Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1994-08-01SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/1/94 Page I IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, AUGUST 1, 1994, AT 7:00 PM Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor San Rafael City Council Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Barbara Heller, Councilmember Joan Thayer, Councilmember David J. Zappetini, Councilmember Absent: None Others Present: Robert Marcucci, Fire Chief/Acting City Manager Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk OPEN SESSION - 7:00 PM - COUNCIL CHAMBERS Mayor Boro announced in Open Session that the City Council would be going into Closed Session to discuss the following Closed Session items: 1. CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 PM - CONFERENCE ROOM 201 a. Conference with Labor Negotiator (Government Code Section 54957.6) Negotiators: Suzanne Golt/Austris Rungis/Daryl Chandler Employee Organizations: ■ San Rafael Police Association ■ San Rafael Firefighters' Association The City Council then met in Closed Session in Conference Room 201 to discuss the above- mentioned items. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, AUGUST 1, 1994, AT 8:00 PM - OPEN SESSION RE: CLOSED SESSION ITEMS la. Conference with Labor Negotiator Mayor Boro announced that no reportable action was taken. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE RE: SAN RAFAEL POLICE ASSOCIATION LABOR NEGOTIATIONS - IMPASSE - File 7-8-3 x 9-3-30 Dan Hanlon, President of the San Rafael Police Association, stated he wishes to stress the importance of a quick resolution to the impasse declared by the City's negotiation team regarding the settling of the contract with the Police Association. He stated that when you decided to remove the IEDA representative from the process, the Association accepted the move as a positive step toward reaching a mutually acceptable settlement. They agreed that an agreement was possible, and still wish to meet with the negotiation team. However, since the Council took that very positive step toward resolution they have severely regressed; removing items from the table which both sides labored to reach agreement on; and have offered a minuscule pay package which can only be described as laughable. He is concerned that the Association's efforts in this matter are for naught. When in the process of good faith bargaining, our membership rejected the City's last/best offer and prepared a counter-offer, we expected a good faith meeting on our proposal. Instead, there was a second last/best offer which he has already described, followed by a declaration of impasse. Upon declaring impasse, the Association was expected to appear here with one day's notice for an impasse hearing. When they expressed concern that 24 hours was insufficient time for them to prepare for such a meeting, they were told the impasse hearing probably could not be held until September 15th, once again stalling the process of trying to reach an agreement. A quick settlement of a contract is needed, and cannot be stressed enough. Mr. Hanlon stated that last Thursday two more of our police officers resigned. Both officers were trained at the expense of taxpayers in San Rafael. They are going to an agency in Sonoma County. Both officers were in the third step of the pay scale, and will be in the third step in the agency they are going to, automatically getting a $550 per month pay increase for making such a move. He stated the question now is, how many more of our employees must leave here before we have reached a settlement? Mr. Hanlon stated he has one request. There is a form letter being sent out under the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/1/94 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/1/94 Page 2 signature of Mayor Boro. It is misleading, and states that the City had offered a 2% pay raise in January of 1993 when, in fact, that offer was not made until January of 1994. Mayor Boro responded that the error was caught today, and two of the letters were sent out and have been reissued. Mr. Hanlon thanked Mayor Boro. Mayor Boro noted it was a form letter in content, but he has signed each letter. It is addressed to people specifically, in answer to questions they raised. Mr. Hanlon stated that the Association membership is angry at the move which dismisses tentative agreements and is clearly made in an attempt of minimizing the cost to the City in the event they impose a contract upon the Association. He asked, please let us not drag this out any further. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to approve the recommended action on the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 2. Bid Opening and Award of Contract - Street ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 9179 - AWARD Resurfacing Project - 1994 (PW) - OF CONTRACT, STREET RESURFACING File 4-1-469 PROJECT 1994, (To Ghilotti Construc- tion Co., Lowest Responsible Bidder, $488,875.) 3. Resolution of Appreciation to Linda Bellatorre, Retiring Planning Commissioner (P1) - File 9-2-6 6. Resolution Authorizing Amendments to the Marin County Cable Rate Regulation Joint Powers Authority Agreement (CM) - File 4-13-88 x 2-11 x 9-7-4 8. Authorization to Call for Bids for Painting the Parking Structure at Third and 'A' Streets (RA) - File 4-1-470 10. Approval of Memoranda of Understanding (MOUS) with Miscellaneous Employees - Period Covered from 7/1/94 - 6/30/96: (Pers) -File 7-8-1 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 9180 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO LINDA BELLATORRE, RETIRING PLANNING COMMISSIONER ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 9181 - APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO TAKE STEPS NECESSARY FOR THE CITY TO AMEND THE MARIN COUNTY CABLE RATE REGULATION JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY AGREEMENT Approved staff recommendation. a. Resolution Between City and Marin a. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 9182 - Association of Public Employees (MAPE), AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 8820 S.E.I.U. - Local 949, Supervisory Unit PERTAINING TO THE COMPENSATION AND WORKING CONDITIONS FOR SUPERVISORY PERSONNEL (2 year agreement - 7/1/94 through 6/30/96) b. Resolution Between City and Marin b. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 9183 - Association of Public Employees (MAPE), AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 8821 S.E.I.U. - Local 949, Miscellaneous PERTAINING TO THE COMPENSATION Employees AND WORKING CONDITIONS FOR MISCELLANEOUS PERSONNEL (2 year agreement - 7/1/94 through 6/30/96) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None DISQUALIFIED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Zappetini (from voting on Item 6 only, due to conflict of interest.) The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion: 4.REPORT ON RADIO SYSTEM FOR POLICE DEPARTMENT (PD) - File 4-2-242 x 9-3-30 x 4-1-467 Councilmember Zappetini stated his question is regarding the performance of the equipment and the criteria which was put out to bid. He noted that when you go out for bid, the equipment is supposed to work at a certain level according to industry standards. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/1/94 Page 2 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/1/94 Page He asked are we getting industry standards or are we below them, and how is that regulated? He asked if that is part of the contract which says it should have certain reliability? He explained that in the E.F. Johnson (EFJ) letter it appears there are certain issues which are coming up which are not getting fixed, and there are problems which have not been addressed and keep dragging on. He asked, when we appropriated the funds to buy this, was there a certain criteria this equipment had to meet? He stated there should be an industry standard for the equipment which they should meet. Robert Krolak, Police Chief, responded that most of the items referred to in the letter were designed to do a specific thing. He does not know that there are industry standards for them. Councilmember Zappetini asked, are they supposed to work 80% of the time, and is that good enough for the industry, or 85% of the time for instance? Chief Krolak replied that their specifications were that the system would work, and their assumption would be that it would work all of the time. Mayor Boro clarified that the expectation would be that it would work all of the time. Chief Krolak agreed, with the levels of redundancy they have built into it, in case other things were to fail. They would have a fallback so there would be communication at some level. Councilmember Zappetini asked, do we only have a verbal commitment so far, that it is going to be repaired by September? Chief Krolak stated that is so. He stated he talked today to Mr. Bland, who wrote that particular letter, and he was going to talk with the technicians who are here on site before he put anything in writing. He wanted to find out where the technicians felt the system was at this point. However, he said today that he thinks September 1st is realistic, as did his technician this morning when Chief Krolak met with him. Councilmember Zappetini asked, when and if we get to that point, if it still does not work, do we have any legal recourse? City Attorney Gary Ragghianti responded that three boxes of material were delivered to his office this afternoon, but they started to work on the issues last week. He could not respond at this time. Councilmember Zappetini noted that there was an article in the paper about Officer Hanlon riding with the technician and