HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1995-09-18SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/18/95 Page 1
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 18,1995, AT 8:00 PM
Regular Meeting:
San Rafael City Council
Barbara Heller, Councilmember
Gary 0. Phillips, Councilmember
David J. Zappetini, Councilmember
Absent: None
Others Present: Suzanne Golt, Acting City Manager
Eric Davis, Assistant City Attorney
Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk
OPEN SESSION - 6:00 PM - COUNCIL CHAMBER
Mayor Boro announced Closed Session items:
Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor
Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember
CLOSED SESSION AGENDA ITEMS - 6:00 PM - CONFERENCE ROOM 201
•Conference with Labor Negotiator - (Government Code Section 54957.6)
Negotiator: Suzanne Golt
Employee Organization: San Rafael Firefighters' Association
•Conference with Labor Negotiator - (Government Code Section 54956.9)
Negotiator: Suzanne Golt
Employee Organization: Fire Department Mid -managers
(Request for Representation)
The Council then met in Closed Session in Conference Room 201 to discuss the above mentioned items.
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 18,1995 AT 8:30 PM
RE: CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
Assistant City Attorney Davis announced that no reportable action was taken.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE:
RE: LABOR NEGOTIATIONS WITH SAN RAFAEL FIREFIGHTERS' ASSOCIATION - File 9-3-31
Rick Oltman, San Rafael resident, addressed the Council, urging them to expedite and pass immediately the issue
regarding experience for line supervisors. He stated the firefighters were not asking that the requirements for promotion be
reduced, but to be at a set standard so that those who supervise them in an emergency situation actually have firefighting
experience to direct the people under their command. Mr. Oltman stated this was an issue of public safety, and that public
safety begins with the safety of the people the City hires to work in public safety, noting this affects not only the firefighters,
but could affect citizens in emergency situations.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Zappetini seconded, to approve the recommended action on the
following Consent Calendar items:
ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/18/95 Page 1
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/18/95 Page 2
2. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of Approved as submitted.
August 21, 1995 and Special Joint Meeting
of September 5, 1995 (CC)
3. Ratification of Resolution of Appreciation for RATIFIED RESOLUTION NO. 9449 -
Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager (CC) RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR
- File 102 x 9-3-11 PAMELA J. NICOLAI, CITY MANAGER.
4. Resolution of the City of San Rafael RESOLUTION NO. 9450 -
Establishing Procedures and Criteria RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
for Determination Whether Public OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
Convenience or Necessity Will Be Served ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES AND
by Issuance of Off -sale or On -sale CRITERIA FOR DETERMINATION
Liquor Licenses, Where a Finding of WHETHER PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR
Undue Concentration has Been Made by the NECESSITY WILL BE SERVED BY
Department of Alcohol Beverage Control ISSUANCE OF OFF -SALE OR ON -SALE
(CA) - File 13-8 x 9-3-16 LIQUOR LICENSES, WHERE A FINDING
OF UNDUE CONCENTRATION HAS BEEN
MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOL
BEVERAGE CONTROL.
5. Report on Salary Rate for Acting
City Manager (Per) -File 7-3x9-3-11
per month to $7,999.88 per month.)
6. Monthly Investment Report (Fin)
- File 8-18 x 8-9
Accepted report. (15% increase,
effective 10/1/95, from $6,956.42
Accepted report.
7. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF
ORDINANCE NO. 1685 - An Ordinance of No. 1685.
the City of San Rafael Adding Chapter
17.30 to the San Rafael Municipal Code
Concerning Watercraft Traffic
Regulations (PD) - File 144 x 9-3-30
8. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF
ORDINANCE NO. 1686 - An Ordinance of
the City of San Rafael Amending the
Zoning Map of the City of San Rafael,
California, Adopted by Reference by
Section 14.01.020 of the Municipal
Code of San Rafael, California, so as
to Reclassify Certain Real Property
From the PD (Planned Development 1673)
District to the PD (Planned Development)
District (RE: Z94 -2(b)), Oakview School
Site, 70 Skyview Terrace, AP No. 165-010-54)
(Re: Montevideo Terrace Subdivision) (PI)
- File 5-1-327
9. Resolution Authorizing Execution of
Below market Rate Housing Agreement
for Montevideo Terrace Subdivision,
Oakview School Site, 70 Skyview Terrace,
AP #165-010-54, Waterford Associates, Owner
(PI) - File 5-1-327 x 229
(OAKVIEW SCHOOL SITE) BETWEEN THE
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, THE HOUSING
AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF MARIN
AND WATERFORD ASSOCIATES LLC.
Approved Final Adoption of Ordinance
Approved Final Adoption of Ordinance
No. 1686.
RESOLUTION NO. 9451 -
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF
A BELOW MARKET RATE AGREEMENT
RE: MONTEVIDEO TERRACE SUBDIVISION
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
None
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
None
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/18/95 Page 2
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/18/95 Page 3
PUBLIC HEARING
10. PUBLIC HEARING - TO CONSIDER A PROPOSED RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDING ITS
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE TO INCREASE PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION FEES AND APPEAL FEES (PI) -
File 9-10-2 x 10-2 x 9-3-14
Mayor Boro opened the Public Hearing and asked for the staff report.
Planning Director Robert Pendoley reported the Council had last considered the fee schedule for planning applications in
July, 1991. He noted that since that time labor costs and the way permits are processed had changed, stating the
most significant change was in the way permits are processed, noting more and more permits are either approved
at the staff level or the zoning administrator level, which is a less expensive and time consuming way to handle
most of the applications that come to the City. Mr. Pendoley stated that for those types of applications he is
recommending that a flat rate fee schedule be established. For those applications that would go to the Planning
Department or the City Council, he was recommending an hourly rate be set, noting this would be consistent with
what other agencies in California have begun doing, including those agencies in Marin County. He reported a
survey had been taken of the cities and County of Marin, and this was found to be accurate. Mr. Pendoley stated
the recommended rate of slightly more than $60.00 was comparable to the rate charged by most departments in
the County. He reported he was not recommending any changes to the fees for design review applications at this
time, noting staff was in the process of changing the rules for the design review permits, and felt it would be more
appropriate to make changes to those fees when those changes were completed. Mr. Pendoley reported he had
spoken to the Chamber of Commerce and the Builders Exchange about the proposed rate increases, noting that
both had similar concerns regarding projects that must go for repeat hearings, and are looking for a way to put a
cap on the number of hearings that are required. Mr. Pendoley felt the Chamber of Commerce and Builders
Exchange were correct, that an equity issue does exist.
Mayor Boro referred to the recommended appeal fee increase, from $75 to $100 Mr. Pendoley stated the average appeal
to come before the Council requires approximately ten hours of planner time, and at their rates, this would be
significantly more than the $100 being recommended. Mr. Pendoley pointed out that with this recommended fee
schedule, an hourly fee would not be charged to the permit applicant if he or she were to come before the Council
on an appeal; the set appeal fee would be the sole fee to cover the cost of appeal. Mayor Boro clarified the appeal
fee would be paid by the person making the appeal and not by the permit applicant, and asked Mr. Pendoley if the
$100 appeal fee was comparable to the other juris]dictions? Mr. Pendoley referred to Exhibit "C" of his report,
which showed other cities charge much more than $100.
Councilmember Zappetini asked how staff would keep track of their time for fees that are based on an hourly rate? Mr.
Pendoley responded that in 1991 the Council had given the Planning Department the authority to set hourly rates
for some of their larger projects. He explained the planner assigned to such a project was responsible for
maintaining a weekly time sheet and logging the hours spent on the project. Mr. Zappetini asked if this meant that
the amount of the fee could vary significantly, depending upon the size of the project, and Mr. Pendoley responded
that was correct. Mr. Zappetini felt it might establish more control in basing the rate on a per square foot schedule
rather than an hourly rate, noting it would be much easier to budget the anticipated cost of a project. He stated an
hourly rate might be questioned, and could cause a lot of problems. Mr. Pendoley stated that when using an
hourly rate, all time spent on a project must be documented. He reported the biggest constraint on hourly rate
schedules was that State law states we can only charge fees that are justified by the amount of work that is done.
