Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1995-06-19SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, JUNE 19, 1995, AT 8:00 PM Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor San Rafael City Council Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Barbara Heller, Councilmember Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember David J. Zappetini, Councilmember Absent: None Others Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager Gus Guinan, Assistant City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk OPEN SESSION - 7:00 PM - COUNCIL CHAMBER Mayor Boro announced Closed Session item: CLOSED SESSION AGENDA ITEM - 7:00 PM - CONFERENCE ROOM 201 1. Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation Pending Litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c): June 6, 1995 Letter from Silveira Attorney Douglas Maloney to City Attorney Assistant City Attorney Gus Guinan reported there was no reportable action taken. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: - 8:00 PM None CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to approve the recommended action on the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 2. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of May 15, 1995 Approved as submitted. (CC) 5. Resolution Requiring Applications for Planning Department ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. Permits Include Agreement by Applicants to Indemnify City 9378 - REQUIRING Against Litigation Costs and to Pay City Attorney Costs APPLICATIONS FOR and Fees Associated With Processing Permits and PLANNING DEPARTMENT Implementing Permit Conditions (CA) - File 10-2 x 9-3-16 PERMITS INCLUDE AGREEMENT BY APPLICANTS TO INDEMNIFY CITY COSTS ATTORNEY COSTS AND FEES ASSOCIATED WITH PROCESSING PERMITS AND AGAINST LITIGATION AND TO PAY CITY IMPLEMENTING PERMIT CONDITIONS 6. Monthly Investment Report (Fin) - File 8-18 x 8-9 Accepted report. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 2 8. Resolution Reconfirming the General Plan Recreation ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. Element Park Development Goals and Confirming 9379 - CONFIRMING THE the City Commitment to Specific Park Projects GENERAL PLAN RECREATION (Rec) - File 115 x 9-3-66 ELEMENT PARK DEVELOPMENT GOALS AND CONFIRMING THE CITY COMMITMENT TO SPECIFIC PARK PROJECTS 9. Authorization to Enter into Agreement with DKS Associates ADOPTED RESOLUTION for Design of Traffic Signal Interconnect for Fourth NO. 9380 - AUTHORIZING Street and Fifth Avenue (PW) - File 4-3-215 X 11-10 THE SIGNING OF AN AGREEMENT WITH DKS ASSOCIATES FOR DESIGN OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL INTERCONNECT FOR FOURTH STREET AND FIFTH AVENUE 10. Report on Bid Opening and Award of Contract for Street ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. and Award of Contract for Street Resurfacing - 1995 (PW) NO. 9381 - RESOLUTION - File 4-1-475 OF AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR STREET RESURFACING PROJECT - 1995 (To Ghilotti Construction, Inc., Lowest Responsible Bidder, In Amount Of $472,583.59) 11. Resolution Authorizing Participation in California Counter- ADOPTED RESOLUTION Drug Procurement Program (PW) - File 9-3-30 NO. 9382 - AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN THE CALIFORNIA COUNTER - DRUG PROCUREMENT PROGRAM 13. Adoption of Police Rotation Tow Fee Schedule - (PD) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. - File 9-10-2 x 9-3-30 9383 - SETTING THE FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE POLICE ROTATION TOW ORDINANCE AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None The following items were removed from Consent Calendar for discussion: 3. RESOLUTIONS RE ELECTION MATTERS - GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION - NOVEMBER 7, 1995: (CC) - File 9-4 a. Resolution of the City Council: 1) Proposing a General Municipal Election, Including the San Rafael Elementary School District and the San Rafael High School District; 2) Requesting the Board of Supervisors to Consolidate With Any Other Election Conducted on the Same Date; 3) Requesting Election Services by the County Clerk. b. Resolution Reaffirming Policy Regarding Number of Words in Candidate's Statement of Qualifications, and Providing that the Cost of Printing and Handling of Candidate's Statement of Qualifications Shall be Borne by the Candidate and Paid SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 3 for at the Time Nomination Papers are Filed. C . Resolution Requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Marin to Permit the County Clerk to Consolidate Precincts and Polling Places Relating to the San Rafael General Municipal Election. Councilmember Phillips referred to 3 b, noting that the Candidate's Statement for School Board candidates is more than for the City Council. He asked for the reason. City Clerk Leoncini explained that it is because of a larger jurisdiction. It goes out of the City Limits and covers more than one school district. Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the Resolutions regarding election matters. a. RESOLUTION NO. 9384 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL: 1) PROPOSING A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION, INCLUDING THE SAN RAFAEL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE SAN RAFAEL HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT GENERAL ELECTION; 2) REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO CONSOLIDATE WITH ANY OTHER ELECTION CONDUCTED ON THE SAME DATE; 3) REQUESTING ELECTION SERVICES BY THE COUNTY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 9385 - RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING POLICY REGARDING NUMBER OF WORDS IN CANDIDATE'S STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS, AND PROVIDING THAT THE COST OF PRINTING AND HANDLING OF CANDIDATE'S STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS SHALL BE BORNE BY THE CANDIDATE AND PAID FOR AT THE TIME NOMINATION PAPERS ARE FILED RESOLUTION NO. 9386 - RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF MARIN TO PERMIT THE COUNTY CLERK TO CONSOLIDATE PRECINCTS AND POLLING PLACES RELATING TO THE SAN RAFAEL GENERAL ELECTION AYES: MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: None 4. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO CONTRACT FROM JULY 1, 1995 THROUGH JUNE 20, 1996 FOR EXCESS WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE WITH NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY THROUGH JOHNSON & HIGGINS (CM) - File 9-6-1 Councilmember Zappetini noted that the City limit on the self-insured retention rate is $250,000, and after that the Workers' Compensation pays the additional insurance. He pointed out that the staff report says this is a competitive quote, and asked did we put this out for bid? City Manager Nicolai responded that it is not a formal competitive bid, but we do ask for quotes from providers. Councilmember Zappetini noted that the staff report says this is similar to what we were paying before, but most Workers' Compensation rates he has seen lately have gone down at least 30% because of deregulation, and he wondered if this reflects that change. Mayor Boro asked Finance Director Ransom Coleman to describe the process. Mr. Coleman explained that the broker of record is Johnson & Higgins, and they go out and solicit proposals from the various insurance companies, or find out what is out there. To the extent that they go out and get proposals we do, in fact, get proposals through Johnson & Higgins who are brokers for the JPA (Joint Powers Agreement). Councilmember Zappetini confirmed that this was a competitive bid process. Mr. Coleman agreed. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 4 Councilmember Zappetini moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the Resolution authorizing the Workers' Compensation contract as recommended by staff. RESOLUTION NO. 9387 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO CONTRACT FROM JULY 1, 1995 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1996 FOR EXCESS WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE WITH NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY THROUGH JOHNSON & HIGGINS AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 7. RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS GRANTING APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A SIGN ADJUSTMENT FOR THREE BUILDING MOUNTED TENANT IDENTIFICATION SIGNS (SR94-44); 1600 LOS GAMOS ROAD, SAN RAFAEL, APN 165-010-96; PHILIP MURPHY, THE GNU GROUP, APPELLANT; KRONOS PROPERTY HOLDINGS, NV OWNER: J. EDGAR FENNIE, AIA, REPRESENTATIVE (P1) - File 10-11 Mayor Boro explained he had this item removed from the Consent Calendar, for a roll call vote. Councilmember Zappetini moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the Resolution granting the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a sign adjustment at 1600 Los Gamos Road. RESOLUTION NO. 9388 - RESOLUTION GRANTING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A SIGN ADJUSTMENT FOR THREE BUILDING MOUNTED TENANT IDENTIFICATION SIGNS (SRS94-44); 1600 Los Gamos Road, San Rafael, APN 165-010-96: Phillip Murphy, The GNU Group, Appellant; Kronos Property Holdings, N.V. Owner; J. Edgar Fennie, AIA, Representative. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips and Zappetini NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 12. RENEWAL OF ONE-YEAR CONTRACT FOR ABANDONED VEHICLE TOWING WITH TERRA LINDA TOW (PD) - File 4-3-274 Councilmember Zappetini noted that this item relates to Item 13, and asked how do these people get paid for towing abandoned vehicles? Police Lieutenant Thomas Boyd explained that they do not charge a fee, but they get lien fees if the vehicles are not picked up, and they are sold for scrap. Councilmember Zappetini asked if that is based on the fee schedule which is on Item 13, or is there a standard fee? Lt. Boyd stated there is a law in the Vehicle Code which says that we have to notify people of the lien sale; and that once the lien sale is done and we complete all of the paper work, that the vehicle ownership will go to the towing company if it is not claimed. That is actually their payment for towing the abandoned vehicle. It has nothing to do with the fee schedule. Councilmember Zappetini moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution renewing the contract with Terra Linda Tow for one year, for abandoned vehicle towing. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 5 RESOLUTION NO. 9389 - AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF A CONTRACT, LEASE OR AGREEMENT WITH TERRA LINDA TOW SERVICE TO TOW ABANDONED VEHICLES AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 14. RESOLUTION ENDORSING EXCELLENT SCHOOLS PROGRAM OF THE SAN RAFAEL PUBLIC EDUCATION FOUNDATION - File 212 Councilmember Cohen stated this is a repeat of action the Council took last year, to support this outreach program by the San Rafael Public Education Foundation to the business community. It is an excellent example of the kind of cooperation and partnership between the public and private sectors which we talked about this year. He noted that the Council's endorsement was printed on their brochure last year, and he felt the Council should take this action and have their endorsement on this year's brochure as well. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the Resolution as presented. RESOLUTION NO. 9390 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL IN SUPPORT OF THE EXCELLENT SCHOOLS PROGRAM AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Mayor Boro referred to Agenda Item #9, regarding the traffic signal interconnect, and commended the Public Works Director for the amount of money with which we are proceeding on a grant basis to reconfigure the signals in Downtown. He stated it is a great project, with a value of about $600,000, and it is great to be able to get that as a grant. Public Works Director David Bernardi thanked Mayor Boro and stated he will pass his remarks on to Nader Mansourian, who did the work. 15. PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM THE HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL TO THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION AND TO AMEND APPENDIX B TO ASSIGN ADDITIONAL TRIPS TO THE SITE, A ZONE CHANGE TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PD) ZONING DISTRICT TO ESTABLISH SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE SITE, A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, A USE PERMIT, AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT, A THREE PARCEL SUBDIVISION, AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROJECT. THE PROPOSED APPLICATIONS WILL PERMIT THE DEVELOPMENT OF 10 TOWNHOUSE UNITS AND TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AT 157 WOODLAND AVENUE, SAN RAFAEL, CA; ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 13-114-19 AND 20; ROBERT BIGGS, DAVID ROSENBERG, AND ROBERT COPPLE, OWNERS; ROBERT COPPLE, REPRESENTATIVE (P1) - File 5-1-326 x 115 x 10-3 x 10-5 x 10-7 Principal Planner Sheila Delimont briefed the Council, stating that she would give a update on the project, since they are all familiar with it. She stated that the Planning Commission and Design Review Board have both recommended approval of this project. Two issues were raised at the Planning Commission by two neighbors, Duane Love and Darcy McDonnell. They requested that the 6 -foot solid fence which is proposed at the property line (Ms. Delimont showed the location on the overhead), be raised to an 8 -foot fence with the top two feet being lattice work. That has been incorporated into the conditions of approval. They were also concerned with the landscape maintenance on the site, and requested a four-year bond, which has also been incorporated into the conditions of approval, with the provision that the requirement will terminate when the project is turned over to a homeowners' association because their dues will cover the ongoing maintenance. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 6 Ms. Delimont reported that a number of changes were made to this project through the design review process and the neighborhood meeting process. She stated she will go through them briefly, because this is an example where the process worked and the neighbors' concerns have been addressed. She noted that at the neighborhood meetings people were concerned about the two lots at the top, off of Bret Harte, primarily with parking issues. They were concerned that with two driveways the curb cuts would eliminate parking spaces, so there is now a requirement for a joint driveway. There are also design standards established for the two single family homes, and one requirement will be that each lot have an additional parking space. Another concern was that there not be access between Bret Harte and Woodland, and none is proposed. She noted other changes which had been made to the townhouses, including reduction of a deck and inclusion of the privacy fence, as well as relocating a parking space. Ms. Delimont reported that today staff received a letter from Charles Clifford, which raises four issues. One of them was regarding privacy. She noted that the townhouses will only be 27 feet above existing grade, so there should not be a privacy issue. There will also be landscaping between them. She stated Mr. Clifford also raised two issues regarding potential impact from drainage and damage during construction. She noted the Council has a memo from Public Works Department, stating that those issues can be addressed through existing conditions of approval. She added that Mr. Clifford was present. She pointed out the location of the V -ditch on the overhead, and explained that the drainage would then go through conduit, so that should not be a problem. She noted that another concern of Mr. Clifford's was sight distance, and the buildings are set back substantially with no additional landscaping going in that area, so there should not be a problem. Ms. Delimont stated that staff is recommending approval of the project. She then pointed out the various actions for the Council to take. One of the actions, Item "e", regarding the Development Agreement, does not have to be taken and the Resolution does not have to be adopted. Councilmember Phillips noted that Mr. Clifford makes reference in his letter to a barrier during construction. He asked if that should be taken into account by the Council. Ms. Delimont responded that she has a memo from Public Works Department, and they say that condition #52 states that a grading permit will be required, and under that they will be looking at Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirements which mandate safe excavation practices. Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened, and asked if anyone wishes to address the Council on this item. Mr. Charles Clifford stated he and his son, Jim, own the building immediately to the east of this property. It is an eight -unit apartment building, which is at the bottom of a cliff immediately adjacent to the property being discussed, and the grading which was done 40 or 50 years ago would not be allowed today. He stated it is meaningless to say that 27 feet above grade for the height of the townhomes, because of the location of his apartment building. He is concerned about rocks being loosened by the grading in the course of construction, and causing serious damage to his property. He added that in the storm of 1982 there was a considerable amount of mud runoff. He added that the general conditions are not enough and there should be a development agreement that a channel be put at the top of the hill to take the water, which comes down onto his property from the two extra lots above. Mr Clifford added that he did not know about this project until recently, since he had been out of the country. He suggested having story poles erected so he can see the height of the buildings, and also a chain link fence to act as a barrier to stop the rocks from coming down onto his property during grading. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 7 Mayor Boro asked Mr. Clifford had he been out of the country when the Planning Commission meeting took place, and he replied that he was; however, they were never invited to the neighborhood meetings. Ms. Delimont explained that he would have received a notice of the neighborhood meetings, because that is the same list staff uses to notice the Planning Commission meetings. For the Design Review Board meetings, since it is an advisory board, notices are sent to the neighborhood association, and also to people who specifically request that they be kept up to date on the project, such as Mr. McDonnell and Mr. Love. Mayor Boro asked about sending notices to property owners within 300 feet of a project, and Ms. Delimont responded that does not apply to the Design Review Board meetings, but it does apply to the notices regarding neighborhood meetings. Mr Mr. James Clifford, co-owner of the apartment building, stated they are in favor of the project, but he shares his father' s concerns about the drainage and the falling rocks. Councilmember Heller inquired if the drainage issue involves the townhouse project, or the two lots above. Mr. Clifford responded that the water comes down from the two lots above. Duane Love, who lives immediately adjacent to the project site, stated that most of his, and his uncle Darcy McDonnell's concerns, have been answered. He added that Mr. McDonnell is out of town on business and could not be present tonight. However, they support the changes such as the relocation of a parking space and reduction of the deck, as well as inclusion of the privacy fence. He stated that Mr. McDonnell has reviewed the revised plans and approved of the changes. There being no further public input, Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing closed. Councilmember Cohen inquired if there will be future design review work done on the two separate lots? Ms. Delimont responded that building envelopes are being worked on, and there is a requirement that a drainage easement be placed across those lots. The two single family dwellings are subject to a design review permit and review by the Planning Commission, so when they come in for development the neighborhood will be notified. She added that we had geotechnical reports and drainage reports prepared for the environmental document, and improvement plans will need to be reviewed by Public Works Department as well. She pointed out on the overhead where the drainage channel is planned. Councilmember Cohen stated that any problem should be appropriately addressed in the design of those properties. He asked is there strong enough language in the conditions to address the issue of the drainage from up above. He stated that seems to be appropriately addressed in the design of the drainage system in conjunction with the construction of those properties. Public Works Director David Bernardi responded that the Council has a copy of a memo from Fred Vincenti to Ms. Delimont, which speaks to a couple of conditions which were imposed as part of the project approval. Condition #62 states that each individual lot shall be constructed to properly drain to the street or an established drainage facility. Condition #63 states that runoff on the improved area shall be collected and conveyed to the street or established drainage facilities by underground conduit, and that drainage shall not be diverted or concentrated onto adjoining properties or onto cut or filled slopes, or over sidewalk or driveways. Mr. Bernardi explained that the way they check that is through the actual building permit drawings. Staff ensures that these kinds of issues have been addressed as part of the plan check process. Councilmember Cohen stated it appears that the V -ditch is not necessarily adequate for drainage of the lots above, but it would be hard to design drainage without having some plan or proposal for development of those lots. Mr. Bernardi agreed. Councilmember Cohen stated he wants to be sure that there is language to speak to that. He asked if staff is comfortable with that? Mr. Bernardi responded that the City Attorney suggests that, as part of the approval process, in order to assure Mr. Clifford that the plans are being done in accordance with his concerns, that staff would not have any objection to the Council adding a SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 8 condition, or some language, which would allow Mr. Clifford and/or his experts, to review the plans before any permits are issued for the work on the various properties. Councilmember Cohen stated he would like to see that incorporated. Councilmember Cohen then addressed the question Mr. Clifford raised regarding the grading permit. He asked if that should be called out specifically, and not just say that a grading permit will be required, but perhaps to add language to the effect that"specific attention will be paid to providing safety barriers to prevent falling rocks on the adjacent properties". Mr. Bernardi agreed, stating that one of the special conditions to the grading permit would be the requirement to provide debris barriers at the bottom of the slope so that nothing will go onto adjacent properties. Councilmember Cohen agreed. Councilmember Heller asked Ms. Delimont to point out the five parking spaces. Ms. Delimont indicated their locations on the overhead. Councilmember Heller then addressed condition #81, and asked if it has been changed from a two-year maintenance contract to a four year maintenance? Ms. Delimont replied it has been changed. Mayor Boro stated he has been advised by City Clerk Leoncini that if the Council chooses to go forward on this project, that we take each item individually, and that Item "e" on the agenda will not be necessary. City Attorney Gary Ragghianti pointed out, with regard to Item "ell, that the Development Agreement was executed in mid-January, after the Settlement Agreement was entered into. It does not become effective until the Ordinance approving the Development Agreement has been enacted, so it need not be adopted and has been removed from the packets. Mayor Boro asked the City Attorney if the changes which were just discussed regarding the issue of drainage and design review are appropriate under the Development Agreement, or under the use permit? Mr. Ragghianti responded he believes they would add new conditions to the development approvals of the 3 -lot subdivision, under Item 'If" which involves the use permit, environmental and design review permit. Ms. Delimont stated that is correct. a. Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the Resolution certifying the Negative Declaration. RESOLUTION NO. 9391 - CERTIFYING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, PARCEL MAP, MASTER USE PERMIT AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF TEN TOWNHOUSE UNITS AND TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, 157 Woodland Avenue (AP No. 13-114-19 and -20) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None b. Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Zappetini seconded, to adopt theResolution adopting a General Plan Amendment. RESOLUTION NO. 9392 - ADOPTING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON 157 WOODLAND AVENUE FROM HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND TO AMEND APPENDIX B TO DESIGNATE 12 TRIPS FOR THE SITE (APN 13-114-19 AND -20) (GPA94-2) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 9 c. 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, SO AS TO RECLASSIFY CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FROM HR1 HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL, 1 ACRE MINIMUM) TO THE PD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT (RE: ZC95-2 , 157 WOODLAND AVENUE, SAN RAFAEL, AP NOS. 13-114-19 and -20)" Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Zappetini seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1678 to print by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None d. The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE TO THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN 157 WOODLAND PARTNERS, ROBERT W. COPPLE, ROBERT BIGGS AND DAVID ROSENBERG AND THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF TEN TOWNHOUSE UNITS AND TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AT 157 WOODLAND AVENUE, SAN RAFAEL, ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 13-114-19 AND -20)" Councilmember Zappetini moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1679 to print by the following vote to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None e. Deleted - not required. f. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Zappetini seconded, to adopt the Resolution approving the use permit, environmental and design review permit, and the 3 -lot subdivision, with modification to conditions. For conditions #62 and #63, language to be incorporated allowing the Cliffords and any experts they may wish, to have access to and examination of the specific drainage mitigations which will be put in place before any construction is allowed on the upper property. Also, similar language should be added to condition #52, further specifying that particular attention will be paid to providing barriers to prevent debris from falling from the subject site onto their property. City Attorney Ragghianti added he wants to be sure that staff understands, that the language when they were discussing the issues was to make certain that Mr. Clifford receives advance notice of the proposed drainage plan which the applicant or sponsor intends to construct, and an opportunity to review it and comment upon it, and have his experts review it and give input to the City. He stated the same is true with respect to the issuance of the grading permit, wherein the proposed barriers would be made known in advance to Mr. Clifford for his review and comment. Mr. Cohen agreed, stating he thinks the City's intent to protect the public safety is clear, and in this case the safety of the Cliffords' property and their tenants. RESOLUTION NO. 9394 - APPROVING THE PARCEL MAP, MASTER USE PERMIT AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF TEN TOWNHOUSE UNITS AND TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS; 157 Woodland Avenue (APN 13-114-19 and -20) (As Amended) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 10 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Mayor Boro thanked the Planning staff, particularly Ms. Delimont, for the work she has done on this project. He added he hopes Mr. Clifford's questions have been answered tonight. He stated it is great that this project is being accomplished. 16. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT IN THE VICINITY OF "A" STREET, SECOND AND THIRD STREETS (PW) - File 6-51 x 12-18 Mayor Boro opened the Public Hearing and noted that staff has requested that this item be carried over to the meeting of August 7, 1995. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to continue this item to the meeting of August 7, 1995. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 17. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 9.40 TO TITLE 9 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE (STORM WATER MANAGEMENT) (PW) - File 4-4-6 x 12-9 Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened and asked for a staff report. Public Works Director David Bernardi reported that this is a proposed Ordinance which sets forth the process to adopt a fee which will fund the San Rafael portion of the Clean Storm Water Program in Marin County. He noted that attached to the staff report is a technical report which provides the basis for the imposition of the fee, as well as the reasons for it. He explained that currently this program is being funded out of the General Fund, and for the last two years approximately $75,000 has been spent as San Rafael Is share of the total program. That represents about 20% of the total cost of the program. The components of the program are outlined in the technical report. This program is required to prepare a long range five-year program which essentially is another action plan addressing the same kinds of issues. The costs identified for the next five years are approximately $115,000 for San Rafael alone. The program cost is roughly $570,000 for the entire County. Mr. Bernardi explained that this proposed Ordinance allows San Rafael to impose a user fee for services provided to regulate and improve storm drainage facilities. He noted he has attached a chart as part of the exhibits, which outlines the various components of the user fee. He added that the Council will be considering a Resolution at the next Council meeting to establish the actual dollar amount of that fee. Currently, the proposal is for a $15.00 annual fee. There is a formula in the Ordinance as well, which specifies how the fee is to be calculated for every parcel in San Rafael, and the basis of the fee is a single family parcel. Mr. Bernardi explained in detail the method of calculating the fee. He noted there is also a $2.00 per parcel County administration fee, and staff is working with the County to lower that fee because it is quite substantial, and the amount the County would be getting does not justify the kind of work they would be doing to include this amount on the tax rolls. City Manager Nicolai explained that this is being done on a Countywide basis, and the various jurisdictions are doing this program jointly to make it more efficient and more cost effective, particularly at the beginning stages of doing the studies and the analyses. Each jurisdiction will be considering this at the same rate. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 11 She noted that runoff pays no attention to political boundaries, and the program as a whole needs to be addressed Countywide. Councilmember Heller inquired is the $2.00 fee in addition to the $15.00? Mr. Bernardi stated it is separate. Councilmember Heller stated that the $2.00 is an outrageous amount for the County to add, and will be a great deal of money for them. Mr. Bernardi agreed, particularly since the program itself is providing all of the data and making all of the parcel calculations which will be given to the County. Councilmember Heller noted the wide spread of fees charged by other Bay Area cities. Mr. Bernardi explained that Marin is the last County in the Bay Area which is considering a user fee and, by far, our fee is clearly the lowest among all of the jurisdictions. Councilmember Zappetini noted that a large part of the problem is from vehicles leaking on the highways, and he wondered if anyone had thought about having this as a gas tax instead of a parcel tax? Mr. Bernardi replied it is not a tax, it is a fee for services. As far as gas tax is concerned, the City right now uses gas tax funds to fund the street sweeping component of this program, which is an essential component of the Clean Water Program. He added that Marin County has the ability to pass an additional gas tax, over and above what the State is cur- rently charging for purchase of gasoline. It was considered in the past to fund road improvement projects and improvements along Highway 101, but was not acted on by the Board of Supervisors. Councilmember Zappetini suggested that now that all of the other jurisdictions are involved, that could be considered as an option. Mr. Bernardi explained that the gas tax can only be spent in certain parts of the right-of-way. The public education, and all the components of that, would have to be funded by another source. Councilmember Zappetini stated that since the problems are caused by vehicles, that option should be looked at. Ms. Nicolai explained that they are trying to get all of the jurisdictions to deal with this consistently, and the City Council does not have the authority to change the gas tax. She stated they could petition the County, but she thinks that the law which allows the County to put an additional tax on gasoline is restricted to uses for transportation improvements and not this particular program. She stated there would have to be a legal nexus. While one component would be the tire residue and gasoline, there are many other causes of the runoff problem such as siltation and other kinds of debris which get into the storm drain systems. She added that having multiple little fees and taxes trying to fund one program, staff feels is more difficult for the public to accept and understand. This consistent $15.00 charge is for this specific program and can do things outside of the right-of-way, and is more supportable. That is why the jurisdictions are approaching it this way. She noted there were other ways looked at, such as street sweeping which is one of the legitimate components of this program. She stated that a clearly identified program, to keep the Bay waters clean, and with a specific fee, would be more readily acceptable by the communities. We would be able to identify the costs of the program, and where the money is coming from. Councilmember Cohen asked if staff has any information on other types of funding for this program, or is it all being done through this method? Mr. Bernardi responded that almost unanimously it is done through this program. Mayor Boro noted that to date we have funded $75,000 per year for the last two years of this unfunded mandate, out of the General Fund, and $115,000 is anticipated for this coming year. He asked if this $15.00 will generate an additional $230,000 over the $115,000? Mr. Bernardi responded that his plan was to indicate the disbursement of the $15.00 at the next meeting. He explained that a SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 12 component of the fee is also going to be used to fund unfunded capital needs at this point in time. The language which allows cities to charge this user fee also allows cities to use part of that fee to repair its storm drain system. He noted there is a great unfunded need, and this amount of money set aside for capital improvements is going to be used to fund those unfunded needs. Ms. Nicolai stated that Marin was not the most serious cause of problems in the Bay waters, and the State and Federal agencies spent more time focusing on the other counties first, so we have taken a minimalistic approach to what we had to do to date. Now, the other counties have their programs working, and we will be looked at with a little more scrutiny. She stated our concern is that, while we have a very minimal program going, we really do need to do a significant amount more. This is a major step in that direction but more will need to be done in the future. The money we have contributed to date was primarily to do the studies which had to be done and now we are getting into the programs which will take place to fix the problem and not just identify it. Mayor Boro asked if there is any public input on this subject. Mrs. Elissa Giambastiani, Executive Director of the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, asked staff what is the range of fees which will be charged for multi -residential and commercial property? Mr. Bernardi responded that, as part of the example staff gave to the Council as an attachment to the staff report, a single family lot size would be charged $15.00 per year. The others would depend on the square footage of each parcel. There was an example where a 20,000 square foot commercial use would pay about $80.00 per year, because of the difference in the runoff factors primarily. Mrs. Giambastiani inquired, what are they using per square foot in their calculations? Mr. Bernardi replied one unit is 3,000 square feet, so a 20,000 square foot commercial property would be a multiple of the 3,000 square feet, times the runoff factor. Mrs. Giambastiani asked, what would that be per square foot? Ms. Nicolai explained it is not done that way exactly, but is based on a runoff factor formula, so it is not pure square footage. She stated she will give a copy of the chart to Mrs. Giambastiani. Mayor Boro noted that, unlike the Paramedic tax, which is predicated on so much per square foot, this fee is based on the runoff factor. He asked about how an apartment complex would be computed. Mr. Bernardi replied it would depend on the square footage of the parcel. The runoff factor instead of being 40% or .4 for a single family dwelling, would be 60% because there is more area covered with driveways and parking spaces, as well as a larger roof area, in addition to greater density being allowed. The $15.00 fee has nothing to do with the number of units. Councilmember Cohen observed that the fee would be the same for a three-story as for a two-story building, since it would be based on the footprint and paving. Mrs. Barbara Salzman, informed the Council that all of the environmental groups and organizations are behind this program, and feel it is an important Ordinance to enact. There being no further public comment, Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing closed. Councilmember Cohen stated his only concern is with the County's $2.00 charge for services. With the understanding that this issue remains to be addressed, and that this would have to be resolved before the Council could act on setting the rates, he would move on passing the Ordinance to print. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 12 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 13 The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ADDING CHAPTER 9.40 TO THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE, ADOPTING A REGULATORY FEE TO FUND CLEAN STORMWATER ACTIVITIES". Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only and pass Charter Ordinance NO. 1680 to print by the following vote to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 18. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 5 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE (PARKING REGULATIONS) (PW) - File 11-8 Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened and asked for a staff report. Public Works Director Bernardi briefed the Council, stating that the proposed revision eliminates one section of the Ordinance, because Section 5.40.140 is in conflict with Section 5.40.200. Section 5.40.140 specifies a one-hour time limit for commercial vehicle parking, and Section 5.40.200 limits commercial vehicle parking to 24 hours. Staff is recommending that the one-hour time limit be retained and the 24-hour limit be rejected. The only addition to the wording would be that the commercial vehicle would be allowed to take as much time as necessary, whether it was 10 hours or 15 hours, to unload and conduct the business they are required to do. What staff wants to do is to restrict the dumping of trailers on public streets, which causes safety problems. Staff recommends the Council adopt the Ordinance. Mayor Boro noted that the Council has received correspondence from Oclassen Pharmaceutical supporting this. There being no public input, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 5 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND CHAPTER 5.40 -- STOPPING, STANDING AND PARKING; TO ADD SECTION 5.40. 140 -- PARKING, COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AND SEMITRAILERS; AND TO REPEAL SECTION 5.40.200". Councilmember Zappetini moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1681 to print by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None (Councilmember Zappetini left the dais for Item #19, due to conflict of interest) 19. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR RATE INCREASE BY MARIN SANITARY SERVICE FOR GARBAGE COLLECTION (Fin) - File 4-3-32 Finance Director Ransom Colemen briefed the Council on the request from Marin Sanitary Service for a rate increase. He noted that the last rate increase was in January of 1992. He stated the process is that the six agencies which franchise the garbage company get together and contract for the consultant. The consultant SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 13 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 14 for the past two years has been Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson. Last year the recommendation was for no increase, and this year after review of the information supplied by Marin Sanitary the recommendation before the Council is for an increase of 5%. Mr. Coleman added that there are two issues to be resolved this evening, one is the matter of life insurance for the two partners of Marin Sanitary, and the other is the operating ratio which determines the profit margin for the company. Mr. Coleman explained the life insurance issue, stating that item came up after a review by the new consultants who brought it to the attention of the Committee. After some discussion it was decided that this item should be removed from the rate base because there was no clear benefit to the rate payer. The issue involves whether or not the insurance on the partners would go to the benefit of the rate payers. If it does, it should be in the rate base, but if it cannot be clearly shown that it is, then it probably should not. It provides that if one of the partners dies, that the surviving partner will be able to buy out the shares of the other partner without being forced to sell the company. There was a feeling that it probably would accomplish that goal, but there was no guarantee that this would happen, and that if one of the partners dies the remaining partner would not sell the company. Mr. Coleman explained that the other issue involves the profit margin, or the operating ratio. One of the things changed this year was that the interest expense which previously was not in the rate base, was included in the rate base this year. It has become a significant portion of the operation of Marin Sanitary, and it was felt that this cost should be reflected in the rate base. To offset this inclusion in the rate base, the Committee recommended that the operating ratio be increased from 90% to 91%, which has the effect of reducing the profits from 10% down to 9%. He stated that those are the only two issues which are unresolved after discussions both with the consultant and with the other five members of the franchising group. Mr. Coleman added that there are representatives present from the Hilton group, and also from Marin Sanitary Service. Councilmember Phillips referred to the two key issues, life insurance and interest, and inquired since the other jurisdictions also apply formulas similar to the one the City uses, and also Marin Sanitary, are those factors generally treated as deductible items? Mr. Troy Garner, senior associate from Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, stated that the life insurance issue is a unique situation. It is a coverage of about $5 million for each of the partners, and it would be a benefit to assure that the company would not be sold if one of the partners died; but the problematic nature of it was that there was not a guarantee. Also, as generations pass, if the company is passed down to the next generation, will this life insurance continue on forever? That was another issue they discussed. However, he cannot think of another situation in which this type of expense was included. Mayor Boro inquired if it is correct that this has been included, at a certain level, in this franchise agreement? Mr. Garner replied that his understanding is that the prior consultant did not raise it as an issue. Also, he is not sure that the franchisers, the people making the decisions, were aware that it was an issue, so he is not sure that was a conscious decision which was made in the past, but it was included. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 14 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 15 In terms of the profit, Mr. Garner explained that typically they present a range of reasonable profits to the decision makers. In the past, profit was calculated and then interest expense was paid by the partners out of the profits. It was not considered in determining the rates. This year the Company asked that the City make a change and that they include profits as an operating expense above the line, and then on top of that add profit. In discussing that, he presented a comparable range of profits with interest and without interest, and given that the franchisers agreed to pay for the additional profit they felt that it was justified to increase the operating margin. He noted that there are a number of variables which can come into consideration in the profit level. Councilmember Phillips asked is part of their recommendation that we include the deduction for interest. Mr. Garner agreed. He pointed out that in comparing this company with refuse companies' profit level, the other companies did not have capital investments such as Marin Sanitary's transfer station, and this was not considered in the past. Councilmember Phillips noted that when we establish the rates, it looks into the future, assuming the expenses. He asked was any comparison made of the actual income, compared to what had been projected when the rates were established in 1992, to see if it was more or less? Mr. Garner stated he could not answer at this time, but has the information in his office. Councilmember Phillips inquired if compensation for the owners was relatively stable during the period in question? Mr. Garner replied it increased in small amounts, very similar to the rest of the workers at the Company. Mr. Coleman stated he would like to clarify that we do not add or subtract from the next year what they have been over or under on the projections. That year is gone, and all we do is take where we are today in terms of what our revenues and expenditures are going to be in the future. What happened in the past is not factored into considerations for the future. One of the reasons for that is to give them the incentive that it goes to the benefit of the company if they can cut their costs. Councilmember Heller inquired are we looking at $150,000 for life insurance, and what we will decide tonight is what we will have for the next two years? Mr. Coleman replied the figure is actually $146,000, and what the Council does tonight will only impact for one year. Mayor Boro noted there has been no increase for three years, and this 5% will go back retroactively to January of this year. Mr. Coleman noted they are going from a calendar year to a fiscal year. They have been starting the rates on January 1st, and now will be starting on July 1st. He added that the proposal was to do an in-depth rate study this year, and for the next two years there is a formula which will be used to index the next two fiscal years, as long as there is not an unusual situation which needs to be analyzed. Councilmember Cohen stated we are actually signing off on a three year agreement, since there should be no increase for the next two years. Mr. Coleman replied that is correct, as long as there are not any unusual situations. However, staff will be back before the Council next year, to present the results of the index. Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened. Mr. Albert Bianchi, attorney representing Marin Sanitary Service, expressed his thanks to Mr. Garner and Mr. Coleman for their very good assistance and comprehensive SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 15 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 16 review of their entire request. He stated that what the Council will be asked to do tonight is largely discretionary, because they will have to weigh a number of factors and determine whether, in their judgement as a City Council, whether it would be appropriate to grant the requests which are being suggested this evening. Mr. Bianchi noted that, as pointed out, the last increase was authorized 31,12 years ago, and became effective in January of 1992. The new request, which will go back to January 1st of this year, however, will take effect on July 1st of this year, if it is granted. The only areas where we have a slight difference of viewpoint, has to do with the question of the insurance premiums. Mr. Bianchi stated that Mr. Coleman is quite correct in saying that the amount of those premiums is around $140,000 per year; the compromise which is being suggested by the Marin Sanitary Service is that only half of that amount, or roughly $70,000, be allowed to be computed in the rate base. He added that the way this has been handled by the only other agency before whom he has appeared, the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District, have on their Board of Directors a retired rate analyst from the Public Utilities Commission. Their vote was to allow the com- promise of one-half of the insurance premiums to go into the rates. The way they did that was not to necessarily peg it to insurance per se, but simply to change the operating ratio from the recommended 91% to a 90.5%. Mr. Bianchi pointed out that an operating ratio is the relationship expressed in terms of percentages between what expenses the company is allowed to charge as its cost of doing business compared to its total revenues - and those are reviewed by the City staff. He stated that, in effect, that forces a company to be as efficient as possible, as Mr. Coleman stated. The other half of the premiums will not go into the rate base, but will have to be paid by the two owners themselves. Mr. Bianchi explained that what that translates into is an increase of 6% over that period of time, instead of 5%. He stated they feel that half of the life insurance is an appropriate expenditure in this case. It has been traditionally allowed in all of the jurisdictions. He stated that this will allow the company to continue in its existence. Our hope and expectation is that we will have additional generations coming, who can take over this operation and conduct it in the manner the Council has come to expect. It is a leader in its field throughout the State of California and the United States. He stated they would not want to see a conglomerate coming into Marin County and purchasing this company, and hope to maintain this business in its present form for as long as can possibly be done. He pointed out that this company has been in the forefront of the recycling movement, and have voluntar- ily moved forward with expenditures and investments which meant that the owners of this company have had to guarantee millions of dollars personally, and for that reason he feels the key person insurance is very important. He noted their rates are well below the average in most jurisdictions around San Francisco Bay. For example, if you were to allow the charge as requested by Marin Sanitary Service this evening, the proposed rate for single cans once a week, the monthly charge would be $13.90, which includes the green cans and recycling. Other cities charge over $16.00 per month, without the green cans or recycling. Mayor Boro referred to a letter received tonight from Marin Sanitary Service, expressing a concern about the benefit to the rate payers for the proceeds from the insurance. He asked Mr. Bianchi to describe how that money would be used. Mr. Bianchi explained that the insurance is not owned by the individual owners of the Company, but by the Company itself. The individual owners and the company have a binding agreement that in the event of the death of either of the shareholders of the Company, the Company will redeem the stock of that shareholder. The purpose of that is to fund that acquisition, and allowing the decedent's estate to pay SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 16 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 17 the estate taxes without going any further afield. Mayor Boro stated his other question is that the letter states that the majority of the increase is related to tipping fees at the landfill, which of course is beyond the control of the Company. He asked what is the percentage of these fees? Mr. Bianchi deferred to Ms. Nadine Muller, because she has the figures. He noted the tipping fees are those fees which are charged at the Redwood Sanitary Landfill. Unlike this Company, the landfills are not regulated, as the Council is aware. Many of the increases in recent years have resulted in surcharges imposed by mandate by the State of California or the County of Marin to an extent, for the program of Solid Waste Management and diversion from the solid waste stream into recycling. He stated this Company has achieved those goals already. Ms. Nadine Muller, chief financial officer of Marin Sanitary, stated that the increase in fees in 1992 was basically in response to the tipping fees. It is about 30% of their operating costs. There being no further public input, the Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing closed, and called for Council discussion. Councilmember Heller stated she understands this type of insurance policy, because she had the same type of agreement previously in business, and she feels it is necessary. She stated that the green can is an added service which is not paid for by the community, and she would like to have the rate payer give them an extra amount. Councilmember Cohen stated we need to support the request regarding the insurance. With regard to the operating ratio, 90.5% or 91% would be within the range of the neighboring jurisdictions. He stated the actual rate is very reasonable, given the level of service provided to the community, not only the green can, but also the recycling. He added that the leadership in recycling is something that this community takes very seriously. He stated that the request for 90.5%, which was presented in the letter received this evening, seems to him to be a very reasonable one. Councilmember Phillips stated he agrees with Councilmember Heller Is comments with regard to the quality of service. He stated he has not heard anyone who was not complimentary about the Company and its operations. He added that even with the increase we will be paying considerably less than the $16. average charged by other communities cited, and he is comfortable that we are getting outstanding service as well as a bargain. He stated he likes the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary Service approach. He has a slight problem with the life insurance factor, which can be argued in several different ways. It is something which was probably not debated in prior years. It is not an operating expense which is dictated by the market, and he does have a slight problem with that concept but he is certainly willing to adjust the rate so that the proposal at 6% does cover operating expenses. He is willing to include the interest cost as an operating expense. He feels this is an outstanding service and should be paid for. The rate adjustment which is being proposed, with the modification to include, in effect, the $73,000, is certainly reasonable and quite appropriate. Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the Resolution approving the rate increase with the adjustment to the operating ratio of 90.5%, with the understanding that the additional monies will go toward the purchase of life insurance. Mayor Boro commented that all of the things said about this Company and the owners and SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 17 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 18 employees are very true, and in addition to the recycling they are the leaders in the State on diversion. Also, this Company has been very supportive of Fire Safe Marin, by providing incentives and discounts to neighborhoods which are participating in this project, and they have indicated they will continue. He stated he supports the increase. Councilmember Heller stated that because of the Company's recycling efforts they have helped the City comply with AB939, which is another State -imposed mandate. It will be crucial to the City within the next few years, and we can only meet our requirements in partnership with Marin Sanitary. RESOLUTION NO. 9394 - AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF A CONTRACT, LEASE OR AGREEMENT WITH MARIN SANITARY SERVICE (28TH AMENDMENT) INCREASING THE RATES EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1995 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT/ DISQUALIFIED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Zappetini (Due to Conflict of Interest). (Councilmember Zappetini returned to the meeting.) COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OLD BUSINESS 20. CONTINUED CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF ST. VINCENT'S/SILVEIRA PROPOSAL - PROPOSED RESOLUTION OF INTENT (P1) -File 10-2 x 9-2-45 Planning Director Robert Pendoley gave a brief background of the item, for the benefit of the audience. He noted that the Council had discussed it on May 15, 1995, but continued the discussion because of the lateness of the hour. Mr. Pendoley explained that in June of 1994 the St. Vincent's/Silveira Advisory Committee completed its work. Before the Council had even received its report two groups came out, in opposition to each other. One was the Citizens for Common Good which supported the Committee's recommendation, and the other was Citizen Advocates for the Preservation of St. Vincent's (CAPS) which was opposed to the Committee's recommendation. People from the original Advisory Committee provided the core for each of these groups. Mr. Pendoley stated that the great diversity of feelings between those groups and the strength of those feelings are symptomatic of