Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1995-10-02SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/2/95 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, OCTOBER 2,1995, AT 8:00 PM Regular Meeting: San Rafael City Council Barbara Heller, Councilmember Gary 0. Phillips, Councilmember David J. Zappetini, Councilmember Absent: None Others Present: Suzanne Golt, Interim City Manager Gus Guinan, Assistant City Attorney Patricia J. Roberts, Deputy City Clerk OPEN SESSION - 7:00 PM - COUNCIL CHAMBER Mayor Boro announced Closed Session items: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember CLOSED SESSION AGENDA ITEMS - 7:00 PM - CONFERENCE ROOM 201 •Conference with Labor Negotiator (Government Code Section 54957.6) Negotiator: Suzanne Golt Employee Organization: San Rafael Firefighters' Association •Conference with Labor Negotiator (Government Code Section 54957.6) Negotiator: Suzanne Golt Employee Organization: Fire Department Mid -managers (Request for Representation) •Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9 (a)): BIA of Northern California v. City of Livermore, California Court of Appeal, First District Case #A0770517; Alameda County Superior Court Case #V-009255-7 (Request for City of San Rafael participation as amicus party.) The Council then met in Closed Session in Conference Room 201 to discuss the above mentioned items. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, OCTOBER 2,1995 AT 8:30 PM RE; CLOSED SESSION ITEMS •Conference with Labor Negotiator (Government Code Section 54957.6) Negotiator: Suzanne Golt Employee Organization: San Rafael Firefighters' Association Assistant City Attorney Guinan announced no reportable action was taken on this item. •Conference with Labor Negotiator (Government Code Section 54957.6) Negotiator: Suzanne Golt Employee Organization: Fire Department Mid -managers (Request for Representation) Assistant City Attorney Guinan announced no reportable action was taken on this item. •Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9 (a)): SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/2/95 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/2/95 Page 2 BIA of Northern California v. City of Livermore, California Court of Appeal, First District Case #A0770517; Alameda County Superior Court Case #V-009255-7 (Request for City of San Rafael participation as amicus party.) Assistant City Attorney Guinan announced the Council voted 5-0 to approve request for City of San Rafael participation as amicus party. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: RE: SEISMIC RETROFIT PROGRAM - File 4-3-235 x 13-11 x 9-3-40 x 1-6-1 David Schonbrunn, asked to address the Council on behalf of the Almonte District Improvement Club of Mill Valley. He stated their concerns were related to the State of California's Seismic Retrofit Program, currently taking place in downtown San Rafael. Mr. Schonbrunn referred to a recent article in the Marin Independent Journal which he felt had addressed this issue particularly well. Mr. Schonbrunn called the Council's attention to the standards which had been set by the California State Legislature, which he felt had been created in such a way as to prevent the structures in the City's downtown area from collapsing on someone, but at the same time were not oriented to keeping the freeway facilities operational following a major earthquake. Mr. Schonbrunn noted he had been working with Assemblywoman Mazzoni, and that she had sent a series of questions to the Director of CalTrans, whose responses, he felt, were quite scary. Mr. Schonbrunn reported CalTrans has stated that if the freeway fails, the detour traffic will be on the City streets, and Mr. Schonbrunn felt this was not an acceptable situation. He urged the Council to consider agendizing the issue for discussion at a later date, and to consider sending a letter to Assemblywoman Mazzoni expressing concern that the current standards do not provide adequate protection for the City of San Rafael. Mayor Boro stated he had received Mr. Schonbrunn's letter regarding this issue, and had forwarded it to Public Works Director David Bernardi, who will review the information and make a recommendation as to whether the Council should take further action. Mayor Boro told Mr. Schonbrunn that he would keep him informed of the Council's decision. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to approve the recommended action on the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 2. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of Approved as submitted. Tuesday, September 5, 1995 (CC) 3. Resolution Approving Three Year Lease Agreements RESOLUTION NO. 9453 - With San Rafael School District Re: Child Care A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE Centers for: (Rec) SIGNING OF A LEASE AGREEMENT a. San Pedro School - File 4-7-25 WITH SAN RAFAEL SCHOOL b. Gallinas School - File 4-7-20 DISTRICT FOR CHILD CARE LEASES c. Short School - File 4-7-16 AT SAN PEDRO, GALLINAS AND SHORT SCHOOLS. (3 YEAR LEASES 7/1/95 thru 6/30/98). 5. Resolution Accepting the Proposal from Resource RESOLUTION NO. 9454 - Management International for Preparation of the RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL Smith Ranch Pond Management Plan (PI) CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTING THE - File 4-3-297 x 5-1-290 PROPOSAL FROM RESOURCE MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL FOR PREPARATION OF THE SMITH RANCH ROAD POND MANAGEMENT PLAN. 7. Adoption of Resolutions of Appreciation for Downtown Trees Project as follows: (RA) - File 102 x 11-6 a. Fair Issac; b. Pacific Gas & Electric; c. Barbara Heller; d. Smoothill Sports Distributors e. Marin ReLeaf; f. Sonoma County ReLeaf; g. Abey Arnold, Landscape Architects; h. Alternative Sentencing Program (Bootcamp) San Quentin State RESOLUTION NO. 9455 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR FAIR ISSAC, PARTICIPANT IN THE DOWNTOWN TREES PROJECT. RESOLUTION NO. 9456 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/2/95 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/2/95 Page 3 Prison; i. Hank Bellatorre; j. Federation of San COMPANY, PARTICIPANT IN THE Rafael Neighborhoods; k. Cyr Miller; I. Katie Korzun; DOWNTOWN TREES PROJECT. m. Marin Resource and Recovery; n. San Rafael Redevelopment Agency; o. Mission San Rafael Rotary; p. San Rafael Rotary; q. Terra Linda Rotary; r. Kiwanis Club; s. Lions Club San Rafael; t. San Rafael Las Gallinas Lions Club; u. San Rafael Pan American Lions Club; v. San Rafael Sunrise Lions Club; w. Ritter House; x. Canal Community Alliance; y. North San Rafael Coalition of Residents; and RESOLUTION NO. 9457 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR BARBARA HELLER, PARTICIPANT IN THE DOWNTOWN TREES PROJECT. RESOLUTION NO. 9458 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR z. Bank of Marin. SMOOTHILL SPORTS DISTRIBUTORS, PARTICIPANT IN THE DOWNTOWN TREES PROJECT. RESOLUTION NO. 9459 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR MARIN RELEAF, PARTICIPANT IN THE DOWNTOWN TREES PROJECT. RESOLUTION NO. 9460 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR SONOMA COUNTY RELEAF, PARTICIPANT IN THE DOWNTOWN TREES PROJECT. RESOLUTION NO. 9461 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR ABEY ARNOLD ASSOCIATES, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, PARTICIPANT IN THE DOWNTOWN TREES PROJECT. RESOLUTION NO. 9462 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING PROGRAM (BOOTCAMP) SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON, PARTICIPANT IN THE DOWNTOWN TREES PROJECT. RESOLUTION NO. 9463 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR HANK BELLATORRE, PARTICIPANT IN THE DOWNTOWN TREES PROJECT. RESOLUTION NO. 9464 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR FEDERATION OF SAN RAFAEL NEIGHBORHOODS, PARTICIPANT IN THE DOWNTOWN TREES PROJECT. RESOLUTION NO. 9465 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR CYR MILLER, PARTICIPANT IN THE DOWNTOWN TREES PROJECT. RESOLUTION NO. 9466 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR KATIE KORZUN, PARTICIPANT IN THE DOWNTOWN TREES PROJECT. RESOLUTION NO. 9467 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR MARIN RESOURCE AND RECOVERY, PARTICIPANT IN THE DOWNTOWN TREES PROJECT. RESOLUTION NO. 9468 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, PARTICIPANT IN THE DOWNTOWN TREES PROJECT. RESOLUTION NO. 9469 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR MISSION SAN RAFAEL ROTARY, PARTICIPANT IN THE DOWNTOWN TREES PROJECT. RESOLUTION NO. 9470 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR SAN RAFAEL ROTARY, PARTICIPANT IN THE DOWNTOWN TREES PROJECT. RESOLUTION NO. 9471 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR TERRA LINDA ROTARY, PARTICIPANT IN THE DOWNTOWN TREES PROJECT. RESOLUTION NO. 9472 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR KIWANIS CLUB, PARTICIPANT IN THE DOWNTOWN TREES PROJECT. RESOLUTION NO. 9473 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR LIONS CLUB SAN RAFAEL, PARTICIPANT IN THE DOWNTOWN TREES PROJECT. RESOLUTION NO. 9474 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR SAN RAFAEL LAS GALLINAS LIONS CLUB, PARTICIPANT IN THE DOWNTOWN TREES PROJECT. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/2/95 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/2/95 Page 4 RESOLUTION NO. 9475 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR SAN RAFAEL PAN AMERICAN LIONS CLUB, PARTICIPANT IN THE DOWNTOWN TREES PROJECT. RESOLUTION NO. 9476 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR SAN RAFAEL SUNRISE LIONS CLUB, PARTICIPANT IN THE DOWNTOWN TREES PROJECT. RESOLUTION NO. 9477 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR RITTER HOUSE, PARTICIPANT IN THE DOWNTOWN TREES PROJECT. RESOLUTION NO. 9478 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR CANAL COMMUNITY ALLIANCE, PARTICIPANT IN THE DOWNTOWN TREES PROJECT. RESOLUTION NO. 9479 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR NORTH SAN RAFAEL COALITION OF RESIDENTS, PARTICIPANT IN THE DOWNTOWN TREES PROJECT. RESOLUTION NO. 9480 VOIDED. RESOLUTION NO. 9481 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR BANK OF MARIN, PARTICIPANT IN THE DOWNTOWN TREES PROJECT. The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion: 4. RESOLUTION APPROVING NEW PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS. (PW) - File 9-3-40 Councilmember Zappetini stated he was abstaining from this item due to a conflict of interest. Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 9482 - RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ADOPTING THE PUBLIC WORKS STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING THE USE OF THESE SPECIFICATIONS IN ALL FUTURE PROJECTS (PW) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None DISQUALIFIED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Zappetini (Due to conflict of interest) 6. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PROPOSAL FOR FEE WAIVER FOR LINCOLN AVENUE APARTMENTS (PI) - File 10-2 Councilmember Zappetini stated he was abstaining from this item due to a conflict of interest. Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 9483 - RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL WAIVING PAYMENT OF FEES FOR THE LINCOLN AVENUE APARTMENT PROJECT (PI) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS DISQUALIFIED: COUNCILMEMBERS SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS Cohen, Heller, Phillips & Mayor Boro None None Zappetini (Due to conflict of interest) PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTIONS OF APPRECIATION FOR DOWNTOWN TREES PROJECT TO: FAIR ISSAC; PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC; BARBARA HELLER; SMOOTHILL SPORTS DISTRIBUTORS; MARIN RELEAF; SONOMA COUNTY RELEAF; ABEY ARNOLD ASSOCIATES, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS; ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING PROGRAM (BOOTCAMP) SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON; HANK BELLATORRE; FEDERATION OF SAN RAFAEL NEIGHBORHOODS; CYR MILLER; KATIE KORZUN; MARIN RESOURCE AND SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/2/95 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/2/95 Page 5 RECOVERY; SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY; MISSION SAN RAFAEL ROTARY; SAN RAFAEL ROTARY; TERRA LINDA ROTARY; KIWANIS CLUB; LIONS CLUB SAN RAFAEL; SAN RAFAEL LAS GALLINAS LIONS CLUB; SAN RAFAEL PAN AMERICAN LIONS CLUB; SAN RAFAEL SUNRISE LIONS CLUB; RITTER HOUSE; CANAL COMMUNITY ALLIANCE; NORTH SAN RAFAEL COALITION OF RESIDENTS; AND BANK OF MARIN (RA) - File 102 x 11-6 Mayor Boro presented the Resolutions of Appreciation to individuals and groups who participated in the Downtown Trees Project. Mayor Boro stated this project had taken many months of planning, noting this had been a real collaboration of youth groups, service clubs, prisoners from San Quentin, and individuals. On behalf of the City Council, Mayor Boro thanked all of the participants for their fine work and contributions to the City of San Rafael. PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF THE ISSUANCE BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT OF ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #503. PERMIT ALLOWED CONSTRUCTION OF A FENCE WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO 109 ROSS VALLEY DRIVE. AP #12-016-05 -MEL BECK, APPELLANT (PW) - File 2-11 Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing open and asked for the staff report. Public Works Director David Bernardi stated this appeal had been brought to the Council at the request of Mel Beck, who brought to the City's attention the fact that his neighbor, Ms. Carol Hepsley had constructed a fence on City right-of-way. Mr. Bernardi reported that upon investigation, the City found that Ms. Hepsley had constructed a fence on the City right-of-way, at which time Ms. Hepsley was contacted and asked to file an application for an encroachment permit. Mr. Bernardi stated that upon reviewing Ms. Hepsley's application, an encroachment permit was issued. He reported the Code Enforcement Officer investigated this matter, and that Assistant City Attorney Guinan had viewed the site with Mr. Bernardi. He stated they all felt it was appropriate to issue the encroachment permit. During his slide presentation, Mr. Bernardi showed the Council the context of the fence encroachment in relation to the surroundings. Mr. Bernardi pointed out the location of the fence and the homes of Mr. Beck and Ms. Hepsley, noting the location where the City improvements, curb, gutter and sidewalk end. Mr. Bernardi stated the hillside would have been removed if the curb and gutter had been extended further up Ross Valley Drive. Mr. Bernardi reported that at the time the encroachment permit was requested, staff took into consideration whether there would be any pedestrian impact, and determined that clearly there would not be any pedestrians walking on the hill, as it has been partially excavated, and there is also a retaining wall located on the hill. Mr. Bernardi stated pedestrians either walk around the hill or walk on the other side of the street. Mayor Boro noticed what appeared to be netting in one of the photographs, and asked Mr. Bernardi to clarify what he was seeing. Mr. Bernardi responded that netting had been installed at the rear of Mr. Beck's property. Councilmember Zappetini asked what the white objects in the photograph were, and Mr. Bernardi explained they were plastic pipes. Councilmember Heller pointed out that there were also cinder blocks placed at the rear of Mr. Beck's property. Mr. Bernardi pointed out that the bottom of the fence did not quite reach the ground. He reported that one of the issues raised by Mr. Beck was the drainage problem; however, Mr. Bernardi stated that in looking at the topography of the site, staff did not feel that drainage would be an issue. Mr. Bernardi reported that staff, in its review of the request, felt the encroachment permit was insignificant and would not cause a hardship to anyone, nor was it an issue that would affect the public right-of-way; therefore, they issued the encroachment permit. Mr. Bernardi stated that, based on the testimony the Council would hear tonight, he recommended the Council adopt the Resolution overruling the appeal. Councilmember Cohen noted that one portion of the fence looked as though it was weathered, and two portions of it looked new, and asked if all of the newer fencing was on public right -or -way? Mr. Bernardi responded that Mr. Beck had informed him the two new sections were both in the public right-of-way. Councilmember Zappetini asked if there was a reason for the fence? Mr. Bernardi noted that Ms. Hepsley was in the audience and would explain why she had installed the new fence. Mayor Boro asked Mr. Beck to address the Council, noting that he was asking both Mr. Beck and Ms. Hepsley not to get into personal issues when they address the Council. He stated the Council had read all of the correspondence relating to this matter, and while he acknowledged Mr. Beck and Ms. Hepsley had personal opinions about each other, he stated those issues were not to be put before the Council. Mayor Boro stated the only issue before the Council was the encroachment permit, and whether the Council should uphold the granting of the permit or overturn it. He stated all discussion should be kept to that issue. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/2/95 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/2/95 Page 6 Mel Beck, 170 Hillside Avenue, San Rafael, addressed the Council, stating he had resided at this address for thirty-six years. Mr. Beck distributed documents he had prepared relating to his appeal of the encroachment permit, including a copy of a portion of the Brown Act and the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, as he believed they were involved in this issue. Mr. Beck stated he was a great believer in freedom of speech, and had practiced it all his life. He further stated he did not like discrimination, and would not tolerate it. Mr. Beck stated that in the past, the City of San Rafael has removed the use of public property by illegal seizure, and he felt that for staff to recommend that the appeal of this permit be turned down was nothing new. Mr. Beck felt that by allowing this illegal eleven foot fence on the public property, the City was setting a bad and misleading precedent, noting he could show the City pictures of other fences that are now beginning to be erected. Mr. Beck claimed this is a "spite fence". He called the Council's attention to that portion of the staff report which states, "It is clear that this encroachment will not affect pedestrian traffic or vehicle traffic." Mr. Beck stated he wanted to know where the proof for that statement comes from. He noted he did not see any proof and did not understand what was meant by the word "clear", and asked for a further definition. He stated he would like to know what is meant by "proof", because in using the word "clear" it seemed to him that meant the same as "proof'. Mr. Beck continued to refer to the staff report, quoting "And there is no evidence of pedestrian use in the area of encroachment." Mr. Beck stated he wanted to know what study or survey was used, who the City talked to, what times they looked at this, and how long it had been observed. He asked, "Have you seen and observed this particular piece of property for thirty-six years, as I have? Do you know how many times I have been on that particular section of the property?" Mr. Beck reported two women had owned the property prior to Ms. Hepsley, and they had not seen any need to have fencing there. He felt there was not a need today for the fencing to be there, noting there never was and never will be a need for it. Mr. Beck stated the whole point boiled down to "spite fence", and he believed the City had some coding on that issue. Referring to a portion of item #1 of the Resolution he quoted, "into the unused public right-of-way", stated he would like to know how staff had come to this conclusion. Mr. Beck stated the fact that he may not, or any citizen may not, use a piece of property every minute, every day, all the time, does not preclude the fact that he has a right to be on that public property, likening it to going to the beach, going to a picnic area, or walking in downtown San Rafael. He stated there is no one who should ever say that "If you don't use it, you lose it." Referring to Item #3, Mr. Beck quoted from the report, "This encroachment permit should have been granted", and he asked why it should have been granted, stating there was no need for it. He asked why encroachment had to be issued and why there had to be a fence there? Citing that portion of Item #4 which reads "The fence extension complies with all requirements", Mr. Beck asked what "all requirements" meant. He asked if that meant making something fit some personal need, stating he felt that was wrong. Quoting Item #5 which states, "It does not interfere with Mr. Beck's use and enjoyment of his property", Mr. Beck stated that was not correct. Item #6 states, "The fence extension does not adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare", and Mr. Beck stated he disagreed entirely with that statement, noting that erosion would cause a welfare issue and put the public at risk. Mr. Beck stated he needed to know whose benefit this was for. He stated this was not for the City of San Rafael's benefit, it was a personal benefit, and for that reason it should not be approved, because then everyone would be entitled to a personal benefit. He asked if he were to go to a beach and start putting fences around it for his personal benefit, should he be allowed to do it? Mr. Beck stated that staff had not given any reference in their report as to why this illegal fence was needed, noting he felt there was no need. He stated abandonment was not the issue, and that the City could not ask him to give up his rights. He felt he had a right to use this property. Mr. Beck asked if he sold the property tomorrow and there were new owners, would they be deprived of using this piece of public property? He did not think so. Mr. Beck asked, "What is next, a chain link fence across the front of Ms. Hepsley's property?" He noted that might be illegal, but wondered if that was going to be next. Mr. Beck distributed copies of a map he had prepared of the location. He then asked Mayor Boro to hold one end of a tape measure as he walked back through the Council Chamber measuring the length of twenty-eight feet, noting that was the distance of his property line from the lay of the street. Mr. Beck reported he has had his property surveyed twice, noting that not only is his property twenty-eight feet from the street, it is also ten feet above the street and, therefore, he felt his property did not interfere with the property of anyone else. Mr. Beck stated the illegal fence on public property did not prevent anyone from walking or driving up Ross Valley Drive and still looking at all of the properties there. On the issue of erosion, Mr. Beck called attention to the fact that there is a ridge running two hundred feet from Hillside Avenue and leading to seven and a half acres at the top which have not been cleared. He stated all the water from that hill comes down on his property and the surrounding property. He reported that in the past during very heavy rains, boulders and logs were coming down the hill, and cars were being smashed. Mr. Beck distributed a report SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/2/95 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/2/95 Page 7 referencing the State of California's law regarding surface drainage. He believed the report stated clearly that nothing can be put on the land that will change the surface and cause problems to the upper level, noting his property is the upper level to Ms. Hepsley's property. Mr. Beck stated he had included references to other cases for the City's legal counsel to review, and also a civil engineer's report which clearly states that the fence would change the flow of water, not just the water coming down onto Mr. Beck's property, but the water coming down from the entire hill. Mr. Beck reminded the Council that this meant two hundred feet of water coming down the hill at a speed that could knock a car off of its wheels, and he noted that in thirty-six years he had seen some very heavy rains, and he believed this would happen. Mr. Beck stated installing the fence served no purpose, that there was no need, and that it will eventually cause him problems. He noted that when the hill goes down, he will be responsible, stating he had been told that it was his responsibility to take care of the City right-of-way and keep it clean. Mr. Beck presented his photographs of the site to the Council. He stated he had discovered there were already eight photographs that had been submitted for the file, and Mr. Beck charged that these photographs were fraudulent, misleading and misrepresentative. He stated those photographs were not taken from the Hepsley house, but were taken from down on the street, from the Stern's house, and from various other locations with the intent to show his house from as many negative positions as possible. Referring to the photographs that he presented, Mr. Beck stated his pictures represented what was really going on in the neighborhood. He reported that in time, his star jasmine would totally encompass his back yard fence, and no one would be able to see into his yard. He noted he also had thirty-three climbing roses, bamboo, and twelve fruit trees, and he felt that what he was doing in his back yard actually improved and enhanced the neighborhood. In conclusion, Mr. Beck felt the Council had a fiduciary responsibility to hold all public domain assets in trust for the benefit of all citizens, and not just limited special interest. He stated these resources are entrusted with each and every one of the Councilmembers for safekeeping and common use that is not restricted except for the public's express needs. He felt that, accordingly and in good faith, the Council must act with justice and equal application of all laws to all citizens, without any mental reservations of personal likes or dislikes. Mr. Beck respectfully asked the Council to reconsider the facts before them, and to give him unbiased consideration. Carol Hepslev, 109 Ross Valley Drive, addressed the Council. She stated the appearance of Mr. Beck's property had lowered the property values in the neighborhood, and she presented photographs of his property to illustrate her statement. Mayor Boro cautioned Ms. Hepsley that she could address the issue of why she felt she needed the fence, but she could not get into a debate concerning the ups and downs of property values. Ms. Hepslev stated she had extended her side yard fence because she did not want to look at Mr. Beck's property any longer, noting that from the front of her property, and from the street, she faces the broken concrete blocks and orange netting fence, which is supported by some type of military shell casings or missile casings, chicken wire and PVC piping. Ms. Hepslev stated that extending her side yard fence had enhanced the appearance of her property, and improved the appearance of the entire block, and for those driving up the street heading south. Ms. Hepslev stated the extension does benefit some of her neighbors as well as herself. She presented a letter to the Council signed by nine of the neighboring households which states they like the fence and would like it to remain. Ms. Hepslev reported the fence is situated on a hill above the road, noting there is not, and will never be, any pedestrian traffic. She stated the fence does not limit traffic visibility, and that access is still available should the City need to be on the property for any reason. Ms. Hepslev stated she felt Mr. Beck was only concerned about his property rights and seemed to forget the neighbors also had rights, noting no one wants to have to look at his property every day. Councilmember Zappetini asked Ms. Hepsley if she had been aware that