He explained that when using a flat rate fee schedule, estimated hours worked by the staff members must be
shown. He stated there was no correlation between the number of square feet in a building and how much it costs
the Planning Commission to process. Therefore, although a general rule of thumb might be that the bigger the
project the more likely that it will take more time, a definitive ratio does not exist to prove it, and that is what the law
requires. Mr. Zappetini was concerned that without a set fee schedule, the cost to the applicant could far exceed
their expectations, possibly leading to court actions. Mr. Pendoley stated he was confident the Planning
Department would be able to give the applicant a reliable estimate of the time required and a close approximation
of the fee. Mr. Zappetini was still concerned the fee could greatly exceed what the applicant had anticipated.
Mayor Boro asked if a procedure was in place to monitor the project to determine whether it was exceeding the
anticipated time and expense? Mr. Pendoley stated that in the past when working with an hourly rate schedule,
the applicant would be asked for a deposit at the start of the project, and the applicant would be given an estimate
of the expected fee at completion. He explained that each time money is drawn from the deposit, the applicant is
informed of the amount being used, and updated on how the project is progressing. Mr. Pendoley stated that there
had been no problems with the few projects that have been charged an hourly rate, and he felt confident that it can
work well. He noted that if a problem were to arise, the applicant would be notified right away, informing them of
the problem that had been found and the additional time that would be required.
Councilmember Heller referred to the report and noted it appeared as though six or seven other agencies or cities were
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/18/95 Page 3
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/18/95 Page 4
already using an hourly rate schedule, and she asked Mr. Pendoley if they had been using this schedule long
enough to provide the insight of their experience as to how well it works and what the problems might be? Mr.
Pendoley stated some of the other agencies had been doing this for years, and that they felt it was quite successful.
Councilmember Phillips stated the concept of billing on an hourly rate schedule was not unique, and felt that as long as it is
monitored and supported, and feedback is given to the client, there should not be any misunderstanding. He also
felt an hourly schedule would be better for both the applicant and the City, as the applicant would spend more time
in preparing the application for submission and it would take less time to process, and more equitable to the City in
the instances where a project may take a longer time to complete.
Councilmember Cohen asked if a project is appealed, would the applicant be liable for anything other than the appeal fee
itself, such as additional fact finding work, that might have to take place? Mr. Pendoley responded it was his
recommendation that the applicant be responsible only for the actual appeal fee. Mr. Pendoley acknowledged the
concern of the Marin Builders' Exchange that there are projects that go first to the Planning Commission, then to the
City Council, and then must often appear again, numerous times, before either or both bodies. Mr. Pendoley
stated the Builders' Exchange and the Chamber of Commerce felt the Planning Department should be able to do a
good enough job with the staff report and analysis so that after a couple of presentations before the City, all of the
facts would be known and the project could proceed. Mr. Pendoley noted there are times when an opponent
attempts to drag the project out, and this would offer the applicant a measure of protection from that.
Councilmember Cohen stated he agreed with the comment made by the Marin Builders' Association that when charging an
hourly rate there must be full disclosure of the charges, and felt it would be prudent to ask for a follow-up report in
three to six months from now to review and compare the costs estimated at the time of design review with the
actual final costs of upcoming projects. He stated he would like us to be able to give a reasonable expectation of
charges to the applicant when we quote an estimate.
Mayor Boro declared the public hearing open and asked for comments from the audience.
Elissa Giambastiani, Executive Director of the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Council, reporting that on
September 6th the Chamber of Commerce's Governmental Affairs Committee met with Planning Director Pendoley
to review the proposed Planning Department fee increases. Ms. Giambastiani stated the committee was not
opposed to the fee increases, and they agreed that when compared to the fees of other cities, the proposed fee
increases were fair. She stated the committee was also pleased that some of the recommendations they had
made last year regarding the planning process have taken affect, and noted many more projects are being
reviewed by the Zoning Administrator's staff, which she felt was a very positive step in streamlining the permit
process. Ms. Giambastiani reported the committee had a lengthy discussion with Mr. Pendoley regarding the
fairness of having the property owner or developer pay for project delays that might be caused by just one resident
who opposed a project. She stated the committee felt there should be some protection for the applicant by placing
a cap on the hourly rate charges, and felt Mr. Pendoley's recommendation of a two meeting cap was fair. She
noted, however, the issue of return trips to the Design Review Board had not been discussed, and the Committee
felt that needed to be considered when reviewing increases in the Design Review fees. Ms. Giambastiani stated
the committee disagreed with Mr. Pendoley's recommendation that no caps be extended to the E.I.R.,
acknowledging that this would be difficult, but noted the sophistication of process delays by anti -development foes
has created enormous E.I.R. costs, citing the Buck Center for Research in Aging as an example. Ms.
Giambastiani stated the committee had suggested raising the appeal fee from $100 to $500, which she noted was
in line with the fee charged by the City of Tiburon and less than the County charges. She felt this would be one
way to discourage frivolous project appeals that can become incredibly costly to both the developer and the City,
and can derail a project entirely, citing as an example the St. Isabella's project and how much it cost Catholic
Charities to proceed with that project through extensive litigation. Ms. Giambastiani stated the committee
appreciated being able to discuss these proposals with Planning Director Pendoley prior to them being presented
to the Council, and felt the process was mutually beneficial to both the business community and city government.
Herb Nienstedt addressed the Council on behalf of the Marin Builders' Exchange, stating Mr. Pendoley and Ms.
Giambastiani had addressed several of the issues of concern to the Marin Builders' Exchange. He felt the need to
point out that regardless of the cost of the appeal, it does cost money to defend against an appeal, noting that every
time an appeal is generated, a time factor and monetary value are assigned to it. In addressing the issue of an
hourly rate, Mr. Nienstedt
stated that as a result of various challenges that may come forward, a project can very quickly move from a routine project
to a very complex and complicated one. Mr. Nienstedt felt Mr. Pendoley had responded as well as he could at this
time. He stated the Marin Builders' Exchange had dealt with various agencies who do use an hourly rate, and
noted there had been unresolved problems with these agencies. He felt that the various cities probably felt that
they were acting properly, but Mr. Nienstedt stated the builders were not happy with many of the outcomes,
particularly when the costs keep adding up and the hourly charges keep being assigned and assessed against a
project. Mr. Nienstedt felt the issue of the amount
of an appeal fee had the aspect of a two-edged sword, noting that if it costs a great deal for someone to challenge a project,
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/18/95 Page 4
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/18/95 Page 5
and if the project manager does not like the outcome, it would cost a fair amount of money to try to appeal whatever
decision was made. Mr. Nienstedt felt it was a difficult balancing act, and stated he would like to see some kind of
balance as to the types of challenges that are being brought forward. He felt if that could be achieved, the other
types of costs would even out. Mr. Nienstedt referred to the fee schedule reference on environmental impact fees
from the Department of Fish and Game, and noted these fees are no longer in effect and should be removed from
the fee schedule.
Hugo Landecker addressed the Council on behalf of the Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association, stating he could not
believe he had heard the Chamber of Commerce recommend a $500 fee for an appeal, stating a $500 appeal fee
would essentially eliminate most appeals. He acknowledged that some appeals may be frivolous, but felt many
are very justified. Mr. Landecker noted a $500 appeal fee, for his neighborhood association, would essentially
"break the bank", and he stated he supports Mr. Pendoley's proposal of a $100 appeal fee.
Shirley Fischer asked to address the Council as an individual, not as a representative of the North San Rafael Coalition,
although she felt a number of people in that group would agree that the City must be careful not to set the fee so
high that the whole purpose of the appeal process is undermined. She urged the Council to look closely at what
would be a reasonable fee, and not make it prohibitive for citizens to challenge something that may have been
approved by the Planning Commission. Ms. Fischer cited the Civic Center Plaza Building project, which was
appealed the first time around by the Mont Marin Homeowners Association on the basis of design, and the project
was completed with a far better building because of that process.
There being no further comments from the public, Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing.
Mayor Boro noted several main issues for discussion: the fee for appeals; reactions to the Planning Director's
recommendations for caps for the Planning Commission and Council hearings; caps for Design Review Board
hearings; and limiting the exposure of a proponent on the cost of an E.I.R., noting staff recommended keeping in
place the current practice of the cost being born by the applicant.
Councilmember Heller asked Mr. Pendoley why caps were not considered for the Design Review Board? Mr. Pendoley
responded the Design Review Board fees were not being presented to the Council at this time, but noted that when
a review of the Design Review Board process was brought to the Council last year, one of the recommendations
was that there should be a limit on the number of trips a particular project makes to the Design Review Board. Mr.