everything was fine. Chief Krolak responded that at that time everything was fine, and most of the tasks were getting done and they were in the process of doing others. That did not mean that 100% of the system was operational. They are still working on some of the items, as he stated in his staff report, and in talking to the dispatcher this morning, Item #11 has been corrected. Councilmember Zappetini inquired, if and when we get to the point when the system is working, is there any kind of warranty or guarantee from that day on? He is concerned that they will say in a few years that it is worn out now. City Attorney Ragghianti responded that one of the central issues which his office is going to be examining is whether or not there still is a warranty which we are operating under. He noted that one document included with the staff report tonight is a document dated in February in which the Johnson Company uses the words "extended warranty" twice. He asked Chief Krolak to discuss that with EFJ later. Right now we do not know, but it looks as if the Johnson Company has extended this warranty with respect to certain items and have taken the position that other items of the system are not covered. He stated it is promising in one part, and he needs to have further documents provided, so he can express an opinion. He added, that is really the heart of the matter, in terms of any exposure that the Johnson Company have, or any legal recourse the City may have against the Johnson Company, if it comes to that, which he hopes it will not. Councilmember Thayer inquired, with regard to the items which were identified at the January 24th meeting, are those all of the items? In other words, was there an effort to get at the bottom of every single thing which was irritating people or which just did not work? Chief Krolak responded that there was such an effort. The purpose of the meeting on January 24th was to bring together Association representation, dispatchers, officers and 6 or 7 representatives of E.F. Johnson. The meeting lasted 4 or 5 hours, and the specific reason for the meeting was to stay as long as they needed to be, for us and them to decide what really were the issues, and for them to start working on them, which is what has been taking place since January. Councilmember Thayer asked which of the items could pose a danger to someone in the field? Chief Krolak responded that any of them could be a danger if, in fact, the system does not work. It can be a nuisance if you are not doing anything critical, but if the situation becomes critical it could be a critical issue. Therefore, they all are critical, because we want the system to work. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/1/94 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/1/94 Page 4 Councilmember Thayer stated that Item #13 appears to be a critical problem, since it states that "Console displays ID on select audio block w/no receive audio". Chief Krolak agreed it is critical. Councilmember Thayer inquired about Item #17, "Install boom mics on console front panel". Chief Krolak explained that in the past the dispatchers had a microphone mounted on the console itself which they could use in lieu of their head set. The new consoles and software did not support that feature, so the boom mics were taken off. It was a convenience for the dispatchers to have, and we asked Johnson if they could do something to help support putting that feature back on. However, that is a feature issue on which they will not commit themselves. Councilmember Thayer inquired is there any way of determining the cost of this feature, and Chief Krolak responded he could not tell at this point whether we would have to pay any or all of the cost for special features. Chief Krolak stated he thinks the Johnson Company is making a good faith effort in trying to take care of the issues which we have identified as being things which need to be corrected, and even some of the features for which they feel no direct obligation to take care of. Mayor Boro stated he knows our City Attorney will pursue this line of thought as we go forward. He stated that in a lot of cases here we need "black and white" answers. He is also hearing that there are certain issues which are critical, which are mandatory, and feature issues which are possibly options but not necessarily mandatory. Chief Krolak also used the word "redundancy" tonight, so some of these critical issues also have another way to achieve the same thing. He explained that if this comes back to us, it is important that we have a full understanding, and hopefully the Association people will work on a full understanding so we are all trying to evaluate the same type of things. He stated as we go forward, and especially if we are pursuing this with our City Attorney, it is critical that we understand these differences. Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Zappetini seconded, to accept the report. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 5.RESOLUTION APPROVING RENEWAL OF LEASE AGREEMENT FOR POLICE DEPARTMENT SATELLITE OFFICE SPACE AT 97 LOUISE STREET (PD) - File 2-9-18 x 9-3-30 Councilmember Heller asked for an explanation of the functions of the Police Department Satellite Office. Chief Krolak explained the office maintains a concentrated presence in the Canal neighborhood. The Street Crimes Unit and the department's State Grant officer have been housed at 97 Louise Street for two years. They use grant monies where possible. Officer Franzini's salary is reimbursed to the City by the State through the grant monies, and also some of the office expense is covered. Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the Resolution renewing the lease agreement as recommended. RESOLUTION NO. 9184 - AUTHORIZING A LEASE EXTENSION WITH CURRENT VENTURES FOR RENTAL OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT SATELLITE OFFICE AT 97D LOUISE STREET (8/1/94 thru 7/30/95, @ $280.00 per month.) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 7. REPORT ON ANNEXATION TO PARKING DISTRICT NO. 1 (RA) - File 6-4 x (SRRA) R-140 Mayor Boro asked for a clarification of the request for annexation to the Parking District, which was filed by Glenn Koorhan for a mixed use development project on the corner of Lincoln Avenue and Fourth Street. Jake Ours, Assistant Executive Director (Redevelopment), explained the history of the Parking District, and indicated the map attached to the staff report which shows the location of Parking District No. 1, and the boundaries and parking facilities. Mr. Ours explained that after the Planning Commission has acted on the overall development proposal, the annexation request will be referred to the City Council. He noted that San Rafael has no policy nor procedure for annexing property into Parking District No. 1. Staff has developed proposed criteria to evaluate annexation requests, which are listed at the end of the staff report. He added that this is simply to inform SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/1/94 Page 4 km SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/1/94 Page the City Council that such an annexation request will be forthcoming. Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to accept the report. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None DISQUALIFIED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Zappetini, due to conflict of interest. 9.RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT - CSA #19 FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES (FD) - File 4-13-37 x 9-3-31 Councilmember Zappetini asked for an explanation, noting that the staff report states that the base figure for FY 1994/95, as agreed to by the County, is $638,000 which is increased by the percentage of salary increases granted to the Firefighters for that contract year. He asked does the City of San Rafael have employees at that station? Robert Marcucci, Fire Chief, explained that all of the employees at the CSA #19 Station, which is the Civic Center fire station, are San Rafael employees. He added that several years ago the City and the County entered into an agreement on the funding of CSA #19. He noted there are other areas in CSA #19, such as Bayside Acres, Country Club and California Park, which are not serviced by that station, but by other fire stations. He stated that the City entered into an agreement with the County and arrived at a base figure which is increased each year predicated on the whole budget, not just the salary portion but also the capital outlay and supplies and services. It is increased predicated on the cost of living increase given to the firefighters each year. Councilmember Zappetini clarified that the $638,000 is paid by the County, by a special tax. Chief Marcucci agreed, stating it is paid by the residents of CSA #19, the unincorporated area, through the special tax which has just been passed for another four years. The County pays the City, and this year it is $638,000. Councilmember Zappetini moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the Resolution authorizing the signing of the Joint Powers Agreement for CSA #19 Fire Protection Services. RESOLUTION NO. 9185 - AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF A CONTRACT, LEASE OR AGREEMENT (JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT, CSA #19 FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES AMENDMENT THROUGH JUNE 30, 1998) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SPECIAL PRESENTATION 11. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO LINDA BELLATORRE, RETIRING PLANNING COMMISSIONER (P1) - File 9-2-6 Mayor Boro read the Resolution of Appreciation, which cited the diligence with which Mrs. Bellatorre pursued her duties as a Planning Commissioner, including a term as Chairman, and noting that she had been a member of the Hillside Design Guidelines Committee, as well as the Downtown Vision Committee, and thanking her for her many hours of public service spent on behalf of the City. Mrs. Bellatorre thanked the Council and staff, and stated she had enjoyed her tour as Commissioner. 12.CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - TO CONSIDER PROPOSED ASSESSMENT INCREASE RE BAYPOINT LAGOONS LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT: (PW) - File 6-48 x 5-1-292 x 4-10-252 a. AMENDED ENGINEER'S ANNUAL REPORT - TO BE FILED. b. RESOLUTION ABANDONING PROPOSED INCREASED ASSESSMENT, CONFIRMING AMENDED ENGINEER'S ANNUAL REPORT AND LEVYING AMENDED ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994/95. C. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF AN AGREEMENT WITH WESCO TO CONDUCT 1994 PHASE II BIOLOGICAL MONITORING OF THE SPINNAKER LAGOON. d. AUTHORIZE THE INCLUSION OF A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE BAYPOINT LAGOONS HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION TO SIT ON THE SPINNAKER LAGOON WETLANDS ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Mayor Boro declared the continued Public Hearing opened at this point. He asked for a report from staff. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/1/94 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/1/94 Page David Bernardi, Public Works Director, briefed the Council, stating that at the last Council meeting staff brought forward the information presented under the Landscaping and Lighting District for Baypoint Lagoons, with the protest of the developer attached. That action created a condition where owners of over 60% of property in the District were protesting it. He stated that Legal Counsel Edwin Ness, who is present, has advised us that this protest cannot be overruled by the City Council. Therefore, the project has been scaled back to its original last year's number, to eliminate the protest and the increase in cost. As a result of that, the monitoring plan which was recommended in the 1994 proposal will be scaled back to the 1993 levels. The other issues raised were whether or not the homeowners had this information disclosed to them, and whether this is only going to be in effect for three years. To date, we have not received anything from the homeowners to show this, so as far as we are concerned this is a permanent requirement, as required by the Planning Commission and City Council under the Tentative Map. Mayor Boro stated he read that in the staff report, and assumes that means the owners have shown that they have made disclosures. He asked has staff confirmed that, and Mr. Bernardi responded that is correct. Mr. Bernardi continued, the other issue is the selection of the consultant. One of the reasons why WESCO was selected is because they were the original Environmental Impact Report (EIR) consultants, and during the process of the preparation of the EIR and the preparation of the original monitoring plan they had done the work, and it was felt that it was logical and cost effective to use that firm as the monitoring firm as the monitoring of the wetlands was to continue. With regard to selecting another consultant, it can be done; however, one of the issues it is important to remember is that this District has to support itself so that no City staff time is spent on it. That was one of the desires of the City Council when this project was originally approved. As a result of that, if we decide not to use WESCO this year or next year, we will have to add some money to the District in order to fund the consultant time to prepare the Request for Proposals (RFPs) and then sufficient time to have someone come in and evaluate the proposals and make a recommendation to the City Council. Staff has estimated that would cost between $3,000 and $5,000 to have all of that work performed. Mr. Bernardi concluded by stating that staff is recommending tonight that the funding levels remain the same, and that the consultants, WESCO, continue to do the monitoring as detailed in the Monitoring Plan. Councilmember Zappetini inquired if we know whether there are other people out there who can do the WESCO job, and what their rates are? Mr. Bernardi replied there are other firms out there who do the same kind of work, but he does not know what their rates would be compared to the scope of work WESCO is currently doing. Staff would have to prepare a scope of work, describing what the City would want them to propose, as far as their costs are concerned, and then we would have to compare the two or three proposals and see how they work with each other. Councilmember Cohen noted that WESCO has done other work for the City, and he assumes that at some point there has been an opportunity to compare their proposals to other proposals, and as a result of that process we have selected WESCO. Mr. Bernardi replied that is correct, and also during the EIR process there were other environmental consultants who were reviewed and WESCO was selected as being the most responsive as well as the most qualified. Councilmember Thayer stated she remembers asking that same question several years ago, in Phase I. Councilmember Heller asked for an explanation of the 60% of the homeowners protesting, and whether 50% of the homeowners protesting would trigger this action? Edwin Ness, Legal Counsel, stated that anything over 50% would constitute a majority. He explained it is land, not people. Mayor Boro inquired, if that vote can be exercised to affect an increase, which has happened here, and therefore the increase will not go forward. But it is his understanding that what has been established will continue even if a majority of the people decide they do not want to do it; that is a condition which goes with the land, and asked is that correct? Mr. Ness agreed, adding that you could have 100% protest and you would stay with what you have. There being no public input, the Public Hearing was closed. Councilmember Zappetini stated it seems strange that WESCO is asking for an increase, and then when they do not get their increase they still want the contract. Mr. Bernardi explained that the scope of work expanded, and one of the things they were doing, for example, is explained on page 2 of the staff report. They were going to do water SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/1/94 Page 6 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/1/94 Page sampling 4 times per month in the pond, and now they are only going to do it once a month. They will eliminate monitoring the landscaping with native plants and exotic species eradication, which was a program which eventually had to get implemented. Also, there were a number of reports which had to be filed; they were going to file two reports, a semi-annual and an annual report, and now they are going to file only an annual report. By not doing those other tasks they basically reduced the cost to what it was last year, and will do exactly what they did last year. Councilmember Zappetini asked was there a criteria or rule set down which said they had to do two a year, and now that they do not have the money they are going to only one a year? Mr. Bernardi responded that as far as the water quality monitoring is concerned there were a number of issues raised during the course of their analysis of the pond. They felt that because of the seasonal changes out there that they really needed to take more samples than just once a month, and staff felt that given what monitoring they were doing that was appropriate. However, given the protest of the property owners, we are not going to get that fine an analysis of the pond water, since they will be doing it only once a month instead of 4 times a month. The level of analysis is going to be reduced. Councilmember Zappetini inquired if that will create a problem, and Mr. Bernardi replied that is one of the issues we will have to deal with. You do not have the luxury of being able to go out and monitor it 4 times and take samples and do the analysis. The result will be that we have less information with which to base our analysis of how the open space and the wetlands are faring. Councilmember Zappetini noted that the City does not have any liability, and Mr. Bernardi responded that is correct. Councilmember Heller asked will we be reviewing this again in 12 months or when the contract is up? Mr. Bernardi responded that if the Council wants staff to prepare proposals for next year they will do it, and Councilmember Heller stated we would then have to go through the same process, and Mr. Bernardi agreed that every year we have to go through the process, whether we pick a new consultant or stay with this one. Councilmember Heller clarified that would be the case even if we stayed at the same level of service, we would still have to go through the process, and Mr. Bernardi replied that is correct. He stated that is in the by-laws of the District, that the fee has to be set annually. Councilmember Zappetini inquired, if the home- owners are always going to vote against an increase, how are you going to handle it? Mr. Bernardi replied we will continue with the monitoring which we have, and do the best we can with the information we develop with that level of monitoring. Council - member Zappetini noted that if the cost of monitoring goes up, the monitoring will continue to be cut back. Mayor Boro agreed that is a possibility. He stated that if there is another agency outside of the City which is interested in this, and the homeowners are concerned about it, at some point they will come to the City and we will have to address that issue, but staff is saying that at least we can give the same level of monitoring that we have this past year and stay on top of this. Mr. Bernardi replied that is correct, and the monitoring level which is proposed complies with the standards which were set up in the original EIR. Councilmember Cohen inquired, if next year we were negotiating this issue of changing consultants, according to the staff report we would have to add $3,000 to $5,000 which would be subject to veto by the property owners? Mr. Bernardi agreed that is a scenario which could occur. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to adopt the Resolution abandoning the proposed increased assessment, confirming the amended Engineer's Annual Report and levying the amended assessment for FY 1994/95. a. AMENDED ENGINEER'S ANNUAL REPORT - Filed b. RESOLUTION NO. 9186 - ABANDONING PROPOSED INCREASED ASSESSMENT, CONFIRMING AMENDED ENGINEER'S ANNUAL REPORT AND LEVYING AMENDED ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994/95, BAYPOINT LAGOONS LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT (Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Zappetini seconded, to adopt the Resolution authorizing the signing of an agreement with WESCO. C. RESOLUTION NO. 9187 - AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF AN AGREEMENT WITH WESCO TO CONDUCT 1994 PHASE II BIOLOGICAL MONITORING OF THE SPINNAKER LAGOON SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/1/94 Page 7 Rl SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/1/94 Page AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None d.Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to authorize inclusion of a representative from Baypoint Lagoons Homeowners' Association to sit on the Spinnaker Lagoon Wetlands Advisory Committee. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 13.PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65865.1 (SMITH RANCH HOMES DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT) (CA) - File 5-1-290 x 9-3-16 City Attorney Ragghianti explained to the Council that this is an annual request by the owner of Lot 12 at Smith Ranch, the site of the Smith Ranch Retirement Residences, for a Certificate of Compliance pursuant to the applicable section of the California Government Code which deals with annual statements made to public entities when a Development Agreement has been entered into. He explained that a Development Agreement was entered into in June of 1985, and this particular request is now almost procedural rather than substantive, since the properties have been built out and the statement submitted in support of it simply indicates that they are actively market- ing the units at the present time. He noted that Mr. Thomas Feldstein, representative for the owners, is present in case the Council has any questions. Mr. Ragghianti inquired about the expiration date of the Development Agreement, and attorney Feldstein stated it will expire in March of 1999. Councilmember Heller inquired if the Council will review this every year until March of 1999, with probably no changes being made to it? Mr. Ragghianti replied that Mr. Feldstein can respond, and explained that when it was three parcels there were many changes. Now there is only the one parcel, Lot 12, which is the site of the retirement complex which is being marketed, and their efforts in that respect are ongoing. The other two parcels have been split off, and previous conduct of the Council has made it unnecessary to review them here. This relates only to Lot 12, which is the site of the retirement residences. Councilmember Thayer stated her remarks have nothing to do with the resolution before the Council tonight, which has her support. However, she has always been concerned that those termination agreements allowed the original principals of that project - she would not use such strong language as "abdicated responsibility" - but it certainly attenuated the responsibility for the affordable housing at McInnis Park Apartments about which she was concerned. She felt that was the purpose of those previous agreements. She noted that when Mrs. Breiner was on the Council she shared the same concern with regard to the skilled nursing facility, in that there was always that expectation when this Council, or previous members on this Council, allowed this project to be built, that was an inbuilt feature of the project itself. As it turns out, it was turned over to another concern, so people who go to the retirement center may think the skilled nursing facility is part and parcel of their agreement, which it is not. She stated this has always bothered her. She often wonders if this Council should have agreed to those termination agreements for that reason. She noted there were 400 units allowed at the apartment site, in return for some things which this Council really wanted, and one was affordable housing. She has heard there were problems at the McInnis Park Apartments and wondered whether the principals who are here tonight are no longer responsible for it. Mayor Boro stated that is a rhetorical question, because three Councilmembers who are present voted on this and accepted it. Mr. Ragghianti stated there is nothing which can be done about it. Mr. Ragghianti noted this issue was the subject of a lengthy hearing, and both Councilmember Thayer and Mrs. Breiner were very vociferous in that regard. Nevertheless, there was a vote in December of 1993 to terminate. Councilmember Cohen noted there will be a separate hearing on the Certificate of Compliance for Lot 5B, which is the affordable housing, so if there is some problem we will have an opportunity to address it. Mr. Ragghianti stated they are required to make application in a similar fashion each year. Mayor Boro noted that Mr. Dick Bornholdt usually addresses the Council on that issue. Councilmember Thayer stated that her concern is whether the affordability factor is preserved. Mayor Boro noted that issue is not before us tonight, but the issue of compliance on Lot 12 with the main development. That is all we can deal with tonight. We have taken action on the other two items at prior times, and have the ability to monitor the affordability of the apartments when they come in each year for review. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/1/94 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/1/94 Page Councilmember Cohen noted this has presumably become increasingly procedural, and will for the next several years. Could this be a Consent Calendar item, unless someone takes it off? Mr. Ragghianti replied that it could. Councilmember Cohen then requested that next year when this issue comes back, that it be put on the Consent Calendar. There being no public input, the Public Hearing was closed. Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the Resolution authorizing issuance of a Certificate of Compliance for Lot 12, Smith Ranch Homes, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65865.1. RESOLUTION NO. 9188 - AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65865.1 (SMITH RANCH HOMES DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT) (Re Lot 12) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 14.PUBLIC HEARING - TO CONSIDER ZONE CHANGE, USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND TRIP PERMIT TO ALLOW SMALL ITEM RETAIL USE AT THE MARIN HOME CENTER, 530 W. FRANCISCO BLVD.; AP 13-051-06 & 20 (P1) - File 10-3 x 10-5 x 10-7 Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened. Robert Pendoley, Planning Director, briefed the Council, stating this is an amendment to a Planned District originally approved in 1984. It would expand the range of allowed retail sales at the Center to permit up to 40% of the site to sell small item retail goods; previously it was limited to bulk retail sales only. Also included is a trip permit which would facilitate the additional sales activity, and commensurate amendments to the existing use permit. It was recommended unanimously by all 5 members of the Planning Commission present at last Tuesday's meeting. Also included is the Negative Declaration which briefly studied traffic and parking issues, and found that those potential impacts would be mitigated. Mr. Pendoley added that an outstanding issue has to do with payment of the traffic mitigation fees. The applicants have requested that they be allowed a deferred payment schedule. There is a good deal of precedence for this, and staff recommends favorable consideration. Councilmember Thayer asked for an explanation of the parking situation. Mr. Pendoley explained that the facility was originally built and approved with 138 spaces. As the Council is aware, CalTrans has plans to someday widen Highway 101, which will result in a take of up to 55 feet. At least theoretically, this will result in the loss of 39 spaces. This property, as is true for all other properties approved for development in the past 10 years or so in this area, would be required to come in and amend their existing permits to accommodate the revised plans on parking schemes. Mr. Pendoley noted that some additional parking could be provided on this site, but staff has not concluded how many additional spaces could be accommodated. Some properties in the area will have a problem, while others will not. The various properties will have to be judged on a case-by-case basis. For a larger property such as this, we will require a parking study, rather than just relying on the formula in the Zoning Ordinance. Councilmember Thayer noted the problem she has with parking at the Montecito Shopping Center. Mr. Pendoley responded that is an