she was encroaching on City property. She responded that she had not been aware, as the property is so far above and so far back from the street that she did not believe the City right-of-way extended that far. Ms. Hepslev stated that at the time the contractor was actually building the fence and setting the posts in concrete, Mr. Beck called the City to complain, and when two men from the City came out to the property, they thought the plan for the fence was fine. She reported that two weeks later, when the contractor returned to install the lower boards and the lattice work on the top of the fence, Mr. Beck called the police and filed a formal complaint against her. She stated that had she known the fence was on City right-of-way property, she would have requested an encroachment permit from the City prior to construction. Harry Winters, President of the West End Neighborhood Association, addressed the Council. He stated this appeal concerned Mr. Beck's property and the fence between his property and Ms. Hepsley's property. He felt the Council needed to consider that Mr. Beck's property has two frontages, one on Hillside Avenue and one on Ross Valley Drive. Mr. Winters reported the West End Neighborhood Association supports Ms. Hepsley's request to retain her fence, and recommended the Council deny Mr. Beck's appeal. He stated the reason for the fence is the appearance of Mr. Beck's property, noting that in March, 1994 a formal complaint had been signed by twenty-one neighbors and submitted to the City requesting that Mr. Beck correct the appearance of his property. Mr. Winters stated if Mr. Beck had corrected the appearance of his property at that time, the fence would never have needed to SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/2/95 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/2/95 Page 8 be installed. Mr. Winters reported that prior to the formal complaint and petition being filed with the City, he attempted to discuss the issue with Mr. Beck, but Mr. Beck adamantly refused to do anything about the neighbors' complaints. Mr. Winters stated the City's Code Enforcement Officer investigated the complaint, but although several specific items were listed in the complaint, Mr. Beck was required only to remove the 350 old tires which were in his yard. Mr. Winters reported Mr. Beck did not remove the temporary fencing, noting this was the orange plastic netting normally used for temporary construction, and was specifically restricted by City Ordinance as being allowed only during a construction period and only during the valid time period of the building permit. Mr. Winters acknowledged that at the time Mr. Beck's property was inspected, he did not have as much of the orange plastic fencing in place as he has now, noting that Mr. Beck has added and extended the plastic to twice what it had been. Mayor Boro cautioned Mr. Winters that this was a separate Code Enforcement issue which Mr. Winters could pursue at a later date, and reminded him that the issue before the Council was the need for the fence and the encroachment permit. Mr. Winters stated he had considered bringing the issue of Mr. Beck's property before the City Council, and he appreciated the fact that Mr. Beck had brought it up, as he wanted to take this opportunity to bring to the Council's attention that the reason for the fence was the fact that Mr. Beck's property is in worse condition today, from an appearance point of view, than it was when the petition was submitted to the Code Enforcement Officer. Mayor Boro stated this was a separate issue that would need to be addressed at a later date. Mr. Winters stated there was more to the issue than what was currently under consideration, and urged the Councilmembers to drive by and look at Mr. Beck's property from both Hillside Avenue and Ross Valley Drive, noting if they did they would understand what all of the controversy from the neighbors was about. James Bosh, 110 Ross Valley Drive, addressed the Council. Mr. Bosh pointed out that neighbors from six different residences in the Ross Valley Drive neighborhood were present in support of Ms. Hepsley, and noted there would have been even more neighbors in attendance except many of them had child care and work considerations. Mr. Bosh referred to Mr. Beck's term "spite fence". He stated that Mr. Winters had presented a cause and affect argument that was a direct issue, and Mr. Bosh felt that Mr. Beck had done things out of spite. Mr. Bosh stated Mr. Beck's yard looked like Beirut, with a construction fence and missiles sticking out of the ground, creating a situation that calls for a blind fence, noting this was what Ms. Hepsley had done in a very minimal, legal, safe, and tasteful way, with the full support of her neighbors. Mr. Bosh stated he lived directly across the street from Mr. Beck, and had watched him harass and harangue the woman who had previously owned Ms. Hepsley's house, causing her to sell the house and move out of the neighborhood. Mr. Bosh felt Ms. Hepsley had been extremely patient and extremely giving to the neighborhood, taking many steps to improve her property. He noted that in an effort to keep things calm, Ms. Hepsley has done a minimal amount of work, and that rather than being confrontational, she has acted respectfully. He reported that Ms. Hepsley had constructed a minimal fence, and did not know that she had encroached upon the City's right-of-way, noting that when representatives from the City first inspected the fence, she was not ordered to cease and desist, and was not told that she was encroaching. Mr. Bosh stated that space was left between the bottom of the fence and the earth, and he felt that erosion was not an issue and was being brought up by Mr. Beck as a smoke screen. Mr. Bosh emphasized the support of the neighbors for Ms. Hepsley, and he urged the Council to continue to grant the encroachment. There being no further public comment, Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing. Councilmember Phillips asked Mr. Bernardi if he had heard anything during this Public Hearing that had changed his opinion or viewpoint with regard to the granting of the encroachment permit? Mr. Bernardi responded that he had not, and that he continued to recommend that the encroachment be granted. Mr. Phillips stated the red temporary construction fencing on Mr. Beck's property was considered by many to be an eyesore, noting he had driven past the property and seen the fence, and he concurred. But he asked if the fence or the other physical presence were grounds for the encroachment? Mr. Bernardi responded that as far as an encroachment permit being requested of the City, we do not take into account the types of issues that were being presented, but look at the request for encroachment and determine whether or not it is going to affect sight distance and pedestrian access. Mr. Bernardi stated that in his opinion, vehicle travel is not affected, pedestrian traffic and vehicle safety are not affected, and he felt it was appropriate use of the City's ability to grant the encroachment within City right-of-way. Mr. Bernardi also pointed out that these same standards are used for any encroachment permit that is requested through the Public Works Department. Mr. Phillips asked if there was precedence for this type of permit within the City, and Mr. Bernardi stated that there was. Mr. Phillips asked if this request was consistent with the granting of the other applications, and Mr. Bernardi stated that it was, to the extent that the Council has given the Public Works Department the authority to regulate the uses within the public right-of-way. Councilmember Zappetini noted that if the sidewalk had been continued at the site and there had been a retaining wall in place, it would definitely be an encroachment. He asked if, due to the fact that people cannot walk there and cannot drive there, did that mean the encroachment was not a problem? Mr. Bernardi responded that was correct, pointing out that a couple of years ago the Council had heard an appeal from the Canal area regarding a fence being constructed over a sidewalk, and staff determined that even in that particular case, where it was constructed over the sidewalk area, because it was at the point where the street ended and there was no reason for SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/2/95 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/2/95 Page 9 pedestrians to be there, the Council authorized the encroachment. Mr. Bernardi stated that if the public sidewalk had extended into the site of the fence currently under consideration, the City would not have allowed the fence to come out and block the sidewalk, because that would have been a pedestrian walkway. However, the sidewalk clearly ends before reaching the site of the fence, and there is a hill there, and Mr. Bernardi felt that granting the encroachment permit was an appropriate use of the Public Works Department's authority. Mayor Boro asked Mr. Bernardi to comment on the issue of drainage. Mr. Bernardi referred to one of the slides he had presented earlier, which showed that the fence was raised above the level of the ground, and noted staff felt that any run-off from the hill would go under the fence and not cause any erosion. Mr. Bernardi stated it was his opinion that it would not make any difference whether the fence was in place or not. Councilmember Heller asked Mr. Beck