Pendoley stated that recommendation would actually have a better effect than limiting the fee. Mayor Boro asked
when that review would be brought to Council, and Mr. Pendoley responded it would come before Council in April.
Councilmember Cohen acknowledged he understood the concerns being expressed regarding the appeal process, but
stated he was also concerned about the chilling effect on the democratic process by setting the appeal fee too high.
Mr. Cohen stated it would be his preference to pursue the notion of a cap on the cost charged to the applicant
during the hearing process rather than raise the appeal fee so as to make it become a real barrier. Mr. Cohen felt
staff's recommendation of not charging the applicant beyond two meetings before the Planning Commission and
two meetings before the City Council was appropriate. He stated if there were multiple hearings because of
appeals and the Council or the Planning Commission wanted to go beyond the two meetings, then he felt the
taxpayers should absorb those costs in the interest of the pursuit of the democratic process. Mr. Cohen stated he
was concerned about capping the E.I.R. costs, because those costs are not for staff time, they are fees paid to a
consultant, and he did not feel this was an appropriate place for this issue to be addressed. Mr. Cohen noted
Environmental Impact Reports provide a lot of valuable information and are helpful in making reasonable decisions,
but felt that abuse of that process should be taken up at the State level. Mr. Cohen did not feel the City should
have to pay a consultant for an Environmental Impact Report. Councilmember Heller asked Mr. Cohen if he
agreed with staff's recommendations regarding the $100 appeal fee, setting a cap at two appearances before both
the Planning Commission and the City Council, and Mr. Cohen responded he was in agreement, but reiterated he
did not approve of placing a cap on fees for Environmental Impact Reports.
Councilmember Zappetini stated he was not in full agreement with the hourly rate fee, and that he felt the process could be
streamlined more easily with a flat fee rather than an hourly rate fee. Mr. Zappetini was concerned there would be
a logistics problem that would have to be overcome because of various staff members working on a single project,
and the prospect of hours spent on a project not being recorded accurately. Mr. Pendoley stated that if his
recommendations were approved, he would report back to the Council in six months to review how this process
was working.
Councilmember Phillips asked Mr. Pendoley for an update on that portion of his report in which he recommended no
changes to DRB fees, and that portion of the report which states, "Staff is developing a series of ordinance
amendments to implement changes the Council has directed to the design review process." Mr. Pendoley
responded the process had been changed to put a two tiered process into effect, which involves first a conceptual
review for larger projects, and then a decision review for smaller projects or larger projects that have already had a
conceptual review. Mr. Pendoley stated the Design Review Board would be meeting to study proposed rules of
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/18/95 Page 5
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/18/95 Page 6
order, and noted that a set of ordinance amendments had been partially drafted and should be ready for hearings
within eight weeks, and that staff was working on design guidelines and hoped to present a draft to the Design
Review Board the end of next month. Mr. Phillips asked when presentations would be made to the Council, and
Mr. Pendoley responded the Design Review Board's Rules of Order should be presented within a month, and the
ordinance amendments within eight weeks. Mr. Phillips stated he agreed with the recommendation to cap fees at
two appearances before the Design Review Board and two appearances before the City Council, noting if more
than two meetings before each committee were called for, something would be amiss. Mr. Phillips asked Mr.
Pendoley how he determined the appeal fee should be set at $100. Mr. Pendoley responded that appeal fees had
not been adjusted in approximately ten years, and that costs had certainly increased during that time period. Mr.
Pendoley noted there were two reasons for appeal fees, one was to partially defer the cost, and another was to
discourage frivolous appeals, and he felt if either of these were to be accomplished, the appeal fees needed to be
increased slightly. Mr. Phillips felt everyone would agree that the frivolous appeals needed to be eliminated, as
they are very time consuming and serve no purpose. He noted that setting the appeal fee at $100 would not be a
significant increase, and asked Mr. Pendoley where he felt the threshold would be for the fee to become a deterrent
to filing an appeal? Mr. Pendoley stated he did not feel a $100 fee would be a deterrent. Mr. Phillips stated that
although he did not want to set a barrier that would be insurmountable to those with a legitimate concern, he was
concerned that a $100 fee might not be high enough to deter frivolous appeals, and asked Mr. Pendoley if perhaps
it should be $150 or $200. Mr. Pendoley responded the fee could certainly be several hundred dollars before
exceeding the lowest priced appeal the City has had. Mr. Pendoley stated it would be hard to imagine an appeal
taking less than ten hours of work.
Councilmember Heller agreed with Mr. Cohen's remarks, and stated she would like to try setting the appeal fee at $100,
noting that the amount could be increased in the future if it was found not to deter frivolous claims. She felt the fee
amount needed to be within the reach of the residents in the community, and that $100 was already a stretch for
the neighborhood associations, noting there are times when the associations would like to have another look at an
issue.
Councilmember Zappetini asked if Mr. Pendoley had considered a "hardship appeal" for those unable to pay the fee to file
an appeal, or if Mr. Pendoley knew of any other cities that such a system in place? Mr. Pendoley responded he
did not know if this had been tried by any other city, and that nothing of this kind had been found in any of his
research.
Mayor Boro stated he would like to see the City adopt the $100 appeal fee, agreeing with Councilmember Cohen that the
range of fees on the comparison chart would have a chilling effect. He felt that generally, from a homeowner's
point of view, the appeals are usually pretty sound. Mayor Boro stated that in addition to tracking the hourly rate
for six months for a review and updated report to be presented to the Council, he would like Mr. Pendoley to track
and report on the effectiveness of the caps and how they are working, and also to report on the types of appeals
that have been submitted for the six month period and whether Mr. Pendoley felt they were valid or frivolous
appeals. Mr. Cohen felt some of the most egregious and frivolous appeals have been some of the most
expensive, and he agreed a six month review of the appeals received would be valuable.
Mayor Boro noted the Resolution being presented to the Council for adoption addressed the hourly rate of $62.40, and
asked if the issue of the cap was a policy issue? Mr. Pendoley stated this issue could be addressed simply as an
inclusion to Exhibit "A", which explained how the fee would be applied. Mayor Boro stated the other
recommendation was to sustain the current procedure with respect to E.I.R.'s, and felt there was consensus among
the Councilmembers to agree to this recommendation, as well as to the $100 appeal fee. Mayor Boro stated the
Council would like further information, and asked Mr. Pendoley to report back to the Council in six months with an
updated report, to be shared with the Chamber of Commerce and the Marin Builders' Exchange.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution amending the Master Fee
Schedule increasing Planning Department fees and adding a cost index. (With Amendment to Exhibit A).
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 9452 - RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AMENDING ITS MASTER
FEE SCHEDULE INCREASING PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEES AND ADDING A COST INDEX. (With
Amendment to Exhibit A).
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS
OLD BUSINESS
Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
None
None
11. REPORT ON VOLUNTEER PROGRAM (CM) - File 235
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/18/95 Page 6
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/18/95 Page 7
Acting City Manager Suzanne Golt presented a follow-up item regarding the Volunteer Program. She explained that during
the Budget Hearings, the Budget Oversight Committee and Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods presented a
proposal to the Council seeking to create a more organized program, and it was felt that more time was needed to
study how the program would work and the type of position to be created. Ms. Golt reported she had received
input from the various departments regarding ideas on what the volunteers could do for the City and how to
coordinate the program. Ms. Golt stated the proposal before the Council was to seek authorization to implement
the Volunteer Program and to authorize a recruitment for a half-time Volunteer Program Manager position. Ms.
Golt noted the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods and the Budget Oversight Committee had been very
actively involved in developing the recommendations being presented.
Councilmember Cohen asked which department would supervise the program. Ms. Golt responded it was her
understanding that the City Manager's office would supervise this program. Mayor Boro asked if the program
would initially be supervised by the Personnel Department, since the City Manager's office is in transition? Ms.
Golt responded she felt that would be the best way to handle the program until a permanent City Manager was in
place.
Tom Oblitz, President of the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods, addressed the Council and thanked staff for their
work in establishing the Volunteer Program. Mr. Oblitz stated that the original intention had been to have the
Volunteer Program Manager report to the City Manager, and noted that if it was appropriate, the Federation would
work with Ms. Golt and Personnel Director Daryl Chandler until such time as a permanent City Manager is in office.
Mr. Oblitz reported the support for this program has been excellent, noting Chief Marcucci and a number of the
other department heads had been especially supportive of the program, and that the Federation is looking forward
to working with everyone involved.