entirely different situation. They received a parking variance in the early 60's, under very different conditions. Councilmember Zappetini noted the deli area will be 1,000 square feet, and asked is there a limit to the sizes of the other tenants. Mr. Pendoley said there is not, but the property owner has flexibility as to how big he makes the various units; it is simply limited by the overall gross square footage. Councilmember Heller asked about the traffic mitigation fees, noting that we apparently at one time returned the traffic mitigation fees to the property owner, and now that we are permitting this use we are asking that money be returned to us on a monthly basis. Mr. Pendoley replied it would not necessarily be monthly, but they will be required to pay an additional fee because they will be generating more traffic. Mayor Boro explained it is not paying back the money, it will be more money, because they are intensifying the use. Ms. Anne Moore, Planning Consultant, representing the property owners, thanked Mr. Pendoley and his staff for assisting them in making various modifications to the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/1/94 Page 9 10 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/1/94 Page original application, which has been recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. She added they are in agreement with all of the recommended conditions. Regarding the matter of possible loss of future parking at the time of the Highway 101 take, the adjacent property to the northwest has a building within the take area, which will be substantially modified, and it is very likely that the best way to solve the parking situation for this site would be to combine with that adjacent property. She thinks the property owner would consider that. Otherwise there would have to be some modification between the large item and small item retail, to ensure the parking requirement would continue to be met. There being no further public input, the Public Hearing was closed. Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the Negative Declaration for this project. RESOLUTION NO. 9189 - ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING A MASTER USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND TRIP PERMIT FOR THE MARIN HOME CENTER, 530 FRANCISCO BOULEVARD WEST (AP 13-051-06 & 20) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTED BY REFERENCE BY SECTION 14.01.020 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA, SO AS TO RECLASSIFY CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FROM THE PD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT TO THE PD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT (RE Z94-3, MARIN HOME CENTER, 530 FRANCISCO BOULEVARD WEST, AP NOS. 13-051-06 & 20)" 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. 1666 to print by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 15.EXTENSION OF TIME AND STATUS REPORT FOR SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS - BAYWOOD TERRACE SUBDIVISION (PW) - File 5-1-314 x 9-3-40 Councilmember Cohen stated that in discussions with the City Attorney he does not believe that he has an actual conflict of interest on this item, but in order to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest he will continue his practice of removing himself from the discussion. Mayor Boro stated that the same situation exists for Councilmember Zappetini. Councilmembers Cohen and Zappetini left the meeting. David Bernardi, Public Works Director, stated that at Council's request staff has reviewed the status of the work remaining to be completed as required by the conditions of approval for the Tentative Map for this subdivision. Planning and Public Works staff have visited the site recently and found that the only items of work remaining to be completed are what are described as Phase I and Phase II landscaping. He explained that Phase II landscaping is some of the common area landscaping, and the Phase II landscaping regards the landscaping of the individual properties. The Phase II landscaping was not to be completed until each of the properties was to be developed, and that would be handled under the building permit process. The other question that was asked, was should the Council extend the agreement with the developer. Mr. Bernardi explained that the main purpose of the agreement is to provide guarantees of the completion of the subdivision improvements as required under the Tentative Map. Since the subdivision improvements, although not very large in dollar volume, have not yet been completed, staff would recommend that the Council continue to keep those documents in effect. If they choose not to, it would relieve the developer of any responsibility under the Subdivision Agreement. This way, in essence, we have a "hook" that we can call the bond if we have to, to complete the landscaping for sure in Phase I, and as the properties are developed for the Phase II landscaping. Mr. Bernardi explained that another issue is property maintenance. Because this project has languished for so long without the normal course of development of the lots once the subdivision improvements were in, is a property maintenance issue. Property SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/1/94 Page 10 11 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/1/94 Page maintenance issues are best dealt with, not under the subdivision improve-ments, but under the Nuisance Abatement Ordinance which we have in our Municipal Code. Mr. Bernardi stated the Planning and Public Works staff have been working with Mr. Mark Stevens, who is present tonight, regarding items of property maintenance - the cleaning of the drainage facilities, the cutting of the brush, etc. Mr. Stevens has worked with the Fire Department regarding fire safety measures. Those types of issues are more appropriately dealt with under the property maintenance aspect. Councilmember Thayer stated she is very frustrated with this. There have been many complaints from the neighborhood about this eyesore, and she is wondering when there will be some movement on the development of this property. Mayor Boro stated that the applicant's representative can probably answer that question. Mr. Bernardi stated that, as far as the housing is concerned, he suspects it is a question of economics. In terms of the development cost of the property and what profit can be expected out of the construction and sale of those homes, he would suspect that the market being as it is, they are not willing to invest a lot of money without some provision for profit. Councilmember Thayer stated she understands there are some slides on the property, and some artificially created hazards because of the condition of the property. She noted the Council had asked and were told that the Hillside Design Standards will not apply to this property, even if we were to terminate the agreement. Mr. Bernardi stated that is correct. Councilmember Thayer asked why would they not be required to maintain what has already been put in, with or without the Subdivision Agreement, based upon the simple problem of potential liability. Mayor Boro noted Mr. Bernardi has said that is a separate issue from this particular agreement. We have other ways to do that. This action is a "hook" to keep the bonds in place and make sure the rest of the improvements are put in. We do have a right to insist that the place be maintained, independent of this action. Councilmember Heller stated she would like to request from Mr. Stevens if he knows of any plans they have for this project. Mayor Boro asked if Mr. Stevens would like to speak. Mr. Mark Stevens, Vice -President with McMorgan & Company, stated he has been the property manager of this project, which his company took back some years ago. He stated he has been working with the City and the neighborhood. He explained his company is investment manager for three different clients. They basically manage the money, and they are controlled by their clients. They tell their clients what they want to have done and the clients approve it, and sometimes that process can be rather lengthy. He stated he does understand the Council's frustration with the length of time it has taken them to respond to things. He explained that with three different clients who have different meeting schedules, it is hard for them to get back to him. Mr. Stevens addressed the maintenance issues, stating that the basic one is the removal of brush. He has already taken a tour of the site with Division Chief Waterbury of the Fire Department and he has given instructions as to what needs to be cut. As investment managers, they need three bids from union contractors to do this work, and they have been working with Cagwin and Dorward, local contractors, and they will be clearing the brush within the next couple of weeks. There were issues with regard to silt behind the gabion wall, and that was an oversight by some contractors. They have been contacted and will be cleaning it up if they have not already done so. Other issues are cracks in the streets, which are being monitored, and he is working with the original engineers who put the streets in. He explained that they are trying their hardest to keep the neighbors informed, and are working with them. He apolo- gized for the time and the frustration the Council might have with regard to the maintenance. Regarding the question on the extension of the Subdivision Agreement, he stated they pretty much have everything done. He noted they have put in some landscaping, to appease the people in the neighborhood. There are very few issues regarding the improvements left. They plan to convert their warranty bond to a