the concern in this community and it also indicates how difficult it is to reach a consensus on this issue. Mr. Pendoley added that in September of 1994 the Council received the Committee' s report and staff was asked to develop options as to how the Council might respond. Staff brought back five options in November of 1994 and the Council settled on the fifth option which was basically to prepare a Resolution of comment. This Resolution before the Council describes the site's planning history; discusses City and County policies which are related to St. Vincent's/Silveira; evaluates the Committee's recommendations against City and County policies; and describes actions which could be expected to occur in the interim. Mr. Pendoley noted that the history and existing City and County policies are set forth in the Background section of the Resolution, as Sections A and B. Section C is really the Comment SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 18 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 19 section. He explained that starting on page 8 of the Resolution, the Committee's majority proposal is evaluated against existing City and County policies and significant points which differ from those policies are called out for attention. Most of the Advisory Committee majority recommendations are consistent with existing City and County policies and provide an appropriate point of departure for considering future amendments to the General Plan. Several of the Committee's recommendations, however, are not necessarily consistent with existing policy, and it is suggested in this non-binding Resolution that those issues would have to be reviewed in the future, and should be considered when a General Plan amendment is proposed. In particular, they discussed these in some detail, in Section C8 of the Resolution before the Council. Mr. Pendoley stated that since this Resolution was last before the Council in May, a number of changes have been made in response to comments from the City Attorney. He has been particularly concerned that the Resolution not be misinterpreted as a binding planning action which would require review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Also, a number of changes have been made to Section 8b, in response to some of the comments made by the Council when they considered this in May. On page 11 of the Resolution (D1), it states, "Request that the Board of Supervisors extend its interim land use designation for the site until the City reconsiders land uses as part of a Citywide General Plan Amendment". Mr. Pendoley noted that at the last Council meeting, both CAPS and Citizens for the Common Good recommended some edits and additional concerns which staff believes are either addressed by the Resolution, or should be more appropriately addressed when an actual project is being considered. Mr. Pendoley noted staff also received comments from Mr. Maloney, representing the Silveira family and our City Attorney is prepared to respond to them. In addition, correspondence was received today from Don Dickenson which states that, because the Resolution does not recommend significant changes from existing General Plan policies, and has failed to move away from identifying development on portions of the site, planning for this property should no longer be left to the City, and instead the County should be asked to exercise leadership. Mr. Pendoley explained that what Mr. Dickenson has not pointed out to the Council is that existing County plan policies are in most respects very consistent with City policies, and that this Resolution suggests revisions where there are differences, in order to make policies more consistent. Mr. Dickenson also states that the Resolution fails to eliminate the need for new infrastructure, etc. Mr. Dickenson has been a practitioner in this County, as a professional planner including a Planning Director, as well as an activist, for many years. He knows that to do that would make this a CEQA project and that is not the Council's objective at this time, because of the great expense which would be involved. Mr. Pendoley noted that revisions to the May Resolution have also generated disappointment from Marin Audubon, MCL (Marin Conservation League) and also the Environmental Forum, who feel that the Resolution at this point is meaningless. These revisions have been made to delete conclusionary statements that could be construed as policy decisions or actions, and which would subject the City to CEQA. In conclusion, Mr. Pendoley explained that staff has tried to pull together background and existing policy, and to provide comments for the Council' s consideration which would reflect how the Council thinks and feels at this time. He noted that this Resolution is intended to be a "snapshot in time". It is a point of departure, and is not direction, nor decision, nor is it a project under CEQA. Staff recommends this Resolution to the Council for adoption. Mayor Boro noted that the Public Hearing was closed at the last meeting, but he feels that the property owners and representatives of the two groups would like to address the Council, since some changes have been made in the Resolution. He SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 19 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 20 informed Mr. Maloney that the Council has seen his letter, and also the response from the City Attorney. Mr. Douglas Maloney, attorney representing the Silveira family, owners of one of the parcels involved in the Resolution, stated that they oppose the Resolution, for reasons indicated in his letter. They feel, although they recognize the Resolution is not binding, and the City Attorney has stated that the action being taken by the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District does not depreciate the property. They are still concerned that paragraph 8a of the Resolution says that one of the uses of the property is as a wastewater treatment zone. He questioned whether the City should include something like that in its Resolution, when the Silveira family is presently being threatened with condemnation by the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District (LGVSD) for that very purpose. He stated that should be excised, and he hopes the City Attorney will agree with him. He added that it really is not a planning consideration, but is a public use which, if it ever happens, should be effectuated by the LGVSD. Mr. Maloney stated that this property is highly desirable and it would be wonderful if it could be kept as open space, bucolic and pastoral. In fact, the Silveira family has done that for almost 100 years. The property is so valuable now, however, that any type of action taken by the Council is bound to have a profound impact on it. He stated he recognizes that this is not binding, and yet that brings up the question, "Why do it?" He noted the Planning Director says you need a starting point. He asked, why does the Council not start with the Committee report - why do you have to adopt this? He stated he appreciates the need so that the City has to say to the County that this is San Rafael Is area of influence and we want to assert jurisdiction over it. He stated he supports that, and feels it is within the scope of the City's authority, and wants the City to do that. However, beyond that, if this is non-binding, why talk about taking these uses from the Silveira property and limiting any use east of the railroad track, even when the City's own map shows a transit facility on it? He asked, why talk about reducing the density through view corridors, raising the specter of transfer of development rights, which is a callous sham. Why not just adopt a Resolution which tells the County the City is going to take care of this problem when and if the need arises. He added that if a developer was here today the City could make him pay for an EIR (Environmental Impact report) , but there is none, and the City is faced with the prospect of paying for it or doing something which skirts around the edge of CEQA. He stated they are not concerned about that, and are not saying the City should get an EIR, but the experience of the Silveira family has always been that every time a planning agency reduces the expectations on that property that becomes the starting point for the next wrong. Don Dickenson and his ilk essentially want the property zoned for open space, there is no question about that. They do not want any development on it. The Silveira family is not proposing to develop it, but they cannot sit idly by and watch the planning agencies and the government agencies continually "drip acid" on whatever remnants of rights they have on the property. Mr. Maloney concluded by stating that their position to the City is, do not adopt the Resolution. Just adopt a Resolution of the City's intent that if and when there are development proposals, to deal with them in that context. Mayor Boro asked to hear from a representative of the St. Vincent's property. Mr. Jim Stark, a professional city planner, stated he is here representing the Catholic Youth Organization (CYO), which is the parent organization for St. Vincent's School for Boys. He added that Mr. Michael Marovich, the Executive Director of St. Vincent's is also present. Mr. Stark referred to page 3 of the proposed Resolution of Intent, paragraph A2, which states that City and County policies also include St. Vincent's and Silveira west of the railroad right-of-way within SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 20 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 21 the City's five-year "urban service area". He stated that should read "east and west" of the railroad right-of-way. He suggested staff might respond to that later. Mr. Pendoley stated it will be corrected. Mr. Stark noted that tonight the Council heard Mr. Pendoley describe revisions to the Resolution of Intent, particularly with regard to Section C8. He believes that these revisions substantially mitigate concerns which were expressed at the last discussion of this topic. However, the overall effect of C8 is still troublesome for the property owners, and probably for some who served on the Committee. He stated that although the Resolution is non-binding, any City Council pronouncement or recommendation as articulated in a formal Resolution will have great effect on how land is perceived by an interested party. The Resolution is an authoritative document and persons interested in St. Vincent's/Silveira will refer to it and give its contents a great deal of importance. Mr. Stark added that, although there is no General Plan amendment and no EIR, C8 of the Resolution contains conclusions, recommendations and suggestions regarding complex land use and environmental issues. He stated that is their central concern. He stated that the City Council has not had the opportunity of hearing pros and cons of the specific land use issues. There has been no public debate. As presently written, the Resolution creates a perception that the St. Vincent's/Silveira Committee's three years of work is being summarily modified, in the absence of a fully noticed hearing and a full analysis, perhaps one which should have gone through the Planning Commission. He added they feel there are some solutions which are not too complex, to the outcome of C8. One solution would be to simply eliminate paragraph 8. There would still remain extensive guidance for St. Vincent's/Silveira process in the future, and for any future General Plan update, in Section C, 1 through He added that Council's direction to staff regarding the Resolution of Intent would still be satisfied by the balance of the Resolution. He suggested that an alternative solution would be to keep paragraph 8 as is, and simply modify the first sentence, to indicate that the City Council suggests for future consideration "that environmental and land use ideas as listed, be scrutinized during a future environmental review, perhaps as alternatives". He stated that under this solution, all the language would remain but the context would change from one of setting policy and drawing conclusions, to the context of inquiry and analysis. In fact, this approach appears in a subparagraph a of paragraph 8, on page 9. The tenor of subparagraph "e" is what he is suggesting. He explained that under that approach there would be no suggestion that conclusions on the part of the City Council were reached in the absence of fully noticed and fully debated environmental and land use issues. Mr. Stark stated he would like to inquire, and have it on the record, as to what the impacts are of this Resolution in regard to any future effort by property owners to implement the existing City's General Plan. Mayor Boro asked if there is a representative of Citizens for the Common Good who would like to speak. Ms. Patsy White of Citizens for the Common Good, stated they wish to express their thanks for the revised Resolution, and are pleased that the staff and City Council listened to all who spoke at the hearing in May, and considered the comments carefully and incorporated some of them into the revised Resolution. She stated they believe that staff has answered most of their concerns and urge the Council to pass this Resolution tonight. Mayor Boro asked for a representative from CAPS to speak. Mr. Ray Lenhart of Marinwood read a letter from CAPS which opposed the Urban Village Plan and the land use designation contained in the General Plan. The letter stated SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 21 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 22 that the Urban Village planning process and the assumptions which underlie it have caused a polarization within the community, and that the city must reexamine the policies and assumptions which have been driving a process which has totally failed to achieve any consensus. Ms. Bonnie Brown stated she was a member of the Advisory Committee for the North San Rafael Coalition of Residents (NSRCR). She explained that the NSRCR met last Monday to consider the Resolution which was before the Council at the May 15th meeting, and asked her to speak in support of that Resolution. She stated the Coalition voted to move the Advisory Committee's plan on in the process to the City Council, for the Council to make the final revisions and decisions. She added that at that time they submitted a list of their priorities they would like to see in the final plan. All of them were included in the original Resolution, which they feel makes the plan more environmentally sound and acceptable, and protects areas on which the Advisory Committee could not come to a consensus. It also incorporates the preservation of open areas in perpetuity, which was one of the Coalition's main priorities. It also creates the pedestrian compact community near the transit center. Ms. Brown noted that the owners of the two properties have