Mayor Boro referred to the "essential functions" listed in the staff report, noting he felt one of the most important issues was
recognition of the volunteers. He stated the City had several informal programs in place within the Police
Department, the Library, and at the Falkirk Cultural Center, and each has some level of recognition for the
volunteers. Mayor Boro felt it was very important that each department have a recognition program, although he
did not want to set strict guidelines requiring all of the departments to conduct their recognition programs in the
same manner. Mayor Boro stated establishing a volunteer recognition program must be one of the responsibilities
of the new Volunteer Program Manager's position.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to authorize the implementation of the Volunteer
Program, as presented in the staff report. The Council voted unanimously to approve this motion.
12. REPORT ON WORK PROGRAM FOR "D" AND BAYVIEW STREETS (PW) - File 11-9x 11-11 x 11-1 x9-3-40
Public Works Director David Bernardi reported staff had met with Theresa Cox and Sandy Baker, representatives of the
Gerstle Park Homeowners Association
to discuss the elements of the work program, noting the program anticipates a number of work hours to be provided by
volunteers in gathering data. Mr. Bernardi reported Associate Traffic Engineer Nader Mansurian has estimated
approximately 64 volunteer hours would be needed to gather raw field data, in addition to the time Mr. Mansurian
would need to spend on training the volunteers how to gather the information in the field. Mr. Bernardi stated staff
is very excited about working with Ms. Cox and the Gerstle Park Homeowners Association in developing this
program. He reported that over the next few months they will be taking traffic counts at various locations in the
Gerstle Park neighborhood, noting the schedule of this work will depend on when the needed equipment is
available. Mr. Bernardi noted additional time will be needed to analyze the information once the traffic counts
have been completed, and he recommended presenting a full report to the Council in March, 1996, at which time the
Council can decide if they wish to proceed further with the project. Mr. Bernardi stated this would also give the
Council enough time to include this item in the 1996/97 Capital Improvement Program. Mr. Bernardi stated he
intended to present to the Council a detailed joint report from the staff and the Gerstle Park Neighborhood
Association which will include various options.
Councilmember Phillips asked if the committee would be looking only at installing a traffic signal, or would they be looking at
other possibilities as well? Mr. Bernardi stated the major focus would be a traffic signal installation, but noted the
data gathered would also address the installation of a stop sign. Mr. Phillips asked if the study would assist the
Council in determining which approach to take, and Mr. Bernardi responded that it would.
Councilmember Cohen stated he had received numerous letters on this issue, and noted a number of people are in favor of
the installation of a stop sign. He felt the Council would need to evaluate all of the data collected to determine
whether or not a stop sign, though less costly than installation of a traffic signal, would actually do the job that
needs to be done. He stated that in his evaluation of previous studies, it seemed as though stop signs might
create more problems in the neighborhood than they would solve. He felt it was important the Council keep an
open mind and not make any decisions until evaluating all of the data. Mr. Cohen stated this needs to be an
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/18/95 Page 7
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/18/95 Page 8
inclusive process, and that once the data is gathered the City will need to continue to work with the Gerstle Park
Neighborhood Association and provide a lot of education on the issues involved, and how and why the choices
have been made. He felt it would be important that community meetings be held to allow the City to explain the
choices and give the people in the neighborhood a chance to comment before a final decision is made. Mr.
Bernardi stated it was very clear that this was a partnership between the City and the residents of the Gerstle Park
neighborhood, and that part of the City's responsibility in this partnership is to relay as much information as
possible to the community in order to educate everyone so that they understand the ramifications of the
conclusions that have been reached.
Councilmember Heller reported she had received telephone calls regarding this issue, and noted she was surprised to
learn that many of the callers preferred a stop sign rather than a traffic signal. She agreed the City needs to look
at the overall picture and work with the residents of the neighborhood to determine which solution will suit the
needs of that particular street. She felt this was a dangerous street, and that the City must take care of the safety
factor there.
Councilmember Zappetini stated he would like to see this project completed in less than six months. Mr. Bernardi
explained the City had one person, Nader Mansurian, who is responsible for all of the City's traffic work, including
not only the normal day-to-day work, but also the modeling for the Traffic Distribution General Plan Implementation
Program, administrating a $6 million grant that has specific time tables, along with all of the other requests such as
staffing the Traffic Advisory Committee. Mr. Bernardi noted, therefore, Mr. Mansurian's time is very limited, and
that he will have to work overtime to complete all of these projects. Mr. Bernardi stated this project was not
programmed into his work schedule for this fiscal year, and as this project is being squeezed into his schedule, he
needs to be given enough time to study the information and analyze it correctly. Mr. Zappetini asked if we could
use more volunteer time to help Mr. Mansurian? Mr. Bernardi responded that volunteers would be used in
gathering the data, but that Mr. Mansurian's time would mostly be spent in analyzing the data, which was something
a volunteer could not do.
Theresa Cox, addressed the Council on behalf of the Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association, thanking the residents of the
neighborhood who were attending the meeting. Ms. Cox reported that an article in a recent Gerstle Park
Neighborhood Association newsletter highlighted the traffic problems on "Y Street, particularly the dangers of the
children crossing "D" Street. Ms. Cox stated neighbors were requested to give their opinions regarding the traffic
problems, and reported that at a neighborhood picnic attended by approximately 100 residents, 62 residents sat
down at the information booth to discuss the traffic problems and complete a survey. Ms. Cox reported the
Association had met with Nader Mansurian, who suggested many of the questions that were used in the survey.
Ms. Cox stated the residents expressed strong concerns in the survey, and 24 volunteered to assist in the traffic
count. In reviewing specific concerns, Ms. Cox reported 42 neighbors expressed concern over excessive speed;
many were concerned over the intersections of "Y Street and Bayview, and "Y Street and San Rafael Avenue.
She reported 32 neighbors felt stop signs would be helpful, and 19 felt stop lights would be helpful. Ms. Cox stated
there was a great deal of support in the neighborhood for some kind of solution to the traffic problems on "D" Street,
and she urged the Council to approve the work program and find the solutions.
Mayor Boro stated the Council was very appreciative of what the Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association and Mr. Bernardi
had been able to accomplish in just a couple of weeks, and he felt it was a good start on the process.
Councilmember Phillips asked for clarification regarding the totals used in the survey, particularly the number of residents in
favor of stop signs and those in favor of stop lights. Ms. Cox stated some of the residents had indicated that they
would support both plans. Mr. Phillips noted there were more residents expressing support for stop signs than for
a traffic light, but that the survey listed several different locations for stop signs. He asked if that indicated there
was greater favor for more stop signs at various locations, causing stop signs to receive a higher response
number? Ms. Cox stated Councilmember Cohen had a copy of the complete survey results, and Mr. Phillips
could study the results to determine how each of the neighbors responded. She felt that a review of the survey
revealed most of the residents were in favor of stop signs, and many of them favored installation at more than one
location on "D" Street. Mr. Phillips referred to one resident's comment made on the survey in which she suggested
creating the perception that the street was narrowing at specific key locations, and by that perception drivers would
naturally slow down. Mr. Phillips felt this was a very interesting suggestion, and Ms. Cox stated that perhaps it
could be one of the solutions.
Councilmember Cohen stated the number one complaint regarding traffic in the neighborhood was excessive speed. He
reported that when he and Nader Mansurian met with the Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association, Mr. Mansurian
expressed his belief that the average speeds on "Y Street had been reduced from the 40 mph range down to the
30 mph range. Mr. Cohen stated that perhaps it was time for the Police Department to pay more attention to "D"
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/18/95 Page 8
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/18/95 Page 9
Street, particularly during the commute hours and perhaps using the radar trailer, and do some additional work to
lower average speeds on this street. Acting City Manager Golt stated she would pass that comment on to Chief
Krolak, noting she had already had one conversation with Chief Krolak regarding excessive speed on "D" Street,
and that he had stated he already had officers monitoring the speed on "Y Street, but to what extent she did not
know. Mayor Boro suggested looking at a combination of using the trailer we can obtain from the California
Highway Patrol and the County, as well as enforcement.
Councilmember Cohen stated he heartily supported the recommendation to begin the work program by working with the
Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association representatives, and to conduct the data gathering.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to approve the work program. The Council voted
unanimously to approve this motion.