maintenance bond upon the completion approval, which should be forthcoming soon. He noted they have their As -built Survey in the Building Department. Councilmember Heller moved and Mayor Boro seconded, to adopt the Resolution extending time for subdivision improvements. RESOLUTION NO. 9190 - EXTENDING TIME FOR THE COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENT WORK - BAYWOOD TERRACE SUBDIVISION (12 MONTH EXTENSION TO AND INCLUDING JULY 3, 1995) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Thayer SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/1/94 Page 11 12 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen & Zappetini SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/1/94 Page City Clerk Leoncini pointed out to the Council that the Resolution requires three votes. City Attorney Ragghianti stated that with two Councilmembers having excused themselves, if the Resolution requires three affirmative votes, the motion fails. Mayor Boro stated he does not know if Councilmember Thayer understood that, but he pointed out that the neighbors are here and they are satisfied. This has been dis-cussed so we could make sure everything was addressed. The consequences of denying this would be the City losing our ability to collect on the bond, and also see the rest of the property improved. He inquired if Councilmember Thayer wishes to let her vote stand. Councilmember Thayer responded that she would like to hear from the neighborhood. Mr. Bruce Scott from the neighborhood explained that from a short-term standpoint it is probably appropriate to go ahead and continue the Agreement, as the Resolution asks you to do. He stated there is a long-term question we need to address, and he wants to sit down with the principals some time over the next few months and try to agree on some course of action which will get rid of the eyesore in the neighborhood. If it is not going to be built up in the near future - and he suspects it will not - there may be some other things we will want to do. He stated he thinks the Council could go ahead and approve the present issue before them, but keep an open mind that there are some long-term issues which we need to discuss in the year that this gives us to discuss them. Councilmember Thayer inquired, if they do not intend to go forward with any kind of project within a starting period of two or three years, is there any way that what is on that site can be removed and can it be restored to its original state? Mr. Bernardi responded that the Council could use Chapter 1.2 of the Municipal Code to declare the partially completed foundations a public nuisance, and order them removed and that part of it restored. With regard to the streets and other improvements, he would defer to the City Attorney to see if we could order them removed or not. He noted that in declaring a public nuisance you have to make the findings necessary to declare a public nuisance, and whether a street and street lights which exist constitute a public nuisance would be something we would have to discuss. Mr. Ragghianti explained that it is possible, although he is not prepared to say it is possible tonight, but there are ordinances which declare that unfinished structures can be declared to be nuisances and he would need to look at our Ordinances. If that is the case, it would be in the nature of a nuisance abatement proceeding. If they were ordered removed and they were not, the City would have to remove them and assess the costs against the property. We would be required to expend the funds necessary to remove the nuisance, whatever the nuisance is. If we do not have an Ordinance which permits us to do that, then we could not very well declare the streets to be a nuisance. He noted that when you have a Subdivision Agreement it provides that the subdivider is to install the improvements, but you have streets and nothing else up there. He would have to look at the Ordinances to make sure, but it may be possible to do what Councilmember Thayer suggested. Councilmember Thayer clarified that it would be best to have the Subdivision Agreement in place. Mr. Ragghianti replied that is so. Councilmember Thayer stated that, given that scenario, she will change her vote and make it unanimous. The amended vote was: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen & Zappetini (Disqualified due to Conflict of Interest) Councilmembers Cohen and Zappetini returned to the meeting. 16.DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS (P1) - File 9-2-39 x 10-2 x (SRRA) R-65 Mayor Boro stated this is a recommendation from the Planning Commission and Design Review Board regarding the functions of the Design Review Board (DRB), and asked for a report from Planning Director Pendoley. Mr. Pendoley noted that early last Fall, in response to concerns raised by the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, the Council asked the Planning Department to conduct a review of the Design Review process, and to recommend changes if appropriate. He reported that staff had consulted with a subcommittee of the Chamber of Commerce. The DRB met in six study sessions, and a workshop was held for all of the Planning staff who participate in the DRB process. The result of all of that conferring was an issue SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/1/94 Page 12 13 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/1/94 Page paper prepared by the Planning Department which was presented at a joint workshop meeting of the DRB and Planning Commission in late June. At the conclusion of that meeting, which included a good deal of citizen input, the Board and the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend the report with some minor changes for the Council's consideration. Mr. Pendoley pointed out that in the report we say that this is the opinion and recommendation of the Planning Commission, and it should be understood that the Planning Commission and DRB may not necessarily subscribe to all parts. However, they did go further than that, and endorse them. Mr. Pendoley explained that design review is somewhat unique in local government. It has both objective and intuitive elements. In design, throughout the world, there are some basic agreed-upon principles on what are the essential elements. He noted it is possible to develop standards around some of those principles, and to actually measure them. However, that is not where good design is. There are also intuitive aspects, which are a question of, 'Is good design really a sum of the parts?' He stated it is not, but a really successful design depends on how well the principles are integrated. He stated that what many communities throughout the United States have found is that the success of that integration is best judged through a peer review process, in which design professionals are asked to evaluate the work of other professionals. He noted that the other side of the coin is that there are sometimes charges that process is arbitrary or subjective, and sometimes that complaint has been made about the San Rafael process. Mr. Pendoley stated that what many communities have done is what is being recommended in this report: Formalize the process a little bit more and rely a little bit more on standards. He noted that in this report staff has recommended 26 small changes which, speaking collectively, will go a long way toward improving the process and streamlining it with at least the same good results, perhaps better results than we have had in the past. Mr. Pendoley explained that some of the recommended changes are: 1) Adoption of a mission statement for the DRB; 2) Reorganizing the review process to establish a two-step process; 3) To develop comment sheets which would document compliance with standards; and 4) Certain changes in the way staff performs its role. Mr. Pendoley stated staff recommends that the Council continue to authorize the preparation of design guidelines. The latest effort along those lines, which has been furnished to the Council, is a draft document prepared by Howard Itzkowitz, a former member of the DRB. It is not ready for public comment, but it gives the Council an example of the kinds of things staff has in mind. Mr. Pendoley concluded by stating that the people who contributed the most to this review are the members of the DRB. They were absolutely unstinting in their candor and their commitment to doing a self -critique as well as a review of all of the other actors who participate in this process. They were not afraid to criticize their own work. He noted that on this Board, unlike many other boards, are five professionals who make their income on doing this kind of work. They nevertheless volunteer to the community to put in a minimum of 8 evening hours per month, and a good deal of additional weekend hours to provide service to the community at no cost. He stated that staff feels their work is invaluable and could not be replaced by staff or by a committee with a different makeup. Mayor Boro noted we have representatives of both the Planning Commission and DRB present, and he would like to hear from them first, before the Council asks questions. On behalf of the Council, Mayor Boro thanked the Planning Commission, the DRB and the Chamber of Commerce for this joint effort. He noted the Chamber was quite concerned about the DRB at one point, and the letter received tonight from the Chamber's Executive Director indicates their needs have been met. That does not mean that we have given in one way or the other, but means that we are addressing public concerns. It looks as though, collectively, the Commission and the DRB have met the challenge. Mr. Richard Olmsted, architect and member of