohen suggested that the Committee should be comprised of people who reside or have a business in San Rafael, someone who has a stake in the community. Councilmember Thayer stated that sometimes outsiders can bring a different perspec- tive to the whole picture that is sometimes lost when you have a network of people. Mayor Boro said that based on our past experience, most committee members do not know each other prior to serving on the committee. He agreed that a member should have a stake in the community and know they will be impacted by the decisions made. Councilmember Thayer stated that it would also be a good idea to have an Employee Suggestion Committee because it could lead to ways to save money. Councilmember Cohen noted that the County already has a Suggestion Committee. Councilmember Cohen stated he was concerned about the process for appointing the Committee. He stated that the public appointment process does not preclude the Council from seeking out and inviting people whom they know to apply who have a particular expertise. Mr. Cohen stated he is in favor of requesting applications from the public as well as the Council suggesting people. Mayor Boro stated that he did not object to requesting applications, but we should be very specific as to the criteria, and those applying should indicate in their appli- SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/3/94 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/3/94 Page 10 cation how they meet that criteria. Mayor Boro suggested that if there are a lot of applications, the City Manager should be given the discretion to go through them and give a recommended list to the Council. Councilmember Cohen stated he did not see why the Council could not go through the applications and see who they wanted to interview. City Manager Nicolai stated that either way, the Council needed to be very explicit as to the criteria because it is difficult to review the applications on someone's behalf unless there are specific criteria. She suggested that either everybody be interviewed and the decision made collectively, or be real clear on what a person is being eliminated for. Ms. Nicolai stated the Committee should be more than advisory in nature and made up of people from a small or large business with the necessary expertise. Mayor Boro suggested that Ms. Nicolai begin with the purpose of the Committee, the kind of expertise we are looking for, and that Council and staff think about the residence versus the non -residency issue and come back at the meeting of January 18, 1994. Councilmember Zappetini asked if there was an urgency regarding the timing. Ms. Nicolai answered the sooner the better because the budget process begins the end of January. She stated that her expectation would be to spend some time orienting the Committee prior to their taking an analytical view. However, Ms. Nicolai stated that there will be a number of ongoing issues for them to deal with, so it would not have to be driven by the budget process. Mayor Boro stated that he felt the Committee should be in place by March 1, 1994, so the budget would be a part of the education, and they would not necessarily be asked to jump in on that, but at least they would see it evolve and see it happen and come together. Councilmember Cohen agreed that is important because of the uniqueness of the City budget process to understand how we arrive at determinations. By the next budget cycle they would be in a position to make some informed recommendations. Councilmember Heller suggested that the Committee be comprised of 9-11 members, two of those being employees. She also stated that we should determine a time commitment the members will be committing to. Mayor Boro stated that is part of the criteria the City Manager should look at; however, once a year the Council should review the activities and evaluate whether to go forward with the Committee. Councilmember Heller asked if the term resident referred to the incorporated City. Ms. Nicolai answered that it has always been within incorporated City limits. Councilmember Cohen suggested that for the first year or two rather than a Committee, we should have a Task Force and after two years, determine if it is of an ongoing benefit, then we could make it a more formal Commission. Councilmember Thayer agreed since this is on a trial basis. She felt there has been a lot of criticism in the County where some people are allowed to serve on Committees forever and she would like to set term limits in the future. City Manager Nicolai asked if there was any specific criteria the Council wanted her to include. Mayor Boro stated that based on the model used in Tiburon, the Committee was from the private sector. He felt we need to get people who do not work with the government to give a whole different perspective. Albert Barr, co-chair of the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods, suggested that the San Rafael Committee try to get some CEO's as members because they have resources at their disposal other individuals do not have that they can draw upon for subcom- mittees. Mr. Barr felt that to ask individuals to participate on a long Task Force may not be accepted enthusiastically. He indicated that if a Committee were formed with a beginning and ending date, they may more easily agree, especially within the corporate community. Ms. Nicolai agreed that even though the Committee may be ongoing, the individual commitments needed to have a beginning and an end. Irving Litchfield, San Rafael resident, commended the City Manager for wanting to form this Committee. However, he felt the Committee members will be placed in a difficult position because he believes the fuel tax is illegal, the parking district in San Rafael is illegal and spending the money for the San Rafael Theater is illegal. He stated that some of the money coming into the City budget is obtained illegally; therefore, the Council will be asking residents to incriminate themselves. If perspective members of the Committee are told they will be working with illegal funds, no one will want to be on the Committee. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/3/94 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/3/94 Page 11 Ms. Nicolai asked if Council wanted her to write to all the employee organizations telling them that there will be two members from the employees groups on this Committee and ask them to get together to select the employees. Mayor Boro answered, "Yes", but before writing we should first agree on the criteria. Ms. Nicolai noted that the criteria will not apply to them, only to the outside people. She asked if the employees would be paid or if they would volunteer. Mayor Boro stated those are good concerns but recommended Ms. Nicolai include those concerns in her report for the next meeting. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 1993 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/3/94 Page 11