NEW BUSINESS
13. REPORT ON FREITAS PARKWAY/U.S. 101 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS ALTERNATIVES STUDY (PW)
- File 4-3-259 x 11-16
Mr. Bernardi reported that in November the Council approved the formation of a resource advisory group to study the
Freitas Parkway interchange and report back with a consensus recommendation. Mr. Bernardi stated consultants
Brian O'Halloran and Steve Castleberry, representatives from CH2MHill, were present and prepared to report to the
Council. Mr. Bernardi also referred to a letter from CalTrans regarding the work program. He stated a member of
CalTrans was on the committee, and Mr. Bernardi felt their comments were very important regarding any action the
Council might wish to take after reviewing the analysis of the interchange.
Brian O'Halloran, representative from consultant CH2MHill and lead facilitator for the Freitas Parkway/U.S. 101 Community
Advisory Group, reviewed the committee's report, noting it represented five months of dedicated effort by citizens
and staff members who participated as members of the advisory group. Mr. O'Halloran reported the fifteen
member advisory group had been comprised of representatives from citizens and homeowners groups, including
North San Rafael Coalition of Residents, Terra Linda Homeowners Association, Quail Hill Homeowners
Association, Marin Lagoon Homeowners Association, Councilmember Cohen, City staff and other interested public
agencies, such as CalTrans, Golden Gate Transit, and Marin County Public Works. Mr. O'Halloran stated one of
the unique aspects of this project was that it was a "blank slate" effort, with no pre -conceived solutions going into
the study. He felt this approach was very important, as it emphasized taking the time upfront to understand the
issues and problems of the various stakeholders, as identified by the advisory group members. Mr. O'Halloran
reported that in reaching the recommendations, the group had gone through a five step decision making process.
He explained step one identified all of the issues of concern, and for the most part these focused on safety,
capacity, pedestrian access and traffic access. He noted examples of these
types of issues were adequate sight distance for motorists coming off of the freeway, prevention of additional traffic
congestion, construction impacts, adequate storage capacity, pedestrian access to bus stops, and the preservation
of West to East and East to West access across the interchange.
Mr. O'Halloran explained that once these issues were identified and understood by all of the participants, there was a need
to come to an understanding regarding a goal for the group and what their mission should be. He stated the group
took as their mission recommending a solution that would modify the interchange to most effectively accommodate
vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians, by providing adequate capacity without adversely affecting other streets and
highways, improving safety, providing acceptable access, and minimizing confusion. Mr. O'Halloran reported that
further into the study, all of the recommended solutions were tested against these basic requirements, noting the
group developed ten measurable criteria as a means of evaluating the solutions, covering such things as key
intersections, safety for pedestrians and cyclists, and total construction costs. He explained these criteria were
weighted by the group for their relative importance, and as a result the group rated criteria dealing with congestion
and safety as being of the highest importance, and landscaping and aesthetic criteria being of lesser importance.
Mr. O'Halloran reported that once the evaluation criteria had been identified, the group was ready to begin
brainstorming possible solutions, noting this was a free-flowing exercise designed to bring up any potential design
concept that might be thought of.
He stated that ultimately fourteen different alternative concepts were drawn up, and the engineers then studied the various
proposals for their feasibility and compliance with the group's evaluation criteria, and as a result, ten of the
alternatives were eliminated from further consideration, leaving four alternatives for a final round of detailed
analysis. He stated those four alternatives were scored and ranked, and the alternative referred to as CLEF
scored highest in meeting all of the goals of the Advisory Group. Mr. O'Halloran introduced Steve Castleberry,
who described the CLEF alternative and discuss the reasons for its recommendations.
Steve Castleberry began with an aerial photograph of the existing site, noting the locations of U.S. 101, Terra Linda,
Redwood Highway, and Civic Center Drive. Councilmember Cohen asked Mr. Castleberry to note the location of
the Merrydale Overcrossing, which is under construction at this time, and Mr. Castleberry noted that it was
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/18/95 Page 9
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/18/95 Page 10
approximately one-quarter of a mile south of the Freitas Parkway Interchange. Mr. Castleberry stated the
recommended alternative proposed having the off -ramp located near its current location, and to then be tied into a
single intersection which would tie into Freitas Parkway and Civic Center Drive. Redwood Highway would be
pulled away from the current intersection and tied in closer to the new structure, near the overcrossing at Freitas
Parkway. Mr. Castleberry explained this would provide two separate signalized intersections, as opposed to the
two uncontrolled intersections currently in place. He noted the existing on -loop would be maintained, as would the
existing bus stop.
Mr. Castleberry reported that the committee had looked at several different options, but recommended this alternative
because it met the City's level of service criteria for traffic operations, and also addresses pedestrian and bicycle
safety, and access concerns. Mr. Castleberry stated an important feature of this alternative was that it would
reduce driver confusion by providing two "T" intersections which would be clearly visible and understood by the
drivers, as this type of intersection was designed according to conventional interchange standards. He noted this
design would be familiar, and provide a degree of expectation and not pose any surprises for the drivers. Mr.
Castleberry reported this design would also provide continued access across U.S. 101 for the existing movements,
and maintain public transit access. He noted this design also provides a large area for future landscaping, a bus
stop, or a park-and-ride parking lot.
Referring to the cost of the project, Mr. Castleberry acknowledged this would not be an inexpensive alternative, and
detailed some of the more costly areas aspects. He explained that moving the location of the intersection would
require a lot of grading. He noted it would also be necessary to install fairly high retaining walls, which are
expensive to construct, and particularly so in this instance as higher than normal walls would be built to
accommodate sidewalks and a bike path being incorporated into the plan. Mr. Castleberry reported an
engineering drawing and rough cost estimate were presented to the advisory group at their last meeting, and at that
time received instruction from the group on other directions and additional items they wanted incorporated into the
plan. He noted the group's main concern was how this alternative would be built, as it involves complicated
construction, and that the group was concerned existing access would be closed or affected during construction.
Mr. Castleberry stated the construction staging schemes were reviewed and found to be very complicated. He
noted the group directed that as the alternative is carried forward, this issue be monitored and "fleshed out" a little
more.
Mayor Boro asked how much the landscaping and bicycle path contributed to the cost of the project, and if it came down to
making choices, were these items the committee would be willing to discuss? Mr. Castleberry responded the
specific costs for the bicycle path and landscaping had not been broken down, but that the bicycle path did add a
significant amount to the cost because it requires cutting further into the hillside. He stated the landscaping would
not be a large cost element, as the landscape area became available as the roadway was realigned and the
alternative was not specifically designed to accommodate the landscaping.
Councilmember Zappetini asked if an on-ramp had been proposed on Redwood Highway as part of the Merrydale
Overpass project? Mr. Castleberry responded that the on-ramp was currently under construction, but could be
eliminated under this alternative for the Freitas Parkway Interchange, which would provide the access. Mr.
Zappetini stated it seemed as though the City was moving backward. Mr. Castleberry stated City staff had
discussed the possibility of not building an on-ramp at the Merrydale Overpass if the City proceeded with this
alternative, but staff found that since the contract had already been let, the cost savings for not building the on-ramp
would be minimal because the contractor was already in the process of building the ramp. Public Works Director
Bernardi added that another factor to this issue was that CalTrans funds were also being used, and if the City had
stopped work on that northbound on-ramp, the funds would have been removed from the freeway project and been
funneled to another project, such as the State's under -funded seismic retrofit program. Mr. Bernardi also
explained that CalTrans prefers to amortize their projects over a ten year period, and might seek partial
reimbursement from the City if we were to decide not to complete the on-ramp at the Merrydale Interchange. Mr.
Bernardi stated he did not feel it would take ten years to arrive at a solution for construction of the Freitas Parkway
Interchange, but he did feel it might be four to five years in terms of the environmental documentation, preparing the
documents and specifications, and getting CalTrans approval. Therefore, he stated that once a decision is
reached on the alternative, it would probably be a four to five year process to implementation, and by that time
CalTrans policies might change and things could be quite different in five years, noting that was the approach the
City was taking on this particular issue.