the DRB, stated he is representing the DRB tonight because he is the longest serving person on the Board. He stated that the process they have gone through has been very valuable and very enlightening and helpful. It has helped the Board members understand the role of design review, it has helped the Planning staff and Planning Commission; it has also helped the Chamber of Commerce and the applicants, to understand the way this process can work for the benefit of the City and that, given the changes which are proposed, we should have a very workable Ordinance and method of doing business. He stated he feels this is bringing to the community a very valuable and helpful service. Mrs. Sue Scott, Planning Commissioner, stated that the principles stated at the very beginning are extremely important. The particular three topics that they asked the DRB to consider give a great deal of room for them to continue their thorough exploration of whether a building or a new development might be suitable for San SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/1/94 Page 13 14 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/1/94 Page Rafael. Within the context of the rest of the proposal before the Council, is included very structured procedural elements which are going to make it much easier for people, when they are leaving the meetings, to understand what they have been told. That will be a great improvement. She added that we do need, at all times, to allow the flexibility. The creative mind, the artistic mind, works differently from most of us and that is an important aspect which has been guarded here and needs to be kept. Mr. Harry Winters spoke on behalf of the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods, and referred to a letter he presented tonight to the Council. He stated they have participated in the process and the hearings and workshop leading to this report. They strongly agree that the DRB is necessary and valuable to this City, and they support most of the recommendations. One issue of concern is a recommendation which would give staff and the Planning Director greater discretion to determine whether an application goes to the DRB or be referred to a lower level when appropriate. He noted there is an existing Section, 14.25.020, which defines which projects go to the DRB, which projects can be handled by the Zoning Administrator, which ones can be handled simply by staff, and which ones go to the Planning Commission itself. He stated that is 3 or 4 pages long, and quite detailed. He noted that where there might be any uncertainty, there is an existing Section in that Title 14, which says that where uncertainty exists regarding any provision in this Title, or its applica- tion to a specific site, the Planning Director shall determine the intent of the provision. He noted there are still gray areas. Mr. Winters pointed out that the Planning Commission in their July 26th meeting, voted to change the wording in Recommendations 4.3 and 4.4 which would give this discretion to the Planning Director and the Planning staff, to simply refer to that existing Section. He stated that the Federation supports the change, and suggests that these Sections 4.3 and 4.4 could even be eliminated as unnecessary, since the discretion is already covered in Title 14. He noted that in the proposed change, the term "when appropriate" is not defined in any way, and that may be determined by whoever happens to be the Planning Director. He stated that Mr. Pendoley is extremely competent, but he (Mr. Winters) has been here since 1954 and lived through about 8 Planning Directors, and some of them were more competent than others. He noted when you build something into an Ordinance you are going beyond the specific person who happens to be in the seat at the time. He stated this a broad loophole, to bypass those pages of very specific definitions. He stated the Federation would prefer that the changes voted by the Planning Commission be changed to simply refer to Section 14.02.040 (c), or simply to eliminate the proposed Sections 4.3 and 4.4. In conclusion, he stated that is the only caveat they might have. They support this report and think it is excellent, and they fully support the work of the staff and the DRB. Mayor Boro asked Mr. Pendoley for comment on the Sections 4.3 and 4.4 referenced by Mr. Winters. Mr. Pendoley stated he had checked with the individual Planning Commissioners today because he wanted to be sure that if there was a difference they would all be aware. He does not think, in conferring with all of the Commissioners who had attended the July 26th meeting, that there is a difference between the Planning Commission's concerns and the staff's concerns. He stated that Mr. Winters very correctly cites the section of the Zoning Ordinance which says that when there is a gray area, for example a use which has not been listed in a way to tell you whether it should go to the Zoning Administrator or the Planning Commission, staff should make an interpretation. He explained that the weight of staff's recommenda- tion is that right now there are types of applications which the Ordinance very clearly says should go to the Planning Commission, and he is suggesting that it would be appropriate to give staff the discretion in certain cases to send them to the Zoning Administrator instead. Similarly, there are applications which right now are mandated to go to the DRB, but in some cases could be well handled with savings in time and money if they did not. He gave as an example an item on last week's Planning Commission agenda, which was a facade change to the Toyota dealership on East Francisco Boulevard. It went to the DRB and after some discussion the Board endorsed it exactly as proposed. However, since the Ordinance requires it, it had to go the Planning Commission where it had virtually no discussion and was approved exactly as requested and as recommended. There would have been a savings in time and money for the applicant and the City if that could have been handled at the Zoning Administrator level. It was routine enough that there was no risk of making a big mistake. Mr. Pendoley stated that one of the concerns the Council needs to have in considering this, is whether the discretion is going to be well used? He thinks it would be appropriate to have some criteria. An Ordinance is going to have to have something more definite than "when appropriate". Also, it would be appropriate if, when staff is required to report to the Council, Commission or DRB, it be tracked to see how well it is going. He noted that one thing recommended for Council consideration is an annual meeting with the Council, Planning Commission and DRB, in which all three SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/1/94 Page 14 15 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/1/94 Page groups can discuss how things have gone, what went well, and what did not. That would be one opportunity to review the exercise of discussion. Mr. Pendoley stated that, in the final analysis, when we do not exercise discretion properly, the Council lets staff know rather quickly, and that is appropriate. He stated he thinks this could be tried with some confidence, and it can be fixed if it does not work. Mayor Boro asked for any questions from the Council. Councilmember Heller asked, in paragraph 3 of the letter from the Chamber of Commerce where they recommend we give the staff broader powers, is this what is being referred to? Mr. Pendoley responded that it is. He noted it was in the Chamber's original letter last September, and they have been consistent on that point. Councilmember Thayer stated she shares some of Mr. Winter's concerns and noted that this whole process was set up because of some very serious concerns about streamlining the process. She asked staff is there a way we can balance those two, with using discretion and having some checks on it, rather than just a yearly meeting of all of us together. Mr. Pendoley replied there are a couple of things to consider. At present, virtually all design review does require notice to adjacent property owners, and that is one good check. Before the decision is made there is an opportunity for people to come down and look at the file and express their concerns; and whether the decision is at the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission there is a hearing of some type. He stated another consideration would be monthly reporting. At present the Council receives a copy of all of the Zoning Administrator minutes, as well as the Planning Commission and DRB minutes. Staff could follow that up with a report on all staff level approvals, which would allow the Council to track projects. He stated those procedures would allow the Council to follow the projects closely, and give the public an opportunity to be heard when the decision is made, and to appeal it ultimately to the Council. Councilmember Thayer asked what would be the ramifications if the staff gave some sort of approval and passed something through using its discretion, and the Council backtracked at that point. She explained she is thinking of the applicants' rights. She stated this is more of a question for the City Attorney. Mr. Ragghianti stated that if the decision is the Planning Director's there is no appeal, but the Council has the right to call the matter up. In that case there would have to be notice of the Planning Director's decision to begin with. He noted that in some cities, every single decision like this is made known to the Council, so that if they wish to bring it up on their own they can do that. Frequently, if the Planning Commission action is made known to the Council, it