how long his bright orange fencing had been in place, and when he had planted the bamboo? She noted she had driven by the property and did not think it was very attractive, and asked if perhaps he planned to do further planting to shield the yard from his neighbors? Mr. Beck asked Ms. Heller what she found unattractive? She responded the bright orange fence, along with the other materials piled around it. Mr. Beck asked her to understand that he had cleared the hill inside his property, and then had to put something around the hill or it would have washed out because the soil was very bad. He stated that was why he placed the tires around the perimeter of his yard, and when he removed the tires he placed the chunks of rocks in their place to hold the hill. Mr. Beck stated that what Ms. Heller could not see were the climbing roses he had planted, which were only three or four years old, along with the bamboo, and that it took time for these plants to grow large enough to shield his yard. Mr. Beck stated his fencing was only six feet tall and, therefore, it was legal. He asked Ms. Heller to remember that it was the back of his property that was being criticized. Mayor Boro reminded everyone that the issue of the orange fence was not the issue before the Council, and that if the Council chose, it could direct staff to report back with an update on the requests from the neighbors at a future meeting. Councilmember Cohen noted Mr. Beck had raised the issue of precedent for the City ordering removal of construction in the right-of-way, and also the issue of obstruction of free passage and potential use. Mr. Cohen stated that, from the photographs, it was apparent to him that there was no immediate pedestrian or vehicular use in the area where the fence is located. He asked Assistant City Attorney Guinan if, in the future, the fence was an obstruction to something the City legitimately wanted to do, would the City be within its rights to revoke the encroachment permit? Mr. Guinan responded that was correct, and that this is stated in the application, and that the applicant is informed at the time the permit is issued. He also noted the cost of removal of the encroachment is borne by the applicant. Mr. Cohen asked if this would also be the case if evidence was found that an encroachment was hindering the public use of the public right-of-way, and Mr. Guinan stated that was correct. Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the resolution denying the appeal to revoke encroachment permit #503 issued by the Public Works Department. RESOLUTION NO. 9484 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL DENYING APPEAL OF THE GRANT OF AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT AT 109 ROSS VALLEY DRIVE. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro None None Mayor Boro stated that in fairness to Mr. Beck, as well as the residents of the neighborhood who were attending this meeting, he was directing the Code Enforcement Officer to review the status of the situation and present the Council with an up -dated report at a future meeting. OLD BUSINESS 10. REPORT ON DRAFT OF MODIFICATIONS TO ORDINANCE NO. 1681, ADOPTED JULY 17, 1995 RE: PARKING OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AND SEMI -TRAILERS ON PUBLIC STREETS (PW) - File 11-8 Mayor Boro noted this was an update of the draft of changes to the existing Ordinance, and Public Works Director Bernardi stated he and Assistant City Attorney Guinan welcomed the Council's input regarding any changes to the draft or its wording. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/2/95 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/2/95 Page 10 Mayor Boro referred to Mr. Farnsworth's claim that if the Ordinance was adopted as presented, he would not be able to park his trucks as he is currently doing. Mr. Bernardi responded that he had spoken with Mr. Farnsworth, and that Mr. Farnsworth had asked him to express some of his concerns to the Council. Mr. Bernardi reported Mr. Farnsworth was concerned that while he and the people who deliver truckloads of material to him are conducting business, they might be loading or unloading for a period of a day or two, either on Grange Way or Francisco Boulevard. Mr. Bernardi stated that he had informed Mr. Farnsworth that as long as they are in the process of conducting their business, then they are not subject to the one hour time limitation. Mr. Bernardi further informed him that if the truck needed to be parked overnight, the proposed wording in the revision to the Ordinance allows them to park from 7:00 PM until 7:00 AM without any limitations. Mr. Bernardi stated Mr. Farnsworth's only other concern was that when a trucker arrives to make a delivery, he must inspect the property before unloading equipment, causing him to park next to Mr. Farnsworth's property longer than an hour, and while he would not expressly be doing anything with the truck, he would actually be conducting business. Mayor Boro referred to a report from Mr. Dennie Dyer in which he stated trucks were parking in the middle of the street while unloading. Mayor Boro asked if there currently was a law making this practice illegal, and Mr. Bernardi responded that there were vehicle codes currently in effect which could be enforced to correct this situation. Councilmember Cohen asked what notification process had been used for this meeting. Mr. Bernardi responded that those individuals who had come before the Council at the previous public hearing and when this issue was first brought to the Council had been notified, as well as Earl Farnsworth, Oclassen Pharmaceuticals, and the distributor in the Northgate area. Mr. Guinan stated he had verified with the City Clerk's office that the same thirty-two individuals and companies originally notified were sent notification of this meeting. Mr. Cohen asked if the total number of warnings issued after the Ordinance was adopted was known? Mr. Bernardi stated he did not have that information. Mr. Cohen asked if there were names and addresses of the people for whom warning notices were issued? Mr. Guinan stated he would obtain that information from Officer Smiley, explaining that Officer Smiley had provided that information when the original thirty-two notifications were mailed, and noting that many of those names were from the list of individuals who had either filed a complaint or had complaints filed against them. Mr. Cohen stated the City might want to consider formally adopting a revision to this Ordinance, and it would be important to be able to identify the impacted businesses. Mr. Cohen felt anyone who might be impacted by this should know that the Council is considering a revision of this Ordinance, and give each of them the opportunity to comment if they have not done so already. He acknowledged that this might not make any of them change their feelings about the issue, but at least the City would have been fair in giving the chance to comment to anyone who was impacted during the time period that citations were issued. Councilmember Phillips stated the City was trying to accommodate the businesses in the City, not to obstruct them, and he agreed that notifying those directly impacted was one way the City could attempt to assist them. Regarding Section C of the report. He referred to the time limitation of no longer than time necessary in excess of one hour to complete loading or unloading, or to complete the performance of a service. Mr. Phillips recognized that the City is trying to accommodate and not obstruct business activity, but asked if this restriction was enforceable as written, as he felt it was very vague and open to interpretation. He asked if it might not be easier to enforce a restriction that stated parking was not to exceed a specific time limit? Mr. Bernardi stated it would be easier to delete that phrase from the Ordinance, and however long it takes to unload the truck, that's how long it takes, noting we should not give them a penalty for dawdling or having lunch. Mr. Cohen stated he had noticed the same phrase, and agreed that it needed work and was too vague to be enforceable. Mr. Cohen stated it seemed as though the Police Department was being called upon to make a judgment as to the amount of time necessary, with no basis to actually make the decision. Mr. Guinan reported the language mirrored State Vehicle Code sections regarding parking restrictions and what local jurisdictions can and cannot do. However, he agreed that the language was too vague, and suggested the City might want to consider setting a cap or time limit that was reasonable, perhaps with input from the businesses and individuals involved as to what a reasonable time limit would be. Mayor Boro felt it was important to remember what the City is trying to accomplish, which is not having trucks stored on commercial or residential streets between 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM. He stated that to accomplish that goal the City needed to have an Ordinance that is understandable and enforceable. Councilmember Zappetini asked what would happen if a truck with two trailers parked on the street to unload, first dropping one trailer and unloading it and then dropping the second trailer, would the trucker be held to the same time restriction as the trucker with only one trailer? Mr. Guinan, noting Officer Smiley was not present to answer this question, stated such an occurrence would probably be within the discretion of the officer at the scene, noting that as long as the driver did not take an exceptionally long break dropping the first box and hooking up the second one, he would, in fact, be in the process of loading and unloading as defined by the current Ordinance. Mr. Guinan stated that this could be addressed by putting a cap on the time allowed for the process, but noted any cap would have to be a reasonable amount of time for those businesses that must do this type of transfer. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/2/95 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/2/95 Page 11 Dan McGuire, addressed the Council on behalf of Mariner Distributing. Mr. McGuire thanked the Council for revising the Ordinance, noting the changes are much more reasonable for his business. He asked the Council to consider an exception to the parking restrictions on weekends and holidays, noting the Northgate Industrial Park area was virtually devoid of any business or traffic on the weekends. He reported his business was active twenty-four hours a day during the week, but on weekends there was very limited activity. Mr. McGuire stated his business had frontage on which to park their trucks so as not to intrude on any of the other businesses in the area; however, if additional language is not incorporated into the Ordinance, they would not be allowed to park in front of their own business on weekends and holidays, and would be forced to keep reparking their trucks to avoid the time restrictions. Harry Winters, resident of San Rafael, addressed the Council on behalf of Dennie Dyer, who was unable to be in attendance. Mr. Winters stated Mr. Dyer was concerned regarding the commercial vehicles parking on Belevedere Street in the Canal area. Mr. Winters reported that Mr. Dyer acknowledged this area was not strictly a residential area as defined by Section E of the City's code, but noted that when trucks are parked on both sides of Belevedere Street, a one-way street effect is created, which greatly affects other residential areas that use Belevedere Street, and Mr. Dyer felt this should be considered in this Ordinance. Mr. Winters referred to the Ordinance being divided into sections A and B, signifying commercial and residential areas. He stated that in his neighborhood, as well as others in the City, the residential area is adjacent to the commercial area, noting that the wording of the Ordinance appears to draw a dividing line down the middle of the street. As an example, Mr. Winters cited Alexander Avenue, which is parallel to the Miracle Mile, just behind McDonalds and the other fast food establishments. Mr. Winters noted there is a long, narrow block which is a commercial street; however, Alexander Avenue is a residential street, and Mr. Winters asked if this meant commercial trucks could park on the south side of Alexander Avenue and still be in a commercial area, even though they would be parked only forty feet from people living on the north side of the street? Mr. Winters believed there were a number of areas in the City where a residential area abuts a commercial area, and asked what the City was going to do in those instances? Mr. Winters felt the Ordinance should be worded to state that on any street where residential is on even one side of the street, parking should be limited on the entire street, noting if a truck is parked on a forty foot wide residential street, it did not make much difference which side of the street it is parked on. Mr. Winters reported another complaint from the residents in his neighborhood was the issue of large fast food delivery trucks that park all night on Alexander Avenue, leaving the refrigeration units running all night and disturbing the residents. Mr. Winters suggested that any truck or vehicle that is equipped with machinery that must be operated during the hours that it is allowed to park, even though it is in a commercial area, should be required to be park three hundred to five hundred feet from any residential area if the truck will create a noise problem. Mr. Bernardi reported that Planning Director Pendoley had verified that the type of zone was defined at the property line, meaning the right-of-way line and the rear property line at McDonalds designate where the commercial zone begins, technically placing that street in a commercial zone. Mr. Bernardi reported staff would discuss this issue with Assistant City Attorney Guinan. Mayor Boro stated he had noted several items to be pursued by staff, including the issue of Saturday, Sunday and Holiday parking in commercial zones; noise restrictions on trucks with operating equipment; parking on Belvedere Street; and changes to the language in Paragraph "C" regarding enforceability. Councilmember Zappetini asked staff to also address the issue of the traffic officer's discretionary enforcement of time restrictions on trucks with more than one trailer. Councilmember Cohen re -stated the need to notify all affected parties prior to the next Public Hearing, including those who have received warning citations. Mr. Guinan stated he would obtain a list from Officer Smiley of the names and addresses of anyone who had been issued a warning, and he would notify them, along with the thirty-two individuals already on the notification list. Mr. Cohen suggested noting the names on the sides of the trucks parking on Belvedere Street in order to notify them of the problem areas. Mayor Boro stated no further action would be taken at this time, and asked staff to return to the Council with an updated report when they are ready for the Public Hearing. NEW BUSINESS 11. ALBERT PARK COMMUNITY PROJECT FOR TENNIS: (Rec) - File 12 -5x9 -3-66x9-3-65 a. APPROVE ALBERT PARK TENNIS RESURFACING PROJECT SCOPE AND FUNDING STRATEGY. b. AUTHORIZE PHASE ONE OF THE PROJECT TO PROCEED. C. RESOLUTION ALLOCATING $40,000 FROM THE PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES FUND AND LOANING SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/2/95 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/2/95 Page 12 AN ADDITIONAL $41,200 TO THE ALBERT PARK COMMUNITY PROJECT FOR TENNIS FOR THE ALBERT PARK TENNIS COURT RESURFACING. Recreation Director Sharon McNamee reported this was a project the Recreation Department has been working on since Spring, noting they had been doing a lot of community spirit -raising, and are now ready to do some serious fundraising. She stated a lot of research has been done to determine what needs to be done to renovate the tennis courts at Albert Park. She reported the courts were built in 1949 and have become very worn, noting they have never had any major reconstruction. She stated they had been resurfaced several times, the last time in 1984. Ms. McNamee reported a core sample was taken, and the analysis showed there are serious cracks that must be filled, indicating more must be done than just a simple color coat. Ms. McNamee stated the cost of resurfacing the courts would be approximately $51,000, and noted she was also requesting authorization to replace the cyclone fence fabric, improve the ditch that runs between the asphalt and the courts on the west side, and to do some work on the east side of the courts to eliminate the trash from the softball field blowing onto the courts and causing them to wear. She reported the additional costs will be close to $30,000, so the total cost of Phase I would be approximately $81,000, noting these are rough estimates worked out with the Engineering Department. Ms. McNamee stated there are additional projects that the Recreation Department would like to accomplish, such as adding new signage, new garbage cans, water fountains, and benches, and also do some work on the backboard, and she noted these are the things that the tennis players, the City, and the Parks and Recreation Commission have looked at and agreed are important to do. Ms. McNamee stated she was requesting the Council approve an allocation of $40,000 from the Parks and Facilities Fund, and a loan of $41,200 to be paid back through serious fundraising. She reported some of the fundraising ideas that are being considered are a square dance on the tennis courts before they are resurfaced, a celebrity tennis challenge, and a hit-a-thon. She stated several other fundraising ideas are being considered, including just asking for donations, and finding individuals to sponsor the courts, or individual squares of the courts, and have them named after them. Ms. McNamee stated her department is very confident they have some good leads on money, as well as some very good fundraising ideas, and reported grant applications have been submitted to the Marin Community Foundation for their Neighborhood Award, and the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods. Another suggestion has been to establish a tennis "key" system or "pass" system, which would provide a way to generate some revenue from the courts. These revenues would go into an on-going maintenance fund, which would allow for the courts to be washed more often, the replacement of small things that need replacing, and also set up a small fund which could be built up to pay for larger maintenance, such as resurfacing of the courts. Ms. McNamee referred to the Resolution in which she stated the Recreation Department hoped to pay back the $41,200 through fundraising, no later than December, 1996. Councilmember