Councilmember Phillips noted he had attended a couple of the committee meetings, and was somewhat familiar with the
end result being recommended. He asked if the two northbound signals being proposed would be timed so that
there would not be a lot of disruption at peak traffic times? Mr. Castleberry responded City staff had run various
traffic projects with this alternative to determine how the signal timing would work, so that traffic coming off the
freeway with a green light would not immediately encounter a red light, causing a traffic back-up. The traffic signal
progression was found to operate at better than service level "D". Mr. Phillips asked what level of service would
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/18/95 Page 10
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/18/95 Page 11
be obtained with both the Merrydale and Freitas Parkway Interchanges in place, and no additional change in the
volume of traffic at Northgate? Mr. Castleberry stated the initial analysis had been done taking into consideration
build -out traffic volumes in addition to both the Merrydale and Freitas Parkway Interchanges, which resulted in an
operational level "C", and noted that if there were not significant build -out traffic volumes, the operational level
would be better than a level "C". Mr. Phillips asked what the level of service would be if the City proceeded only
with the Merrydale Interchange and there was no traffic build -out in the Northgate area? Mr. Castleberry
responded that to the best of his recollection, that scenario produced an operational level of less than a Level "D".
Public Works Director Bernardi stated it was obvious that something must be done at this intersection, whatever the
solution turns out to be.
Shirley Fischer distributed copies of a letter from the North San Rafael Coalition of Residents, which had been sent to the
Councilmembers on September 11, 1995. Regarding the discussion on levels of service, she stated that
Measurement 1 showed that full build -out and the projected addition at the Merrydale Overcrossing, and the
addition of the Freitas Parkway Interchange would bring the level of service to a Level "D", and without the Freitas
Parkway Interchange the level of service would be a Level 7". Ms. Fischer stated that if the City did not do
something here, the City would be in contradiction of its own traffic standards. She reported she had been a
member of the committee which studied this project, and one of the things pointed out to the committee was that the
price tag rose dramatically as the operational analysis was done, rising from $3 million to $5 million. She stated
the committee had been advised that the actual operational costs of the project would be higher than the figures
quoted in the consultant's report. Ms. Fischer also noted the Merrydale Overcrossing should not be called the
"Joan Thayer Memorial" because she was the only one who voted against it.
Ms. Fischer stated the North San Rafael Coalition of Residents is heartily supporting the alternative being suggested by the
committee. She felt the planning process had been excellent, noting the committee had been comprised of a
diverse group with conflicting interests, and that the facilitators had done a very good job. She reported the
Coalition had met and reviewed all fourteen alternatives, and arrived at the same conclusion as the committee, that
this would be the best alternative to provide a long term solution for safety, traffic congestion, decreasing driver
confusion and maintaining reasonable traffic flow. She urged the Council to pursue the recommendation of the
advisory committee for the further development of this concept, and for the necessary funding. She stated she
particularly recommended the Council pursue Councilmember Cohen's suggestion that the advisory group be
continued, using the same members, to refine this alternative and try to make it workable.
Ms. Fischer stated the City has a credibility problem in Northern San Rafael regarding this Interchange, noting there were
long standing issues that had not been resolved, and that she hoped these issues would be resolved in the near
future during this planning process. Ms. Fischer stated there were three main areas of discrepancy; the reliability
of the traffic measurement at the intersection, the traffic capacity and land use planning around this area, and the
description of safety in this area. She felt the history was important, because there is a problem with the citizens of
North San Rafael believing in what the City is doing, and in the information that is out there. She stated we must
move forward as a unified force, such as is occurring with the Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association, in order to
make this intersection happen, particularly if we are going to try to find funds for an expensive solution. Regarding
the traffic measurement issue, Ms. Fischer stated that, historically, the City had measured this Intersection as two
separate intersections, even doing traffic counts at two halves of the Intersection on different days. She stated this
was not a reliable way of measuring the Intersection, as 600 feet to 700 feet is needed between the two sections for
them to function independently. She felt the Intersection should be measured as one Intersection, as that was how
it functions. Ms. Fischer reported the Coalition was disturbed when this analysis was included in the General Plan
in 1988, and noted the Coalition had done its own traffic study and presented it to the Council in 1990. She
reported the Coalition's study showed the intersection was actually functioning at a level of service 7", not at the
level "A" - "C" as shown in the City's study. She stated the City then hired DKS Associates, who confirmed the
Coalition's analysis, and suggested the Intersection be signalized as part of the Merrydale Overcrossing Project.
Ms. Fischer reported the City then went back and counted the Intersection as two separate intersections, and since
then has been measuring the Intersection at a level of service "A" - "C". Ms. Fischer stated the advisory
committee asked several times what the level of service was at the Intersection, noting they were not given an
answer, but were told that the Intersection would be measured as only one intersection in the new traffic model.
Ms. Fischer reported the residents in her neighborhood keep asking, "What has been going on in the last four
years, and is it going to stop?", and "When the new traffic model comes up, are we going to have a matching up
between what the City traffic engineers' and their studies are showing, and what our senses tell us as we drive
through the intersection?" Ms. Fischer felt this was a very important issue, not only because of the credibility
issue, but because this is the data that will be used in planning for the future. She stated it was very important to
understand exactly what the traffic situation is at that location, what the projections are for how that will change
once the Merrydale Overcrossing is in place, to be able to accurately measure those changes two years from now,
and to understand where we are going as we move ahead.
Referring to the credibility gap concerning the relationship between traffic capacity and land use in the area, Ms. Fischer
noted the City had the Priority Projects Procedure, which is the beauty contest for projects in traffic impacted areas.
Ms. Fischer reported the Freitas Parkway Interchange was originally part of that Priority Projects Procedure, but in
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/18/95 Page 11
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/18/95 Page 12
1991 after the intersection was measured as two intersections and reported as a level of service "A" - "C", the
Interchange was removed from the Priority Projects Procedure and has not been included again until this Spring
when it was added after a number of inquiries from various community groups. Ms. Fischer stated there were a lot
of questions as to what are the existing, available, reserved and future trips that have been allocated to this
Interchange, and how does that match up with the projects that are being approved, have been approved, and are
being planned for the future? She noted these questions had been asked by the advisory committee, but that no
hard answers were given. She stated the committee was told that with the increase in the projects to be approved
at that location, traffic would increase 50% through this intersection, which was a substantial amount for an
intersection that is already heavily impacted. Ms. Fischer felt this made the reliability of traffic measurement a very
important issue. Ms. Fischer reported there was a great concern in the community that the City Council and staff
do not sufficiently appreciate the impact of traffic congestion and safety on the commercial and residential areas of
Northern San Rafael. She stated there is concern that in pursuit of sales tax revenue or traffic mitigation fees the
City is pressing to pursue additional projects in this area that will have increasingly detrimental effects on the
surrounding community which, if
measured accurately, will cause the City to exceed its own traffic standards. Ms. Fischer stated they are very concerned
about the amount of development planned in the area, from COSTCO to the flea market.
Referring to the third issue of concern, Ms. Fischer discussed the matter of safety at the Intersection. She reported that
during the advisory committee meetings, the City and CalTrans maintained that there was no safety problem at the
Freitas Parkway Interchange, and that it was "One of the safer freeway interchanges in California." Ms. Fischer
stated that quote simply did not match up with the squealing brakes, broken glass, broken poles, and actual
accidents that members of the community and members of the committee have witnessed at this intersection. She
reported that last Fall one of the members of the Coalition Steering Committee had been in an accident at this
Intersection, that there had been broken glass in the Intersection three weeks ago, and a pole was knocked down
at the Intersection just last week. She stated it was very hard to believe that this was one of the safest
intersections in California, and noted the people in her neighborhood avoid this Intersection whenever possible
because they feel it is a real hazard.
Ms. Fischer referred to the Coalition's recommendations of things they felt must be done. She stated they were asking that
the City commit itself to remedy traffic congestion and unsafe conditions, noting this must be looked at very
seriously. She reported the Coalition felt the City must deal more openly with the community, noting she was
pleased to have heard Mr. Bernardi refer to the open partnership with the Gerstle Park residents, and felt this was
needed in Northern San Rafael. Ms. Fischer stated we must know what the current traffic situation is, what the
projections are for improvement with regard to the Merrydale Overcrossing, how the projects currently up for
approval will be affected, and how many additional projects will be approved before the improvements degenerate
again. She stated she expects that there will be improvement after the Merrydale Overcrossing is built, but that
she also expects that as additional projects are approved, this location will degenerate again until a point is
reached where we are again teetering at a level of service "Y before complete build -out. She felt this had
tremendous impact upon such decisions such as the COSTCO decision and other projects coming before the
Council very soon. Ms. Fischer stated we need to determine at what point in time and at what level of
development a long term solution is needed, and then ask the questions, "Is this the solution we need, when do we
need to do it, and how are we going to pay for it?"