creates an opportunity so that if any member of the Council wishes to bring it up they may. There is nothing wrong with having such a procedure here, but in the absence of such a procedure there is nothing you can do if the decision is the Planning Director's. Councilmember Heller inquired, how would you set up such a procedure? Mr. Ragghianti replied you could have a procedure for having an appeal from a decision of the Director, by an applicant or someone. Mr. Pendoley explained that all design review approvals, whether they are made at the staff level, Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission, have an appeal right attached. Also, we do a mailing every Friday to the Planning Commission, Design Review Board, and in certain cases to the Council, so there is already an in-house distribution process. He stated the Council may wish to ask that those kinds of permits also be put in that group. Councilmember Cohen asked if we could expand that. He stated he feels the resolution to this is allowing for the process for notice and appeal rights. If we can find a way to do that, he would like to see us adopt the staff recommendation and try it for a year and then review it to see how many times it was used, and the impacts. He asked would it be possible to incorporate staff level decisions in the noticing requirements, at least to adjacent property owners. Mr. Pendoley replied they could do that. Councilmember Cohen stated that another issue would be to allow certain community groups to get on the mailing list. He noted we allow groups like the Federation to be put on the mailing list. If there is going to be a weekly notice going out about staff level decisions we could allow interested community groups to put their name on that list. Groups who serve as watch dogs may want to do that, and if they want to trigger appeal rights they can raise the issue within the time constraints. That should be sufficient oversight, and would be a way to streamline and not have so many items held up for design review. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/1/94 Page 15 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/1/94 Page 16 Councilmember Zappetini inquired what the budget cost is for the DRB? Mr. Pendoley responded they have never broken it out that way, but the direct costs to the DRB are minimal. They are basically the cost for staff to attend meetings. They do not generate any additional mailings. If management staff are required to go they do not get compensation for that. There are frequently one or more staff planners who go to the Board meetings and they take their compensation in comp time rather than salary. Councilmember Zappetini noted we also have staff who takes the notes and types the minutes. Mr. Pendoley agreed. Councilmember Zappetini stated his reason for asking the question is that on page 31, item 2, it says a fee for the design review shall be billed to the developer on an hourly basis not to exceed the maximum for a single- family residential project. He asked is that enough, or is it too much? He asked is the maximum around $1,000 or so? Mr. Pendoley explained that the section quoted is from a report attached for information purposes, and was not done for San Rafael, but for a couple of cities down the Peninsula. It was for information, but not a recommendation to the Council. Mr. Pendoley stated that if the Council directs staff to proceed with this, they will recommend a new fee schedule for design review and it would be quite different than what was brought to the Council six weeks ago. It would be lower, and most of it would be hourly. The first tier would probably be on a set fee, because there is little work done and we could project what it would take. The second tier review would probably be hourly because it is more involved. Councilmember Zappetini asked if, during the discussion for this project, were there any ideas brought up about combining Design Review Board with the Planning Commis-sion. Mr. Pendoley stated it was not pursued at all. It was acknowledged that had been done in Mill Valley. To the extent that it was discussed, it was staff's suggestion that we still have a very high volume of applications for design review than we used to have, and still get complicated commercial and industrial proposals which would be more than a Planning Commission could take on by simply adding two members. Councilmember Thayer stated, with regard to combining the Design Review Board with the Planning Commission, that she has always felt we were very lucky to have people who are professionals come forward and offer their services to the City for nothing, and work very hard at what they do. She stated she really appreciates the Design Review Board, and thinks they are wonderful. She stated she thinks it is important for a City this size to have both a Design Review Board and a Planning Commission for the reasons stated. She noted that the Planning Commissioners do not have the expertise regarding the aesthetics. Mayor Boro stated he was on the Planning Commission before there was a Design Review Board and they served as the DRB. It did not work well. They relied quite heavily on one member who was an architect, and the DRB gives us a much broader sense of input, with five independent members. He stated we do need to streamline the process, and have more order in the process and what is being recommended seems to be making that happen. He stated he would like to request of the Director, having a quarterly report to be on the Consent Calendar, to make sure how the various segments of the recommendations are progressing. He stated he is very impressed with the fact that the Planning Commission, Design Review Board and business community all got together and came up with a process which it appears everyone is satisfied with. He just wants to make sure we get it operational and would like to have the Council agree to have it brought back to the Council through the Planning Commission on a quarterly basis, and in the case of discretionary issues we go to additional noticing and have a yearly review on that as well. Councilmember Cohen stated that in looking at the minutes he found that the issue of combining the Commission and DRB had been discussed and was commented on by the public also, as well as members of the Commission and DRB. It has been given discus- sion, and was not included in the vote on the process. He stated he appreciates the work that everyone has put into this, and he is glad to see that we narrowed the issues down. He asked if staff concurs in the recommendations he made regarding noticing and staff discretion. Mr. Pendoley concurred. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the recommenda-tions of the Planning Commission and Design Review Board as presented this evening, and direct the Commission, Board and staff to begin implementation, and that in addition to the annual review which is proposed, that the Council receive a quarterly report on how it is going. The discretionary staff level issue is also included. Councilmember Cohen inquired if staff will do a work plan for the implementation of this process, and Mr. Pendoley stated he will, and will furnish a copy to the Council. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/1/94 Page 16 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/1/94 Page 17 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 17. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: a.REPORT RE MEETING OF LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES - File 9-11-1 (Verbal) Councilmember Heller reported on attendance at LCC meeting last weekend. Copies of material including the following two reports will be distributed to the Council. * California Fiscal Reform - A plan for action from the California Business Higher Education Forum * Report from the Committee on Local Government Reform b.REPORT RE MEETING OF NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF MAYORS - File 9-1 (Verbal) Mayor Boro reported he attended a meeting today of the National Conference of Mayors in San Francisco. The President of the National Conference was in town, talking about the Crime Bill which is apparently on the verge of being approved in Congress, to provide appropriation of a $8.8 billion to hire 100,000 additional police officers, and another $1.8 billion for local partnerships for education, drug treatment, employment programs, etc. c.REPORT ON FUNDING FOR HIGHWAY 101 IMPROVEMENTS - File 11-16 (Verbal) Mayor Boro reported he attended a meeting last week at the Civic Center with Supervisors Giacomini and Roumiguiere, Public Works Director Bernardi, Farhad Mansourian, County Assistant Public Works Director and Mike Sadjahi, County Public Works Director, regarding funding from the State for FY 1995 for the Highway 101 improvements. The City affirmed that it has two priorities: 1) Completion of Andersen Drive Extension 2) Support the current 101 Widening Concept Plan A letter is to be sent to CalTrans affirming the above, to be signed by Supervisor Giacomini and Mayor Boro as Chair and Vice -Chair of the Congestion Management Agency for the County. The other issue which came up is the role of the Advisory Committee which was appointed by the City Council. An understanding is needed of the role of the Committee; what the policy of the Council is; and then the role of the Congestion Management Agency on a Countywide basis. The item is to be brought back to the Council for future discussion at a meeting in September. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:45 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 1994 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/1/94 Page 17