Heller asked when the fundraising for the $15,000 for the second phase of the project would begin? Ms. McNamee stated that, depending on how well they do with Phase I, they might also be able to accomplish some of projects from Phase 11, otherwise Phase II would just be in line as they can get to it. Ms. Heller stated the other tennis courts were not in good shape, and asked if they would be looking at the other courts around the City and coming back to the Council with recommendations for their repair? Ms. McNamee responded that they would be looking at the courts at Freitas right away, and will be bringing a recommendation to the Council on those courts soon. She stated the rest of the courts were in fairly good shape, except for Glenwood, which they would also be looking at. Councilmember Zappetini referred to the idea of a "key" court, and asked what kind of funds this could generate for the City, what such a program would cost, and if the costs for such a program were included in the budget being presented? Ms. McNamee responded the costs for such a program were not reflected in the budget being presented, as it was an idea that is still being investigated. She stated that when the program had been further defined, it would be presented to the Council. She noted that several of the other cities in the County do have a "key" or "pass" system in place, and they will be looking at the pros and cons of those programs. Mr. Zappetini asked if the use of the courts by the teachers had been worked out, and Ms. McNamee stated that it had been. Councilmember Phillips stated he had visited the courts and agreed that they are in need of repair; however, he is concerned that we might be turning a City facility into a quasi -private tennis club with a "key" or "pass" program. Ms. McNamee stated that the City has thirteen tennis courts, and the thought was to "key" the four courts at Albert Park, as well as the double courts at Glenwood, Freitas and Peacock Gap, and leaving the single courts at Gerstle Park, Boyd, and Santa Marguerita unkeyed. She stated the committee would be looking at various ways to implement such a plan, in order to serve everyone and not make it unavailable to people because of cost or access. She noted, however, that most of the other recreational programs being offered generate revenue as a means of helping to pay for the service, such as softball, basketball, and bocce ball programs, stating the goal in this instance is to generate some type of user fee that the tennis players can be supportive of. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/2/95 Page 12 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/2/95 Page 13 Mr. Phillips stated he applauded their effort in looking at the many different alternatives, noting the Recreation Department does have a substantial number of programs that are self -providing, which is why he is somewhat hesitant to voice his concern, yet he felt he would not be in favor of a program that established a quasi -private tennis club. Mayor Boro stated he felt Mr. Phillips made a good point, and that the success of such a program would be dependent upon the fact that no one had exclusive use of the courts, that the courts would remain available to everyone, and that whoever controlled the keys would see to it that no one dominated the courts and made them exclusively theirs. Councilmember Cohen stated, given the circumstance the City finds itself in and the reality of the situation we face, and given local government financing, he felt we had no choice but to look at creative alternatives such as this. He noted the Council had spoken before about cost recovery being a barrier to public participation; however, he felt the flip side of that was the extent to which it is appropriate or fair to ask the taxpayers of the City, particularly those who do not play tennis, to subsidize the cost of a great enhancement to the tennis courts when the City cannot even afford to resurface the City streets and fix the storm drains, and is allowing some of the Capital Improvements to go unmet in the City? Mr. Cohen stated he is supportive of this project, and he felt it would be reasonable to say that the people who are obtaining the benefit from this program should also be the ones participating in making it happen. He felt the only way to accomplish this on an on-going basis was some type of "pay -for -play", whether it is a "key" access or some other type of program, noting a system of fair access would also need to be a part of any program in place. Mr. Cohen suggested perhaps looking at the practice of charging a fee to play, with a lower fee for San Rafael residents, based on the assumption a portion of the residents' tax money had already been used to pay for the facility. Mr. Cohen stated it appeared to him that what we were talking about was creating a premier tennis facility within the City's network of tennis courts, and that might justify asking the public to pay a little more for the opportunity to play there. Mayor Boro stated he was not at all opposed to a pay -for -play program, noting he was concerned at the thought of creating an exclusive club that would not be available to everyone. He stated he was fully supportive of the recovery system, and felt that was why we had a very good recreational program in the City, noting if we did not have the recovery program, the City would not be able to offer the recreational services that we do. Mayor Boro stated that although he recognizes the need to have some opportunities for people to play who cannot afford to pay, he would generally support the pay -for -play idea, as long as it does not become an exclusive use for just a certain group of people. Councilmember Heller stated she agreed with Councilmember Cohen's concerns, that she also had a problem with having to charge our citizens for anything in the Park and Recreation field. However, she acknowledged the City does need to recover costs for many of these programs, and noted the Albert Park tennis court was very important because it was the City's teaching court. She stated the City needs to continue to bring children into the park and provide them with the programs that they need. Ms. Heller recognized the hard work Ms. McNamee has put into this project, and stated she would work as hard as she could to help make this program a success. Bob Volt, resident of San Rafael, addressed the Council on behalf of many of the tennis players. Mr. Volt stated he had been playing tennis at Albert Park since the courts were built in 1949, and that he and the other players are definitely in support of resurfacing the courts. Mr. Volt felt these courts have greater use than any other in the park system, that the courts at Albert Park are badly in need of repair. Mr. Volt stated he rose in support of this project, and hoped the courts at Albert Park would continue to be the City's premier courts. Councilmember Cohen clarified that the proposal before the Council was the repayment of the proposed loan strictly through fundraising, and that the "key" system or "pass" system would be considered in the future when discussing fundraising for such purposes as on-going maintenance. Mr. Cohen stated that if the loan has not been completely repaid by December, 1996, perhaps a pay -for -play system might be implemented sooner and used to repay any balance remaining on the loan, and then used to buildup the fund for on-going maintenance expenses. Mr. Cohen stated he was very supportive of these types of approaches, and of the City providing the "seed money" for these types of efforts; however, he felt the principle here was that the City was making a loan to get a community effort started, and it must be stressed that this is only a loan and that the City will be repaid. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to approve the Albert Park Resurfacing Scope and Funding Strategy, authorize Phase One of the project to proceed, and adopt a Resolution allocating $40,000 from the Park and Recreation Facilities Fund and loaning an additional $41,200 to the Albert Park Community Project for Tennis for the Albert Park tennis court resurfacing. RESOLUTION NO. 9485 - RESOLUTION ALLOCATING $40,000. FROM THE PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES FUND AND LOANING AN ADDITIONAL $41,200. TO THE ALBERT PARK COMMUNITY PROJECT FOR TENNIS FOR THE ALBERT PARK TENNIS COURT RESURFACING. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/2/95 Page 13 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/2/95 Page 14 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 12. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: DISCUSSION OF "ANOTHER WAY CAMPAIGN" - File 233 x 13-9 Mayor Boro reported he had asked that this item be placed on the agenda. He stated he had spoken with members of the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce and the Business Improvement District regarding a program that some communities were using to discourage panhandling. He stated the program involved a campaign to inform the citizens that the City provided services to the homeless people at specific locations, directing those people who need help to go to these locations, and informing the public that if they want to help the homeless they should contribute directly to the organizations that are set-up to help them, not to give it directly to the individuals. Mayor Boro stated the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, the Business Improvement District and Rob Simon, representing the provider groups, have been working on this project and were now asking for the Council's endorsement. Rob Simon, Executive Director of the Human Concern Center, addressed the Council, thanking the Council and Planning Director Pendoley for their courage and support, which he felt led to the Human Concern Center winning the Beryl Buck Achievement Award for Community Education for their work with the day service center and the construction of the Bouchard Building, which Mayor Boro dedicated. Mr. Simon stated he felt very lucky to be doing this work in the City of San Rafael. Mr. Simon explained the project got its start when Mayor Boro contacted him over a year ago, after the Mayor had received a complaint from the Montecito Plaza Shopping Center because of a man aggressively panhandling at the Wells Fargo ATM machine. He noted that when they were in the process of opening the day service center, they investigated programs being run by other cities, and noted this program was being modeled after the programs of the City of Palo Alto and the City of San Jose. Mr. Simon stated the purpose of the program will be to educate shoppers in the community, informing them that there are services available to help the homeless. He reported he had discovered that most of the money raised by panhandling was used for recreational purposes, and in an attempt to discourage people from panhandling, and to educate the shoppers in the businesses districts, they have been working with representatives from the Montecito Plaza Shopping Center and Marin Square Shopping Center in an attempt to get the campaign going in San Rafael. Elissa Giambastiani, Executive Director of the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Council, and reported a questionnaire had been distributed to the Chamber of Commerce members who are retailers, banks, restaurants, and to the downtown merchants. She noted Montecito Plaza Shopping Center and Marin Square Shopping Center also distributed them to their tenants. She reported 400 to 500 questionnaires were distributed, and approximately 40 were returned, noting a 10% response was not bad. Ms. Giambastiani stated those responding all expressed an interest in a program to discourage panhandling. Eda Lochte, Business Improvement District, addressed the Council, and stated the BID had also distributed a questionnaire to the downtown merchants. She noted the final tally had not been completed, but 100% of the responses that had been received thus far had agreed that an education and awareness program would be very effective in San Rafael. Ms. Giambastiani stated a kick-off for this program has been tentatively scheduled for October 24th at 5:00 PM, noting they would like to hold it at City Hall to give the event a lot of visibility. She reported the Chamber of Commerce would pay for the printing of the flyers, and the Kiwanis Club would donate the printing of the cards, which will state the locations at which the homeless can obtain services. Ms. Giambastiani stated Mr. Simon would coordinate placing cans with the downtown merchants to be used for collecting donations. Mr. Simon reported one of the objectives of this campaign is to help the shoppers, noting that when they encounter a panhandler, some feel guilty if they do give money to the panhandler because they do not know what the money will be used for, and others feel guilty if they do not give them money. He explained the shoppers will be receiving the cards that they will have an opportunity to give to the panhandlers, showing the many services that are available to help them. Mr. Simon noted some of the services available, in addition to his facility, were the homeless shelter, the Salvation Army, and St. Vincent's. Ms. Giambastiani also noted that the City was not being asked for any funds for this project. Mayor Boro clarified that the Council was only being asked for their support, in principle, to support this project. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/2/95 Page 14 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/2/95 Page 15 Councilmember Phillips asked if the locations where the donation cans are being placed could be expanded to include the Northgate Shopping Center? Mr. Simon responded that they had spoken with representatives of the Northgate Shopping Center, and they did not feel that they had a problem at their main location, but would be interested in getting involved with the program at some of their other sites. Mr. Phillips asked if the money that is contributed through the donation cans will be used to fund this project? Ms. Giambastiani stated the money would not be used to fund the program, but would be given to the service providers. Mr. Phillips stated that Northgate Shopping Center was part of San Rafael, and that this was a San Rafael issue, so it seemed to him that the residents of San Rafael would be interested in addressing the issue which is, in part, to provide funding for San Rafael in its entirety. Therefore, he felt it would be a Northgate issue, and although there may not be as many homeless people in the Northgate area, he would hope they would be willing to support the program by at least having cans present. Ms. Giambastiani stated that anyone who wanted to be a part of the program could certainly be a part of the program, noting they had been looking mainly at those areas most heavily impacted by the panhandlers. Councilmember Cohen felt, based on his own observations, that Northgate One might want to look at this program, and noted anyone in the business community should be encouraged to participate, but acknowledged there had to be an interest from the business owner or it would not work. Mr. Cohen stated there were several different types of approaches to this problem that have been taken by various cities in the Bay Area, and he commended Mr. Simon for implementing a program that Mr. Cohen felt seemed to be one of the most creative programs addressing this issue. Mr. Cohen stated the name of the project, the "Another Way Campaign", was very appropriate because that is exactly what this project does, it gives people another way to participate in finding a solution, and it does not just foster the problem. Mr. Cohen stated he would like to see the City formally endorse this program and encourage it in any way that we can, noting that if there are ways in which the City could participate he felt we should consider that as well, beginning with making the Council Chamber available for the kick-off program. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to formally endorse and support the "Another Way Campaign", and urge the local businesses to become involved. Under discussion, Councilmember Heller stated that long ago she had stopped handing out money to anyone who asked for it, and instead made donations to the Human Concern Center. She explained that this made her feel much better, and that as a woman, she will not stop and open her purse for any man who is panhandling because it is frightening. She felt it was important to let the women in the community know about this program and see that there is a better way to help. Mr. Simon reported there was an additional step that Palo Alto had taken, in which they have organized what they call an Aggressive Panhandling Committee, involving business people, service providers, and homeless people on the committee. He felt this might be a good addition for this program in the future. Councilmember Phillips stated he felt one of the best aspects about this program was that it informed both the person holding the card and the person giving the card, exactly what is available, noting we should be proud of the services the City of San Rafael provides, but most of the citizens do not know what the City provides. He stated this program would be one way for the City to promote itself with regard to what we are already doing for the homeless. Mayor Boro thanked Mr. Simon, Ms. Giambastiani and Ms. Lochte for their perseverance, noting it had been a long road for them. Mayor Boro stated the program is a very good idea, but that the support must come from the business community, noting government cannot make it happen, but can certainly help support the program. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro None None Councilmember Phillips wanted to underscore the fact that Mayor Boro did, in fact, initiate the idea of Rob Simon being asked to develop this program, and Mr. Phillips felt it was important to recognize Mayor Boro's efforts in this endeavor. b. REPORT BY MAYOR BORO OF $46,000 GRANT RECEIVED FOR FALKIRK CULTURAL CENTER - File 223 x 9-3-84 (Verbal) Mayor Boro reported the City had received a memo from Library Director Vaughn Stratford and Falkirk Director Carol Adney regarding a $46,000 grant that had been received for Falkirk, and asked Acting City Manager Golt to draft a letter to Mr. Stratford and Ms. Adney, thanking them on behalf of the Council for their fine work and dedication. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/2/95 Page 15 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk BY PATRICIA J. ROBERTS, DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1995 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/2/95 Page 16 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/2/95 Page 16