been good neighbors since the early part of the century, and have been wonderful people to work with during this whole process. She said she is sure they will all continue to work together in the planning of any potential project for this land. She added that the vote of the Coalition was 15-2, with two members voting against the Resolution. Mr. Frank Nelson of CAPS stated he would like to speak as a concerned Marin citizen about the planning process for a very special land area of Marin County. He stated that four years of planning and $100,000 in expenses have left the City with a collection of ideas which are not relevant to these irreplaceable lands. He added that building an Urban Village on these lands is a bad idea, and the City's General Plan designation for these lands is an equally bad idea. He stated that this Resolution of Intent idea of using one bad idea to guide the updating of another similar and equally bad idea can only result in yet another bad idea. He stated that a dollar driven planning process is not the best way to plan for the use of these unique lands. Mr. Nelson noted that the County is not burdened by the Urban Village planning history and for the next step he would like to try to encourage the County to take a fresh approach based on resource protection and community concerns. Mr. Sean Hamill expressed hope that the eventual plan for the St. Vincent's/Silveira properties will take the City of San Rafael and the County of Marin beyond conventional planning into a concept to design a community which is well beyond what we are looking at in the draft plan. He stated that as representatives of the people of the City of San Rafael, the Council has a serious responsibility, and he acknowledges the Council's efforts to balance the needs and desires of a large number of people. He commended the participants for their sensitivity to ecological, housing, business and equity aspects of the property. He noted the word "sustainability" is used in the Resolution, and stated there should be a baseline to measure the sustainability. He stated that "Dovetail" is a group pro- moting sustainable development, and they would like to be acknowledged as a group. He noted there are developments around the country which would make this plan as it now exists a little behind the times. He stated we should wake up to the idea that specific zoning and protecting a specific area of habitat is not the ultimate direction we need to go. It should be broader and more resourceful. He added that there are experts in the County in the concept of sustainability, and he does not believe they have been consulted. He stated the City should look into the resources which exist around sustainability. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 22 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 23 Mr. Dart Short, a member of the Dovetail citizens group, stated his comments were made regarding the May 15th Resolution, but they will still apply. He stated he agrees with the fact that the site should be planned as a whole, and for the complex to be centered on the St. Vincent's complex for affordable housing, commercial and agricultural uses. He noted a wider view corridor would transfer development rights. He agrees that this area would be a model neighborhood of the future, providing for community, with walkable, interconnected design for transit. He stated most of the site should be kept open without urban development. He asked that this be a non -freeway -oriented development. However, he questioned the average medium density which may be insufficient to achieve a truly compact community. He also questioned the large size of Area A, the Pacheco Ridge, and feel that Areas A and B should have further study for use, when there is a specific plan. Mr. Short stated that the Dovetail plan preserves much more open space than shown in Exhibit A. The area south of Miller Creek should be primarily open space and agricultural. He stated Exhibit A should be used only as an example of a land use map. Mr. Short explained that in the Dovetail plan 85% of the land would be open space, as compared to 70% in this plan. He stated it is difficult to imagine a sustainable community because we do not have one, but it would take up much less land. Mr. Don Dickenson of 327 Jewell Street, noted he had submitted a letter to the City Council this afternoon and will not repeat his comments; however, he will summarize a few points in the letter. He stated that when the Advisory Committee was formed in 1990 the stated intent was to revise downward the General Plan growth standards for these two properties. The Mayor at that time stated there would definitely be a lower number, but unfortunately this is not the case. He stated there is nothing in the proposed Resolution which either requires or recommends any reduction in the scale of the urban village containing up to 2,100 housing units, and up to 361,000 square feet of commercial space, first proposed in the 1988 City General Plan. Instead, the Resolution largely reaffirms existing General Plan policies. He noted that Section C. 8.b leaves plenty of room to accommodate the maximum development allowed by the General Plan. Mr. Mrs Dickenson stated that the minority group on the Advisory Committee, of which he was one, and most of the environmental groups as well as many citizens, do not share this vision. As stated in the minority's recommendation, they strongly believe that these properties are totally inappropriate for the type of urban development, filling the heart of the property with condos, apartments and commercial and office buildings envisioned by both the majority of the Committee and the General Plan policies. He stated that after 41,12 years it is now clear that the City continues to covet these properties as a new urban neighborhood for the City. He added that because San Rafael has failed to move away from the urban village concept, because of the Countywide significance of these properties the planning for unincorporated properties should no longer be left to the City of San Rafael. Mr. Dickenson stated that future planning for these properties should seriously focus on maximum preservation and enhancement of the natural resources, rather than designing the details of a new community. These properties contain a wide variety of important habitat which should be preserved. He stated that San Rafael has had more than an adequate opportunity to do the right thing regarding these magnificent properties, and it has failed. It is now time to move the debate over the future of these unincorporated properties to a Countywide forum where it belongs. Barbara Salzman, representing the Marin Audubon Society, stated that the Council has their letter and she will not read it, but wishes to correct the last sentence in the first paragraph. She asked that the word "not" be deleted, because they do oppose this Resolution. She explained that it basically removes the restrictions, and they are left with a few promises to consider resource protection, which you have to do anyway because of the General Plan policies. She SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 23 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 24 stated they consider the Resolution a statement of support for the majority plan, and urge the Council not to adopt it. They feel it would be a good idea for the County to make permanent their "Interim Designation" for these lands. Ms. Georgeanna McCarty, a San Rafael resident, speaking for the Environmental Forum. She noted they sent the Council a letter last week, in which they expressed their pleasure with the original Resolution. They are now withdrawing their "pleasure" in light of the second Resolution. She stated she lives in the Terra Linda area and would like to personally say that there are many people in Terra Linda who disagree with the North San Rafael Coalition, with respect to some of the proposals. Ms. Santoya, a San Rafael resident and property owner, stated she fails to see where more houses, more traffic, garbage, pollution and stress will improve the quality of life for the citizens of San Rafael as a whole. She does not see it as being for the common good. It will bring in more chain stores, and may bring in more jobs but it will also bring in more people to compete for those jobs. It will bring in more tax dollars, but also more expenses. She does not see where it will help the value of their houses, but will lower them, and will lower the quality of life. Mayor Boro noted that were questions raised by several speakers. Mr. Maloney asked about paragraph 8.a. and the reference to wastewater treatment. He asked if staff has a response. Mr. Pendoley stated that from the Planning Department's point of view, we think we are simply citing what the Countywide Plan says. However, to make it more clear that this is all the sentence does, if the Council feels the need to change it they might wish to reword it. He pointed out that this is at the bottom of page 8 of the draft Resolution, 8.a. The second sentence could be changed to read: "Retaining this land use such as agricultural habitat and/or wastewater treatment is consistent with...". He stated staff thinks that this is a true description of what the Countywide Bayfront Conservation Zone says and allows. Mayor Boro noted that Mr. Stark had commented on paragraph 8. c. , that his first preference was to eliminate the entire paragraph, or secondly to take the tone of subparagraph "e" , and introduce that somehow in paragraph 8. He asked for staff comments. Mr. Pendoley stated that actually Mr. Stark had a couple of suggestions. One was to substitute the word "ideas" for the word "parameters" in the lead-in on Section 8, so it would read, "This Council suggests for future consideration, the following additional ideas to be considered". He stated the Council may find that language helpful. Mrs Jean Hasser, Principal Planner, added that she thinks the wording being suggested is that the wording of the lead-in would say something like, ... suggests for future consideration "that environmental and land use ideas be scrutinized in future environmental review, perhaps as alternatives". She explained that would take you from just being a point of departure of evaluating the Committee's proposal against current policies, and some suggestions or ideas about areas where they may not be consistent with current policies, to simply a statement that you might want these considered as alternatives. She noted it is a different emphasis. Mayor Boro stated that his last question had to do with the influence of the General Plan. Mr. Pendoley explained that this Resolution is only a statement of observations and opinions and, as such, it does not change today's General Plan. However, sections of it are certainly relevant to General Plan policy SVS -1, and it is particularly important to know that SVS -1 says that before any development can occur there must be a specific plan submitted along with development applications, and there must be an advisory committee which shall have been set up to comment. This Resolution says that in the Council's opinion the requirement SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 24 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 25 for an advisory committee has been satisfied. He stated this is a comment on the General Plan and is not binding on a future City Council, but is a statement of this Council's opinion. Mayor Boro noted that at last month's meeting we had a chart which compared the Committee's report and the current position staff is recommending, and the County's position. He noted it is not in tonight's packet. Mr. Pendoley responded that the sum and substance of that remains the same. Mayor Boro asked has there been any major impact between last meeting and this meeting on that particular chart? He noted the chart showed the work of the Committee, the current status of the County's position, versus ours. Mrs. Hasser explained that the sum and substance is the same. The major difference might be to Section 8.b, where there is a suggestion that the freeway -oriented nonresidential areas may not support the intent of the compact mixed use with St. Vincent's as its core, but rather than deleting those areas for future consideration they may be appropriate for other uses. Mayor Boro asked for questions or comments from the Councilmembers. Councilmember Cohen stated it behooves the Council to seek balance, and he feels we have struck that balance. He noted we are not taking any actions, reaching any conclusions or making any findings. He stated he likes the wording recommended by Mr. Pendoley regarding ideas for future considerations. He noted that without environmental review it is not appropriate for the Council to make any binding changes, but it is appropriate to make some comments and offer some ideas to be reviewed in the future with regard to the Committee's recommendations, both the majority report and the minority report. He stated these issues will come to a head and will be discussed and will bear full public scrutiny and will have the benefit of full environmental review, should there ever be development proposals for these priorities. He stated that is the underlying issue. He stated the Council can not draw any conclusions without the benefit of such hearings, and we would be foolish to attempt to do so. He added that those who state that this should be in the jurisdiction of the County need to recognize that the County would be equally foolish to draw conclusions without a full environmental study. The County is no better situated to undertake an independent environmental impact study of the issues brought up by these development discussions, than the City is. He stated we cannot bring this issue to closure, but it is appropriate for the Council to recognize the work of the Committee, and to recognize the three-year planning process. He does not agree it was a bad idea, nor that it was time or effort wasted. What would be a waste would be for the Council to merely accept the report without any comment at all. He stated the approach we have laid out is a good one, which allows an opportunity for some comments and offer ideas for future discussion, and let things follow their course. He stated that is why he supports the staff recommendation that we adopt the Resolution as presented. He likes the suggestion by Mr. Pendoley that we replace the word "parameters" with the word "ideas", in the first sentence of paragraph 8. Councilmember Zappetini stated that he agrees with Councilmember Cohen that this is non-binding and is our opinion only at this point in time, and our opinion could change. He added that the only issue with which he has a problem is that he would like to see the City maintained as the lead agency. That is the main thing we have to do. Councilmember Heller agreed with Councilmember