Councilmember Cohen thanked the members of the committee for putting so much work into this project. He stated the
City had approached this project with an open slate, looking for the best long term solution for the Freitas Parkway
Interchange. Mr. Cohen stated he agreed with the North San Rafael Coalition of Residents' position on this
Interchange, noting that regardless of what the statistics state, it is terrifying, and that he had driven through the
Intersection numerous times and felt as though he was taking his life in his hands. Mr. Cohen stated the goal of
the committee is to develop the best long term solution, and he felt the proposal being presented was very close to
that goal, given the constraints that we have to work with. He stated that although there is an existing structure
over the freeway, it is clearly not realistic that any solution that involves modifying that structure would be feasible,
in terms of cost. He noted that, similarly, there is a large hill to the east, and any significant modification to the hill
would be so prohibitive as to kill the entire project.
However, Mr. Cohen stated there was still more work to be done, and although he urged the report be accepted, he noted
there were a couple of issues that had come up at the end of the study. He reported that the City had hoped to
stop construction of the new northbound Merrydale on-ramp and reprogram that money which, in conjunction with
the money in the bank for improvements to the Freitas Parkway Interchange, would have given the City enough to
get close to the estimated dollar amount for several of the proposals.
Mr. Cohen noted that as it turned out, this was not feasible, and that it came down to a choice between using the money
and seeing that project go forward, or losing it to Southern California. Therefore, it seemed prudent to go ahead,
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/18/95 Page 12
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/18/95 Page 13
particularly when looking at the timeliness for the types of changes to the Freitas Parkway Interchange. He stated
that we currently have $1.8 million, which is a long way from $5 million, particularly when looking at the limited
number of potential funding sources. Mr. Cohen stated the initial staging of this design would require closing the
northbound on-ramp for approximately one year, and he agreed with CalTrans that this is simply not workable.
Mr. Cohen proposed the same advisory group members continue to work on this project, stating he felt there were some
potential modifications that could be considered, and noting CalTrans had already suggested the City consider
leaving Redwood Highway
so that it intersects directly opposite the northbound on -ramps and off -ramps. Mr. Cohen felt this was a consideration
worth evaluating, noting that would leave the newly constructed northbound on-ramp in place and would eliminate
additional ramping there, which might significantly impact the cost. Mr. Cohen felt it was important to continue with
the original members of the committee to utilize their knowledge base, and asked that they look for variations that
might bring the cost closer, and to discuss potential funding sources to add to the money we already have in the
bank. Mr. Cohen noted it would also be important to study how to construct the project with the least amount of
disruption to the community. Mr. Cohen referred to the suggestion of "phasing" the project, and stated this was
another possibility he would like to see explored.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Zappetini seconded, that the Council accept the advisory committee's
report, and ask the committee to continue their study and refine the proposal to see if the City can make the best
long term solution for the Freitas Parkway Interchange a reality in the near future.
Under discussion, Councilmember Heller noted Mr. Bernardi had shown a cost of $5 million, but that amount did not include
design, mitigation or construction management costs. She asked what the additional cost would be for those
items? Mr. Bernardi responded the design would be less than 10% of the project cost, or roughly $500,000,
construction management would probably be 10% of the construction costs, and mitigation, if any, would depend
on what the mitigation is, so he did not have a figure at this time. He acknowledged we would be looking at some
fairly large numbers with regard to the design and construction management. Ms. Heller asked where the City
would go to look for funds for a project of this kind, noting that funds are drying up and are just not out there
anymore. Mr. Bernardi stated one option the Council had was to look at the existing mitigation fee structure that is
currently in place, noting the bottom line was that instead of $2500 a PM peak hour trip it may be $5,000 a PM peak
hour trip. Mr. Bernardi agreed that the chance of obtaining funds from a Federal or State program was relatively
slim, and most likely none, but that staff would pursue all options. However, he felt the City would probably have to
look at increased mitigation fees to fund this project.
Mayor Boro referred to the comments made regarding the issue of credibility, stating the advisory committee was a good
start toward addressing this problem, and he agreed that the committee should continue. He stated that because
this was going to be a long range project, he felt the committee should revisit the issue of traffic signals, as this
might allow us to do something on an interim, short term basis. Mayor Boro agreed that this was a very dangerous
intersection, and stated that regardless of what the statistics showed, the experience is at least an "E" ride at
Disneyland, depending on which movements the driver is making. Mayor Boro stated that for the benefit of the
community, as well as the credibility issue, there should be a realistic look at both time lines and funding, so that the
community can be kept informed.
Councilmember Cohen felt there were four areas that needed to be addressed. First, he would like the committee to revisit
the design and to spend time understanding and fine tuning the design and considering modifications, such as
those recently suggested by CalTrans. Second, the committee needs to look for ways to attempt to bring the cost
down. Mr. Cohen referred to the northbound off -ramp, stating the cost could be significantly impacted the further
north it could be moved, because the further north it is placed the less grading needs to be done. He noted that
when grading the City not only pays for the retaining walls, but also to have the dirt hauled away, so any
modification that reduces the grading could have a significant impact on cost. Third, the committee needs to
identify possible funding sources, and fourth, determine what might be done on an interim basis. Mr. Cohen stated
he did not want to have a solution that only solves the problem for ten years, and then find ourselves in the same
position and starting over again.
Councilmember Phillips stated he had been passing through this intersection every day for twenty-three years, and felt that
corrections were long overdue. He stated that if the committee is expanded, he would be interested in serving on
the committee. He complimented Ms. Fischer for her work on this project.
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Cohen, Heller, Phillips Zappetini, & Mayor Boro.
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
None
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
None
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/18/95 Page 13
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/18/95 Page 14
14. DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATE AND ALTERNATE FOR LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL
CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER 22-24,1995 AT THE MOSCONE CONVENTION CENTER IN
SAN FRANCISCO (CC) - File 9-1
Mayor Boro asked Acting City Manager Golt if staff would be attending the conference, and if staff could be designated as
voting delegate and alternate. Ms. Golt stated staff would be attending the conference, and although it was
preferred to designate Councilmembers, staff could be designated as voting delegate and alternate.
Councilmember Zappetini moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to designate Acting City Manager Golt as voting
delegate for League of California Cities Conference scheduled for October 22-24, 1995 at the Moscone Convention
Center in San Francisco.
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini, & Mayor Boro
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
None
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
None
15. PROCESS FOR SELECTION OF THE CITY MANAGER (CM) - File 9-3-11 x 7-4 x 9-1
Acting City Manager Golt presented a report prepared by former City Manager Pamela Nicolai, with recommendations for
the development of a recruitment for the City Manager position. Ms. Golt reported that first and foremost Ms.
Nicolai had recommended seeking the Council's approval to develop a Request for Proposals process in order to
commence a recruitment for the City Manager/Redevelopment Agency Executive Director position as soon as
possible. It was suggested that the RFP be developed so that it outlines the various tasks separately, and then
ask for separate costs from those firms responding, so that the Council would have an idea of what each particular
task would cost and could then decide how many of the tasks they wanted the consultant to perform and what the
cost would be. It was also recommended that there be an indication in the RFP as to the time involved in each
segment. Ms. Golt reported that it was recommended the Council select two Councilmembers to participate in the
selection process and assist in screening the RFP's received down to three or four candidates so that the Council
could interview a limited number of those most qualified. It was suggested the Council set the interview process
prior to the City Council meeting of November 2, 1995.
Mayor Boro stated he and Councilmember Heller had been asked to work with Ms. Nicolai on this issue with respect to the
salary adjustments, and noted he had also discussed with Ms. Nicolai the pros and cons of a City Manager position
vs. a City Manager/Redevelopment Agency Executive Director position. Mayor Boro asked staff to address this
issue when they return with a developed RFP process, and to provide the pros and cons of a combined position in
their report.
Councilmember Heller asked if the interviews were to be held as part of a closed session prior to the regular City Council
meeting on November 2nd, and Ms. Golt responded that it would most likely be a special meeting prior to the
regular City Council meeting, with the time also depending upon the number of consulting firms the Council wanted
to interview. Ms. Heller asked if the interviews would be a closed session meeting or an open public session.
Mayor Boro stated it would be an open meeting.
Mayor Boro suggested that he and Vice Mayor Cohen represent the Council on the committee.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Zappetini seconded, to authorize staff to develop and initiate Requests
for Proposals for recruitment of City Manager position.