Cohen Is well stated remarks. She noted that, although we are not officially making any judgments on this, it is one way to achieve a symbolic closure at this point; to accept the Resolution of Intent and then move forward when and if there is some development on the property, and we will be able to look at it at that time. She added she appreciates what Mr. Pendoley said about this being simply a "snapshot in time" of what this Council' s SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 25 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 26 thoughts are, and a future Council may have very different thoughts, as the ones in the past perhaps had different thoughts also. She stated she will recommend adopting the Resolution. Councilmember Phillips stated his thoughts are similar. He stated that, as pointed out, the Resolution is non-binding. It appears that all parties indicated as much. It will be some time before we see proposals for development, at which time there will be considerable CEQA and EIR reviews of any development which might take place, and consideration will be given to concerns expressed here and during the three year study. He feels the Committee did an excellent job in reviewing a difficult issue, and commends them. Regarding Section 8, he agrees with the substitution of the word "ideas" for "parameters". Beyond that, scrutinizing alternatives he finds a fine line, and could go either way with that particular wording. He stated he will support the Resolution as it stands at this point in time, recognizing that there is a great deal of work to be done. He added it is most appropriate for San Rafael to take the lead with regard to that work. He noted we are the ones most impacted, rather than the County in the broader sense. He stated he will support the Resolution with modifications in language, and will be interested in Mayor Boro 's comments in that respect. Mayor Boro stated he supports the process we have gone through, and the Resolution before the Council tonight. He noted this process was started many years ago, and was a reaction to Measure "L", and there was a commitment from the then Council to take a look at the opportunities and constraints on the site. The Committee has looked at those issues and has done an excellent job. He stated that the document at the last meeting showed the results of the Committee' s work and the City' s plan as well as the County's current designation on this land. That showed that we have acknowledged and identified certain areas about which we are concerned, and he feels that for the most part we have resolved those. He stated we have reached a point where we have to get on with it. He stated we have worked on this for many years and it is important that the City maintains jurisdiction over it as we go forward. It is logical that the parcels would be annexed to the City, and we are very sensitive to the needs of the community and he feels that at this point it is the right thing to do. Councilmember Cohen stated there was a change suggested by Mr. Pendoley which was the change in the first sentence of Section C, paragraph 8, which was the change in the word "parameters" to "ideas". There were two other language changes. One was the suggested inclusion of the phrase, "uses such as", in the second sentence of C.8.a., regarding wastewater treatment, as suggested by Mr. Pendoley. There was also a typo reference on page 3, in the first sentence of Section A.2, to read "east and" west of the railroad right-of-way. He will include those changes in his motion, and the context of the comments made by the Council. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Zappetini seconded, to adopt the Resolution as recommended, with the changes as noted. RESOLUTION NO. 9395 - REGARDING THE ST. VINCENT'S SILVEIRA LANDS AYES: COUNCIT•►vEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 21. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF 13 TOWNHOUSE UNITS PROJECT AT 1120 MISSION AVENUE (P1) - File 10-7 Mayor Boro announced that this is a continued discussion, noting that this item was before SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 26 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 27 the Council on May 15, 1995. Staff was given some direction, and will now bring us up to date. Planning Director Pendoley stated he will give a brief outline. He explained the Council had asked staff to prepare an accurate drawing of what the project would look like. There was concern that the height of the drawings shown at the previous meeting did not reflect what the Planning Commission had approved. The drawing presented tonight has been adjusted. It is difficult to discern the difference without a fine scale ruler, because the change in elevation is 5/16 of an inch on the drawings because of the scale, but they are actually 21,12 feet. He added that staff was asked to investigate lowering the building pad. They explored that issue, and have explained in the staff report. He noted that a letter was received today from the applicant, and copies were furnished to the Council. In the letter, the applicant stated he is prepared to lower the building another 16 inches; however, he would also propose to change his project description to delete one of the below market rate (BMR) units. Mr. Pendoley stated that in researching this project to find a way to lower the height, he finds that 16 inches is about equivalent to the distance between the proposed market price and the BMR price. The Council also asked staff to explore alternatives for the brick path. Public Works Department started a title search on this property, but it has been very difficult. The company has been at work on it for a couple of weeks, and have said they will need another couple of weeks in the title search. Staff also talked with the applicant about this issue, and he has submitted a letter to the Council in which they said they are willing to landscape that portion of the easement which is adjacent to their property, or to maintain that portion of the brick path which is adjacent to their property. The Council could condition the project for either or both of those alternatives, pending the Council's final determination as to whether or not you will decide on abandonment, if that is really within your power. Mr. Pendoley added that staff asked for a statement from the developer as to his intended sales price. We are not recommending that this be a matter of contract, since the City does not have a General Plan policy to that effect. He added he is not sure that the Council is legally precluded from requiring a contract, but staff did not sense that the Council wanted to bind the price to a set dollar amount. Mayor Boro referred to the letter to which Mr. Pendoley referred, which was received this evening from Mr. Levin, and asked does he understand correctly that from the first drawings the Council saw, the project is now represented as being 212 feet lower than originally intended. It is now being lowered an additional 16 inches, which would effectively reduce it by 46 inches, about 4 feet. Mr. Pendoley stated that is correct. Mayor Boro asked does the applicant wish to add anything to the information submitted. They did not, and Mayor Boro asked the appellant if he wished to address the Council. He pointed out that the Council had also received his letter tonight. Mr. Joseph Caramucci, appellant, stated that there is a way to reduce the building by another 1 foot 4 inches, by reducing the garage down to a minimum 7 foot 2 inches, which is the minimum height for a garage door. He stated that at the Planning Commission meeting the architect stated they could not go below where they are now, but this representation again is not correct. He stated the drawings are not accurate, regarding the relationship to his property. The windows on the lower deck are obscured. He described the elevations, and stated you will not be able to see over the house from that unit. Mayor Boro asked Mr. Caramucci is he stating that the view from the deck of his first floor unit will be blocked, and Mr. Caramucci responded that is correct. He stated that also, the view looking from his upper deck, he thought there were going to be gables and other roof features, to mitigate the impact on the view from the upper deck of his property, but that is not shown. It is only a flat roof with some chimneys. He stated that perhaps SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 27 Mr. Mr. Mrs SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 28 Mr. Ragghianti can help us out, regarding the letter of intent to limit the price. Caramucci expressed concern regarding the parking lot and its use by WestAmerica Bank. He stated it would be convenient, but if WestAmerica should sell it or develop it, we would be left with 13 more units and a potential new museum going in over at Boyd Park, and no parking. He stated this project will be here for a long time, without parking. James Lazzarini of 307/309 Laurel Place stated he worries about the parking because Laurel Place is very narrow, and you are not supposed to park on the north side. He is concerned about emergency vehicles getting by if there is a fire. Effie Lieberman of 124 Laurel agrees with concerns about parking on Laurel Place, and also about the traffic on Mission, with people going in and out of driveways. There should be some provision for parking for all of those people. Mr. Clancy, a Laurel Place resident, inquired what is so difficult about putting up story poles and leaving them up for five days? He stated he has seen them up for two weeks in Tiburon. He added they should be put up so people can know the height, and he does not believe the Council knows the height. Mayor Boro replied he does know we are reducing it. Mr. Clancy said the story poles are still there, and are laying in the back, and he would like them put back up. Mayor Boro asked staff for comment regarding the 71-2footgarage doors. Mr. Pendoley responded that he thinks there was a little misunderstanding about the changes which were made to the elevations at the garage height. The garage height which was proposed to the Planning Commission was 8 feet 6 inches, but what came out of the Planning Commission was 8 feet. The Uniform Building Code (UBC) requires an 8 foot elevation in the garage if there are to be any lights in the ceiling, which of course you would want, and if there is to be a garage door opener. The 7 feet 6 inches could be allowed under the Code if you are going to have neither of those things. Obviously it would be good design to have both. At this point there is a question of 6 inches, and staff would recommend to the Council that the garage door openers are a good idea. Mayor Boro then noted there had been discussion about the view from the first floor of Mr. CaramucciIs building. Mr. Pendoley outlined the analysis staff had conducted, to assess the accuracy of that issue. He explained the cross-sections on the display, which were an attempt to get the best analysis possible regarding the impact on decks, which is a critical issue, and also the staff's calculations. The elevation data they received from the applicant had been prepared by a registered surveyor who had actually conducted a survey out on the site. Staff felt that data was credible, and that was their basis for studying the elevations. Mr. Pendoley described the calculations in detail, and stated staff feels that the drawing on display is a fair representation of the height of the proposed build- ings in relation to Mr. Caramucci's building and the decks. Mr. Pendoley added that there is an issue on the roof plan, which he displayed for the Council, in relation to Mr. Caramucci's building. He explained that what this drawing shows is that the second unit has a peak, which is a false gable roof. He showed the cross-section line, and stated the difference in elevation as 2 feet 6 inches. The impact for the deck, if you drew a line from the peak, would be to raise the view obstruction to approximately 5 feet from the floor of the deck up to where you would be able to see over it. Mayor Boro noted that if a person is standing on the deck they would be able to overlook the roof line. Mr. Pendoley stated that a person of his height would be able to look over the peak. However, the applicant has now changed the project to reduce it another 16 inches. Mayor Boro inquired about the parking lot proposed for Mission Avenue and B Street, which SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 28 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 29 has not yet been discussed, including its availability to the neighborhood, and as off-site parking for this project, and long-term parking. Mr. Pendoley responded that as he understands what has been proposed by the applicant for the townhomes project and the seller of the property, is to make three parking lots controlled by WestAmerica Bank, available to the project. They are proposing to put a sign where you drive in to the project parking lot, which says that parking is available, and listing the addresses. He noted that a part of this project, which is not under appeal, is the construction of a replacement parking lot down at the corner which has approximately 18 spaces. He stated he cannot speak to the long-term availability of that, but the questions should be directed to the applicant. In staff's analysis there is a trade-off. The project before the Council previously had two guest parking spaces on site. There was some interest on the Council for having those areas landscaped and available to residents. It is up to the Council to decide whether the trade-off is appropriate. Mayor Boro explained he is looking at the new site and its availability to the surrounding neighborhood. He asked if the applicants would like to address that issue. Mr. Robert Blumenfeld, one of the two developers of the townhouse project, explained that essentially WestAmerica Bank has agreed to allow the parking lot, as it always has been, to be used on weekends, nights and holidays. They have never to this date closed it off to the community, and have no intention of doing that. They do not wish to encumber the property for the rest of its life by designating certain spaces toward the townhouse project, but at this point in time they have no plans to develop the parking lot into anything else besides what they are at this time. He noted there is a representative of WestAmerica Bank present, if the Council would wish to refer the question to her. Mayor Boro stated he understands that the bank does not have an obligation, even though they have provided parking to the neighborhood. On the other hand, it is his understanding that they plan to tear down the existing house and provide parking on that site. Mr. Blumenfeld noted that will provide an additional 18 parking spaces. Mayor Boro added that there has been some discussion