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
None
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
None
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/18/95 Page 14
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/18/95 Page 15
Councilmember Cohen asked the Council to consider making this an "open process", noting he had been asked by several
people to consider including citizen participation at some point in the selection process. He stated he had no
specific suggestions as to how to do that. Ms. Heller asked if he was referring to the process of selecting the
search firm or the process of selecting the City Manager?
Mr. Cohen stated the reason he had mentioned the idea at this time was so that the Council, when consulting firms respond
to the RFP's, might want to ask their thoughts on having an inclusive process, and how it might be accomplished.
Mayor Boro clarified that Mr. Cohen was suggesting the Council consider citizen participation in the selection of the
City Manager and not the selection of the consulting firm, and Mr. Cohen responded that was correct. Ms. Golt
suggested that in the RFP's the consultants be asked to explain how they would go about including the community
in the selection of the City Manager process.
16. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:
RE: CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS - File 113 X 9-1
Mayor Boro reported Councilmember Heller was now the City's representative on the MCCMC Legislative Committee, and
Councilmember Phillips was now the representative the MCCMC Liaison Committee to the Marin Community
Foundation.
RE: MCCMC LIAISON COMMITTEE - File 113 x 9-1
Councilmember Phillips reported the MCCMC Liaison Committee had met last Thursday to discuss the coordination of
disaster preparedness activities, particularly the blocking of Highway 101 and how the various communities could
work together if that should occur, and also to discuss looking at a way to manage the many JPA's in existence
throughout the County. Mayor Boro stated it was his understanding that the Joint City/County Issues Committee
was responsible for pursuing the streamlining of the JPA process, and he asked Acting City Manager Golt to
contact the County Administrator to see what action has been taken on this issue.
C. RE: FARMERS MARKET RECOMMENDATIONS - File 140 x (SRRA) R-181
Councilmember Cohen reported the Farmers Market Board of Directors had met to discuss improvements to be made for
this event. He reported the meeting included several downtown merchants, and the consensus was that the
Farmers Market was a good event, and while some improvements may need to be made, those who call for the
elimination of the event are clearly in the minority. He reported a music committee had been formed to select the
bands that participate, which will address the complaints that have been heard regarding the choice of music. Mr.
Cohen referred to a survey which indicated that among those who attend the Farmers Market, the current format
is very popular. He reported the BID intends to survey its members, asking for opinions on how to modify the
Farmers Market and attract visitors with discretionary income to spend at our downtown merchants. Mr. Cohen
also suggested the merchants survey their customers, asking if they have attended the Farmers Market, and what
they would like to see there, what would bring them back, and what they do not like about the event.
Councilmember Heller suggested the questionnaire to the merchants ask if the merchants are open for business while the
Farmers Market is in progress, and if not, why not? She noted some of the merchants who have complained
about the Farmers Market are not even open during the event.
Councilmember Zappetini stated the Business Improvement District had sponsored a breakfast at which they distributed a
survey asking these same questions, and he wondered why this survey had not been discussed. Mr. Cohen
stated the President of the Business Improvement District had the draft of a survey, which included several
questions concerning the Farmers Market, that was to be distributed to their members later this month. Mr.
Zappetini stated he had seen the survey at the breakfast he attended six months ago. Mr. Cohen responded there
had been a survey six months ago, but that it was a much broader survey and included questions regarding several
different issues, with only a couple of questions regarding the Farmers Market.
Mayor Boro stated he would like to see the Farmers Market Board of Directors look at the intent of Farmers Market, noting
he felt it had multiple intents. He stated it certainly had the intent of attracting people to the downtown area, and
with the success we have had in our community, it has become an event. He noted that the City states in its
Vision that it would like to have a lot of events downtown. Mayor Boro stated the question is, "How do you make
something happen which brings people to the downtown, and at the same time
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/18/95 Page 15
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/18/95 Page 16
compliments the businesses?" He stated he had read an article in the Marin Independent Journal which noted many of the
downtown merchants are very happy with the Farmers Market. He acknowledged that other merchants, such as
specialty shops, may not see the direct result. However, he believed that even if the merchant does not keep his
shop open during the event, he has gained exposure as the visitors to the Farmers Market see where the
businesses are located.
Mayor Boro suggested Councilmember Cohen and the Farmers Market Board of Directors need to address the question of
how to attract the people who may be interested in a specialty shop to come back at a later date. Councilmember
Cohen stated he had attended the event with his children numerous times throughout the summer and saw many
people he knew on a regular basis, and felt that the event did attract people to the downtown area who may not
have necessarily come downtown if not for the Farmers Market. He acknowledged the Board of Directors feels
there is room for improvement, and he stated that is the direction they want to take, to improve the event, not lose it.
Councilmember Phillips stated he had discussed the Farmers Market with the BID President, noting the comment that
comes up often is the mis-characterization of the event as a flea market. He stated that with the negative press
the flea market had been receiving, he felt there would be more sensitivity to that stereotype, and in using that term
to describe the Farmers Market. Mr. Phillips felt there may be certain merchants who believed this was a valid
characterization, particularly those merchants who are in direct competition with the vendors at the Farmers
Market. Mr. Phillips wondered if a flea market atmosphere was really attracting the type of customer the downtown
merchants wanted to see there? He stated that even though people are exposed to the downtown area by
attending the Farmers Market, they may not necessarily respond to that exposure. Mr. Phillips agreed with Mayor
Boro's comment that exposure was one of the most important aspects of the Farmers Market.
Acting Redevelopment Agency Executive Director Ours suggested the merchants who do not remain open for business
during the Farmers Market could at least leave the lights on in their shops to draw the shoppers' attention and let
them see what the shops are like. He noted that between 5,000 and 7,000 people attend the Farmers Market, and
that most of them have money in their pockets. He reported that several times he had seen people trying to peer
into darkened shops to see what was inside.
Councilmember Cohen suggested caution in the characterization of flea market, noting he had not observed many used
goods or other types of items usually associated with flea markets. He stated the thing to remember was that the
Farmers Market had originally been established to be self-funded, and that it was the vendors who largely fund this
event. He noted that Mr. Ours had the budget which showed that the vendors pay the bills and that this event is
not subsidized by the City.
Mr. Cohen noted there had been several letters submitted to the newspaper recently, and that the City should be very
aware of the discussions taking place with the County in regard to the Marin City Flea Market and the proposed
relocation to the jury's parking lot at the Civic Center. Mr. Cohen stated he had made a point of going by that
location, and did not see the site as being very workable. He reported that in addition to the Marin County Farmers
Market, there was also another event taking place, and with the number of on-going events held at that location,
often more than one event at a time, the traffic problem is a serious concern. He felt that the idea of taking the jury
parking lot and filling it with 500 flea market spaces did not seem like a very workable idea, and he had seen these
same concerns addressed in the letters to the newspaper editor. Mr. Cohen stated he felt the Council should write
a letter to the County expressing interest and concern in this matter, and asking them to actively include the City in
any decision making process they may have regarding this issue. Mayor Boro reported the City had received a
letter from the County that mentioned they were conducting a traffic study, but he did not think the results had been
completed at this time. Mayor Boro stated the City might use the traffic issue as the basis for our disapproval of
relocating the flea market to that site, acknowledging that it would be in the County's jurisdiction, but citing the fact
that the City and our residents would be impacted by such a relocation.
RE: REQUEST FOR DISABLED PARKING SPACES ON FOURTH STREET - File 13-1-1
Mayor Boro stated that while attending the library's book sale last weekend, a disabled woman approached him and
thanked him for the disabled parking spaces at City Hall, but called to his attention the fact that there are no
disabled parking spaces on Fourth Street. Acting City Manager Golt, speaking as the City's Americans with Disabilities Act
coordinator, stated that over the past few years the City had periodically received requests for disabled parking
spaces on Fourth Street, not in the public parking lots, but on the street itself. She reported such a request had
been received within the last couple of weeks, and would come before the Traffic Coordinating Committee at their
meeting in October. She reported the rationale in the past had always been that there were no guidelines
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/18/95 Page 16
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/18/95 Page 17
governing disabled parking on public streets, while parking lots must have a specific number of disabled spaces
available. She noted this was an issue that kept popping up, and one that she felt the City should address, stating
it was better public relations to have one or two disabled parking spaces reserved on Fourth Street and lose a little
revenue from the parking meter, and noting that there is never a spot aailable at the metered spaces. She felt that
it would be beneficial for the City to establish these reserved spaces.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 PM.
JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1995
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/18/95 Page 17