about that site being used as parking during nonbusiness hours for the extension to the Boyd Museum, although that process has not yet gone through the full planning process. That is why he would like to understand the intent of the bank on that site. Ms. Barbara Mehnke, facilities manager for WestAmerica Bank, stated that the bank does intend to tear down the building at 1149 Mission Avenue and construct the parking lot. The parking lot will replace the one which will be eliminated as a result of this project. It is also WestAmerica Bank's intent to leave the parking facility open and available to the residents of the area for off -hours parking. In fact, they have just repaved the parking lot which is adjacent to the main office. The bank has no intention at this point of converting the property to anything other than parking, so we would like to be a good neighbor and continue to share the space. Mayor Boro noted that the No Parking regulation on parking on the north side of Laurel Place should be enforced, from a fire emergency point of view. Councilmember Heller inquired about the two visitors' parking spaces which will be located at the bank' s parking lot, as to whether there will be a charge for them, or will it be part of the bank' s good neighbor policy? Mr. Blumenfeld replied there will be no fee for the parking. Councilmember Zappetini stated he does not think there is anyone really opposed to this SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 29 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 30 project except for the height. He feels there is still some thought that the numbers do not seem to jibe from one to the other. He stated he understands it will be dropped a certain amount, but he wonders why the numbers do not seem to jibe. Mayor Boro stated that the Planning Director has explained the height issue. Councilmember Zappetini responded that is how he figures the dimensions, but he understands that the appellant is saying that is wrong. Mr. Pendoley stated he feels that he and Mr. Caramucci have agreed on the heights. He has not heard him protest the height on the project site or the measured height which is shown on the drawings which relate to the property. In fact, the computer-assisted design (CAD) analysis which he provided used the same data. However, when Mr. Caramucci placed the new building he placed the garage - the first story - at ground level rather than below ground as is actually proposed which, at least as far as the CAD drawing goes, accounts for the difference between what the applicant has shown and Mr. Caramucci's analysis. Mr. Pendoley added that tonight he heard Mr. Caramucci say he did accept the surveyor' s topo for both his property and the adjacent property, and he did not hear him questioning the height of the applicant' s building as shown on these drawings. He also heard him mentioning the figure of 7 feet which, as he recalls, is the way the applicant has scaled off Mr. Caramucci I s drawing. He does not see what differences are being represented. It sounds as if we are all saying the same thing. Mr. Caramucci stated there is no question about the topographical map. What he says is wrong, is we are saying the lower deck is 123 feet. When you go up 28 feet 6 inches, plus the peak of the roof, you are up to 31 feet, less the 16 inches, so now we are down to 30 feet. He stated he is not 7 feet tall, and if he is standing on a deck at 123 feet, how can he look over 130 feet? On the other drawing, with his building and Mr. Lazzarini Is, in the background, it is a misrepresentation. That is the one with which they disagree. He stated they have been trying since May 15th to get these things resolved, and were never previously invited to do SO. Councilmember Cohen stated he appreciates the clarification. He thinks there is agreement on the height, but it is the question of the impact of those relative heights which is a judgment call which ultimately falls on this Council. Where there is a difference of approximately 7 feet is from the level of the lower deck on Mr. Caramucci's property to the peak of the gable which runs, not at right angles, but runs perpendicular to Mr. CaramucciIsdeck. He stated that the peak of the roof, relative to the floor of the deck, is 7 feet. Generally speaking, as Mr. Pendoley indicated, across the peak of that roof there is a 7 foot differ- ence. Below that, there is a 412 foot difference, so if you are standing on Mr. Caramucci's lower deck across the flat roof portion on either side of the peak, it is about 41�2feet, which is where a normal eye level would be. A person would not be looking up. He noted that a lot of time has been spent in talking about lowering the building, but that 4 feet is really very critical. Without that reduction which was accomplished by the Planning Commission and by the City Council, you would have been looking up at this building. He feels that everyone now agrees on the relative heights. From the lower deck, you will be looking across the top of the roof, and while the lower portion will be obstructed, the view will not be blocked. Mr. Lazzarini stated he would like to get a look at the story poles again, but he thinks this explanation is just about right. He saw the poles when they were up previously, and they blocked his lower unit completely. They were almost as high as the top of the telephone pole. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 30 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 31 Councilmember Heller inquired about the legal height limit, and how this project compares with it. Mr. Pendoley responded that the height limit is 36 feet. He explained that is measured by the UBC, and they take into account the slope, pitch of roof, etc., so the actual height would be several feet higher than that, but according to their formula the height limit is 36 feet. Mayor Boro inquired of the project architect, Donald MacDonald, if he concurs in what has been represented by the Planning Director? Mr. MacDonald responded that he does concur. Councilmember Cohen recapped the issues discussed at the last meeting. He noted the Council talked in terms of conceptual approval of the project and reached agreement that it was consistent with the public policy goals of the Vision for San Rafael to encourage this type of project in this location. In addition, the Council spent a fair amount of time discussing the issue of parking and whose responsibility it is to provide parking. He agreed that it is incumbent upon the developer and the City to require adequate parking, including guest parking, for each unit. He stated he does not think it is fair to require either the current or future owner of this particular parcel to take responsibility for providing parking for the entire neighborhood. The pattern of development of Laurel Place was established a long time ago, and does not fall on the shoulders of this parcel. He noted another issue is the impact on both Mr. Caramucci and Mr. Lazzarini regarding the views from their properties. The English Lane has been discussed, although not this evening, and the impact on the properties above, given any development on this parcel. He stated he would prefer to see the English Lane softened by landscaping where the guest parking spaces were proposed, which was discussed previously. He stated he does not support eliminating the English Lane. Having had the issue come up, we need to determine who owns the walkway and the stairs and how, on an ongoing basis, we are going to deal with that issue and with the issue of maintenance and responsibility for it. He stated that what the developer has proposed is reasonable, with regard to their taking responsibility for landscaping and maintenance for the walkway abutting their property. The question of the stairs above will have to be addressed once we receive the information relating to the ownership of the land and see what our options are. Councilmember Cohen pointed out that we are being asked to trade off the reduction of one BMR unit for the height of the building. That is not an outcome which he likes but, on the other hand, we must consider the type of housing being proposed. It was not presented as affordable housing, but it is of a certain type which we do not see often and this will enhance what we are trying to do downtown. He noted that several residents of Boyd Court have told him how much they appreciate being homeowners in downtown San Rafael. He stated that the affordability has not been driving his support of this project. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to deny the appeal and direct staff to prepare a Resolution denying the appeal and incorporating the changes and agreements which have brought us to this point. Mayor Boro stated that he has talked with the appellant over the last two weeks and he has corresponded with the Council; he has talked with the applicants as well. He agrees with Councilmember Cohen about giving up an affordable unit, and yet we have 12 other units which we normally would not have. We have tried to accommodate the height issue which he feels is critical, and he looks to staff to ensure that what we have discussed actually gets built. The City's expectations are very clear, as are Mr. CaramucciIs and Mr. LazzariniIs. Mayor Boro stated staff will follow this very closely. AYES: COUNCIT.►v►EMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 31 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 32 ABSENT: COUNCIT.►v►EMBERS : None 22. REPORT ON DENTAL INSURANCE PROVIDER (Per) - File 7-1-40 x 7-1-29 Mayor Boro noted that staff has given the Council three options, and asked Personnel Director Daryl Chandler to summarize them. OMr. . Chandler explained that the options are that the dental insurance change which was discussed, to either withdraw any further action on that permanently, which is Option No. 1. Option No. 2 would be for the Council to direct staff to meet and confer with the employee organizations right now, to see if we could work this out. Option No. 3 would be to postpone any meet and confer sessions until we can talk with the contractor, which will be occurring in April of 1996. Mr. Chandler stated that Option No. 3 is what he is recommending tonight, based upon the way the meeting went on June 13th with the MAPE/SEIU field representative, Bill Castellanos. Mayor Boro inquired, if we accepted Option No. 3, and delayed this until our next round of bargaining, is Mr. Chandler saying that in the intervening time frame he will get more specificity so the employees will have a better feeling about it? Mr. Chandler responded he would like to do that. He stated that the big issue remains to be the usual customary rate of charge, and there is no way we could guarantee that in every case there may not be some extra copayment on the part of the employee. He stated that we cannot guarantee that Delta Dental Is rates will not change either. Mayor Boro stated he would like to go with the staff recommendation, and when we get into our next bargaining sessions we will have a complete benefit package. Councilmember Heller agreed. Mayor Boro stated it is important that we get the value of the program out to the employees, and suggested that Mr. Chandler have a meeting with the three union heads and contact the members directly. Councilmember Cohen urged that it be done soon, and not be put off. Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Zappetini seconded, to delay a decision and in the intervening 8 or 9 months to continue the dialogue and explain to the unions what we are attempting to do, and to make sure they have full understanding. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCIT•►vEM13ERS : None ABSENT: COUNCIT.►v►EMBERS : None NEW BUSINESS 23. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE SETTING THE PARAMEDIC TAX FOR 1995/96 (Fin) - File 9-3-31 Finance Director Coleman briefed the Council, explaining that the recommended rate this year is $37 per parcel, and that amount plus the third party billing, will cover the projected cost for the Paramedic Program in the coming Fiscal Year, and staff recommends that the rate be set at $37 per living unit and $.0331 per square foot for commercial property. The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING ORDINANCE 1665 (PARAMEDIC SERVICE SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 32 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 33 SPECIAL TAX) AND SETTING THE PARAMEDIC TAX RATE COMMENCING WITH FISCAL YEAR 1995/96 FOR RESIDENTIAL AND NON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES". Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1682 to print by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 24. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE LEVYING A SPECIAL TAX FOR THE PROPERTY TAX YEAR 1995/96 AND FOLLOWING TAX YEARS - COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 1992-1 (LOCH LOMOND #10) (Fin) - File 6-50 x 5-1-297 Finance Director Coleman explained that this special tax was agreed to by the developer when the Council approved Loch Lomond #10, and we are now implementing the tax. The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL LEVYING A SPECIAL TAX FOR THE PROPERTY TAX YEAR 1995/96 AND FOLLOWING TAX YEARS". Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Zappetini seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only, and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1683 to print by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 25. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro a. PROPOSED PUBLIC AWARENESS PROGRAM RE PANHANDLING - File 13-9 Mayor Boro noted there was previous discussion about the efforts of the business community and the providers to educate the public on the pros and cons of supporting panhandling. He stated that the Chamber of Commerce will be sending a notice to all the businesses in town to see if there is interest in having a meeting to discuss the proposed Public Awareness Program regarding panhandling. b. CANCELLATION OF REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 3, 1995 - File 9-1 Mayor Boro inquired of City Clerk Leoncini about the proposed agenda and she indicated there were no items which could not be postponed until the next regular meeting. Mrs. Leoncini inquired of the City Attorney if this would have to be considered an Urgency action. Mr. Ragghianti replied it does not. Councilmember Zappetini moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to cancel the City SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 33 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 34 Council meeting of July 3, 1995. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCIT.►v►EM13ERS : None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:55 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1995 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/19/95 Page 34